TARA ROOS | From opposing entitlement to defending it

There was a time when the DA built its political identity on a clear argument: public office is not a pathway to personal benefit. It positioned itself as the party that would confront excess, expose entitlement, and draw a firm line between public service and private gain.

This argument was not abstract. The DA repeatedly criticised what it described as the “rockstar lifestyles” of ministers, pointing to VIP protection, luxury travel, official residences and a broader culture of entitlement, while insisting that public representatives must remain accountable and focused on service.

The principle was simple: public representatives are paid a salary by the state to do a job, and that salary should be sufficient. It reinforced this position over time, arguing that ministerial perks were excessive and disconnected from the economic reality facing South Africans, calling for a leaner executive and questioning the need for deputy ministers. In doing so, it built credibility on the idea that it would govern differently. This is why the current moment matters.

At the centre of the issue is not simply the legality of “top-up” payments for leaders, but the principle it represents. The state remunerates public representatives through structured systems designed to reflect full-time responsibility. When additional recurring payments are introduced, they raise questions about transparency and the integrity of public office.

There is a familiar refrain in response: it is party money, not public funds, and therefore beyond scrutiny. That argument does not hold. Public office carries a standard that does not depend on the source of payment but on the conduct of those who hold it.

The DA has not rejected these payments; it has redefined them. It calls them allowances rather than salaries and describes them as internal party arrangements rather than outside work. This is not a minor distinction but a substantive shift.

For years the DA argued that political office had become a vehicle for layered financial benefit, often justified through technicalities, and presented itself as the alternative. Now it relies on the same logic to defend its own conduct.

The party that questioned ministerial perks now defends additional payments. The party that called for a leaner executive now operates within it. The party that criticised excess now explains it. The framing has changed, but the underlying reality has not. These are fixed, recurring payments linked to defined responsibilities and paid in addition to a state salary.

The defence that this is “private party money” does not resolve the issue. Public office does not operate in silos. The standard expected of public representatives does not depend on who pays them but on whether their conduct aligns with the principles they claim to uphold.

The DA was unequivocal in opposition. It challenged excess, criticised the size of the executive and questioned whether public representatives were overcompensated. Now, in government, it holds those positions, accepts the associated benefits and defends additional payments to its own leaders.

The most common defence relies on comparison: at least this is not as bad as the ANC. That argument lowers the standard from accountability to comparison and asks the public to accept less because it could be worse. That is not a governing principle. A party cannot build its credibility on exposing excess and then defend similar practices on that basis. This is not the standard the DA set for itself.

The distinction between the DA and the ANC has always rested on political culture, on how power is exercised and justified. If the DA is to maintain its claim to a higher standard of governance, it must subject its own conduct to the same scrutiny it has long demanded of others.

Accountability cannot be selective; it cannot apply only in opposition and fall away in government. The DA is not above reproach. No party is. And this is the test it now faces.

• Roos is Business Day parliamentary reporter.