When the government of national unity (GNU) was formed, many South Africans thought the politics of theatrics were over. Last week, they were reminded about how wrong they were by the two major partners in the GNU.
On Wednesday, President Cyril Ramaphosa fired Andrew Whitfield, a lesser-known deputy minister of trade, industry & competition, for travelling to the US without the president’s explicit permission. The offence of insubordination, as Ramaphosa prefers to call it, occurred in February.
In a failed attempt to retaliate, the DA asked Ramaphosa to sack Thembi Simelane, Nobuhle Nkabane and David Masondo, who are implicated in wrongdoing. Worse, John Steenhuisen gave Ramaphosa a 48-hour ultimatum to sack the ANC politicians.
When the ultimatum was ignored, the party escalated the threats: on Saturday, Steenhuisen said his party would boycott the National Dialogue and vote against budget votes of the ministers it wants to be dismissed.
With no more cards to play, the DA has now threatened to pressure Ramaphosa through a vote of no confidence.
In an equally childish move, the ANC hit back with a threat of not voting for budget votes of departments headed by DA ministers.
With poor intelligence about the DA’s next move, Ramaphosa cancelled his working trip to Spain to concentrate on the fissures in his coalition.
What happened last week has nothing to do with SA and national interest. It has everything to do with what is happening in the ANC and the DA.
Both Steenhuisen and Ramaphosa are facing mini rebellions within their parties. It is common cause that some in the ANC and the tripartite alliance are against the GNU, especially the DA’s inclusion.
A year after the establishment of the GNU, Ramaphosa has failed to tighten his grip on the party and the alliance. The SA Communist Party and Cosatu are threatening to withdraw their support of the ANC in next year’s local government elections.
By firing Whitfield, Ramaphosa hoped for two outcomes: first, he would appear stronger in his party and bring daylight between him and the DA; and second, humiliating the DA would weaken Steenhuisen within his party.
The DA’s absurd threats are about building cohesion inside the party and creating a veneer of a strong leader. Despite its good PR machinery, growing evidence suggests the ANC scarcely takes it seriously. Its impact in influencing policy beyond theatrics looks exaggerated.
Whitfield was dismissed after losing many battles in the department. Parks Tau, the minister, is steaming ahead with the Transformation Fund despite the DA’s opposition. This is likely to end in the law courts.
At least two other DA-led ministries, public works & infrastructure and communications & digital technologies, are like a war zone between DA and ANC deployees.
At the weekend, the DA was at pains to position itself as a party that has put SA first. Few people believe this claim.
Last week’s skirmishes are unseemly. But they are unlikely to collapse the GNU. Both parties need each other.
The DA is misguided in thinking that it could mount a successful ousting of Ramaphosa through a vote of no confidence. To do this, it would require the support of what it has called the doomsday parties.
It is also disingenuous for the DA to think it’s in a coalition to prop up Ramaphosa. The latter owes his political career to the ANC. The sooner the DA realises this, the better.
Similarly, the ANC needs to come to terms with the fact it cannot wish the DA away.
This newspaper supports the idea of an honest, civil society-led National Dialogue. Pulling the DA out of the dialogue will turn it into a dialogue of black South Africans instead of making it a referendum on the ANC’s misrule and a platform to produce an action plan for the future.
After the spectacle, the DA and the ANC need to show that they are serious parties.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.