DA must navigate coalition politics rather than divide the GNU and South Africa:
The latest political action by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to challenge the employment equity regime through the court system may be akin to stirring the hornet’s nest. It is evident that it is a strategic move, but a folly in the context of a political party that is a partner in a coalition government – the government of national unity (GNU).
Instead of learning to influence policy reforms in a new terrain and helping South Africa shape the nature of coalition politics, the DA has chosen to divide South Africa.
Like all political parties, the DA has the right to approach the courts or any of the Chapter 9 institutions to seek relief of one kind or another. The Constitution provides the space to do so. But political parties cannot abuse the right simply because they lost a debate.
Of course, there is a relationship between law and politics. And. yes, the law can be a theatre or instrument to pursue politics. But it is advisable for political parties to have a strategic gaze rather more than just the narrow confines of the law when dealing with political issues. Strategy is about the theory of change which must help each political party to pursue a certain vision for society.
I want to suggest that the DA has chosen yet another ill-advised political tactic which could prove fatal and undermine its strategic objectives and the interests of its constituency.
All of this happens in the context where, in recent years, there has been a rise of lawfare in our politics; both inside political parties, parliament, and between political parties and government. I am yet to be convinced that this is the right way to evolve our democracy. The move by the DA follows in the footsteps of this suspicious trend — a trend where if you lose democratic debate, then you run to the courts.
For their part, the courts are forced to develop the kind of sensitiveness, knowledge and skill to draw a distinction between pure legal matters and political debate. In many instances, our courts have acquitted themselves well in this regard. On numerous occasions, they have referred political debate back to parliament where it belongs.
But can we say with certainty that this kind of smartness by the courts will always hold, without fail? Will the DA and others take the blame when democracy and the doctrine of the separation of powers weakens due to frivolous legal challenges that are essentially political in nature?
I listened to DA federal chair Helen Zille at the party’s recent media conference. The substantive argument of the DA against the employment equity regime makes no sense, except that it is an appeasement PR strategy for the party’s constituency and some sections of business. I do not see how the party will win the substantive argument.
At a substantive level, it is necessary to explain the political motivations behind the DA’s tactical blunder and what it communicates to the critical public. The move simply reaffirms the fundamental nature and character of the DA.
First, it says some political parties in parliament, including the DA, do not believe in the Constitution, let alone upholding it. According to the DA, the Constitution is valid in so far as it benefits the interests of its constituency; anything else is unacceptable and even unconstitutional. In other words, the collective history, and experiences of generations of people do not matter, but the preservation of privilege.
Second, the party reminds us that it remains the party of racial liberalism, not just liberalism. Historically, liberalism has always been predominantly racial liberalism, an ideology or system where — to cite academic CW Mills — “a racial contract among whites that denies equal personhood to people of colour” is what drives the fundamental strategy of the party. This is why the collective history, and experiences of the vast majority becomes nothing in the eyes of the racial contractors.
Third, the rhetoric of “building one South Africa for all” is not aligned with the political practice and choices of the party. It is clearly an empty slogan. One cannot commit to building one South Africa without redress or internalising, as well as respecting the preamble of the Constitution.
In the long-term, such moves by the DA will not benefit its core constituency or the party itself. On the contrary, a more inclusive, stable and equal society is beneficial for all. The global evidence for this assertion is contained in a book published 15 years ago titled The Spirit Level – Why Equality is Better for Everyone.
Fourth, there is no sign that the party has any meaningful strategy to undo centuries old legacies of slavery, colonialism and racism. The alternatives are simply not there. It is for this reason, for example, that the DA will never join the call for reparations at a local or global scale.
On the contrary, the party is pursuing an alternative foreign policy which includes undermining official government policies on issues such as Palestine, Ukraine and the United States while claiming to be a GNU partner. Worse still, it does so through megaphone diplomacy.
Finally, every political party exists to capture state power. In the context of our history and the strong dynamic of identity politics, the DA has no prospects of breaking the 22% political support ceiling so that it may capture state power in the foreseeable future, unless it commits class suicide.
Therefore, the GNU arrangement is the highest it can aspire to. But the move against employment is eroding whatever little trust it may have garnered since May 2024 and it is alienating itself in the GNU. This comes hot on the heels of losing key debates on the National Health Insurance, Basic Education Laws Amendment Act and the Expropriation of Land Act.
Not a single party inside and outside the GNU is expected to join the court challenge this time around. To remain in the GNU, the DA will have to moderate its racial liberalism, unless it believes against hopelessness that it can break the 22% ceiling and lead a coalition or better still, doing so alone?
It is pretty much clear that the DA uses privilege rather than rational reason to conduct politics in the GNU terrain. That’s the nature of racial liberalism. How else can anyone explain its regular violations of the Statement of Intent by punching above its weight and continuing its divisive role in the polity?
The strategists surrounding the DA are not helping it. Instead of guiding it to expand the political and policy space in the GNU, their tactics are designed to weaken the GNU and cause a realignment of power ahead of the first anniversary of the GNU. Very soon, such a tactical blunder will have deleterious effects on the unity of the DA itself. It is a suicide mission.
Meanwhile, if the other parties are serious about power and social transformation, they would also look at the GNU age as an opportunity, not only to increase their political fortunes but to consider, seriously, the idea of a second republic as suggested by historian and author Eddy Maloka. This they must do to demonstrate that they do not seek political power for merely reproducing themselves as political elites, but for the people.
In the end, lawfare is the low road for any political party. The high road is the pursuit of strategy — but first, in so far as the DA is concerned, it must construct a progressive strategy, away from racial liberalism. Otherwise, it will remain just another fringe opposition party stirring the hornet’s nest.
David Maimela is a public policy specialist and political commentator. He writes in his personal capacity.
Key CCTV footage missing in Mbenenge sexual harassment tribunal:
The judicial conduct tribunal into Eastern Cape judge president Selby Mbenenge heard on Monday that CCTV footage from the date of the alleged incident of indecent exposure was not stored — despite footage from the day before and after having been preserved.
The director of facilities and security management at the office of the chief justice, Prabagaran Naidoo, testified that he received CCTV footage from 14 and 16 November 2022 from the Mthatha high court.
The complainant in the matter, 37-year-old court secretary Andiswa Mengo, has said she is unsure whether the alleged office sexual harassment by the judge occurred on 14 or 15 November 2022. She testified earlier that she fled Mbenenge’s office in shock afterwards, and expected CCTV footage to corroborate her account. But footage from 15 November, one of the dates on which the alleged incident is believed to have occurred, is missing.
The tribunal is in its second week after resuming this month from its initial sitting in January, during which Mengo endured eight days of cross-examination.
Mengo says the sexual harassment occurred over Whatsapp and in-person, and an alleged flashing incident now in dispute.
Naidoo told the tribunal he “can’t say” what happened to the missing footage. Footage from 14 and 16 November 2022 was transferred to the Midrand office of the chief justice almost a year later, he said.
According to Naidoo, he received a call from Norman Mabuza, the Eastern Cape court’s head of security, after Judge Bantubonke Dakota requested to review footage from the 14th and 15th.
“In his affidavit, Judge Dakota says he viewed footage from 14 and 15 November. But the footage stored and transferred was of the 14 and 16 November,” counsel for Mengo, Nasreen Rajab-Budlender said.
Naidoo acknowledged the discrepancy and confirmed that the only footage he requested to be downloaded and preserved was what Dakota had viewed. He said he realised the importance of the footage only after the story appeared in the media.
Naidoo also testified that each court has a control room where footage is stored for 45 to 60 days, and may later be transferred to the office of the chief justice’s central servers.
Naidoo had asked that the relevant footage be couriered to his office in Midrand on a USB.
“Whether this evidence was tampered with, I cannot confirm,” he said, adding that he had told Mabuza at the time: “If a judge took time to view the footage, it might amount to something later on. So just save it and keep it.”
Naidoo admitted he cannot account for the missing footage of the 15th.
Mbenenge has denied the allegation and claimed he could account for his movements on the day in question, including giving a morning lecture to students, a visit to a bank and seeing Mengo only later in the day in the company of another colleague.
His counsel, advocate Griffith Madonsela, pointed out that CCTV footage from 14 November shows Mengo walking past Mbenenge’s office twice without entering.
Dakota, in his affidavit, confirmed that in the footage he viewed, Mbenenge was seen arriving with a briefcase and leaving with it. He said she did not appear in the footage he reviewed.
Both counsel for Mengo and Mbenenge were surprised the footage was missing and said it would have supported either one of their cases.
The tribunal continues this week with counsel for Mbenenge, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC, saying he is ready to call his client to the witness stand as early as Tuesday morning.
Lamola: Trump invited to G20, but attendance up to him to decide:
It was up to United States President Donald Trump to decide whether he would attend the G20 leaders’ summit in South Africa in November, International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola said on Monday.
“The G20 is for all leaders of the G20 … they are all invited to attend,” Lamola told a briefing about South Africa’s year-long presidency of the forum and preparations for the summit.
“Obviously the US president, as a member state of the G20, will be invited, but it is up to the US whether they attend or not the G20 in South Africa’s leaders’ summit.”
The remark came as a first contingent of 49 Afrikaners were en route to the US to take up Trump’s offer of special refugee status, extended for alleged racial persecution that he has stated as a reason for snubbing the summit.
In mid-April, Trump, in a post on Truth Social, asked rhetorically how he could be expected to attend the G20 in South Africa “when land confiscation and genocide is the primary topic of conversation?”
He continued: “They are taking the land of white farmers, and then killing them and their families. The media refuses to report on this. The United States has held back all contributions to South Africa. Is this where we want to be for the G20? I don’t think so!”
South Africa’s international relations department responded at the time by saying the government was compelled by the Constitution to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their race.
“We have to reiterate that from the perspective of the South African government, in terms of the executive orders that have defined the South Africans as refugees, we have stated in the statement we issued on Friday that in line with the international definition, they do not qualify for that status,” Lamola said on Monday.
“There is no persecution of white Afrikaner South Africans in South Africa. This has been proven by a number of statistics in our country, including the police reports, which don’t back that assertion of persecution.”
He said violent crime in South Africa affected everyone, irrespective of their race.
“We are glad that a number of organisations, even from Afrikaner structures, have denounced this so-called persecution.”
Lamola said the government encouraged more such discussions to clarify “on the world stage this disinformation that has now taken root”.
He noted that Washington opted to be represented by the charge d’affaires of the local embassy at earlier key meetings of the G20, including the meeting of foreign ministers in February.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio snubbed that meeting for the stated reason that the government was seizing private land, a charge that has been made by Afrikaner pressure groups and taken up enthusiastically by right-wing commentators in the US, as well as the Trump administration.
“I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg,” he posted on X. “South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote ‘solidarity, equality & sustainability’’. In other words: DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] and climate change. My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.”
Rubio’s decision was not communicated through the usual diplomatic channels. Instead Lamola learnt of it on social media. Though the two foreign ministers are yet to meet, the diplomatic ice was somewhat broken by a phone call between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Trump ahead of Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy to South Africa last month.
Lamola noted that there had been some improvement in US engagement in the G20 in that the US secretary treasury, Scott Bessent, met South African officials during a second meeting of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Washington in late April.
The narrative of Afrikaner persecution and land seizure was also put forth by Trump in his first term as US president. He tweeted in 2018 that white farmers were being killed on a large scale in South Africa.
Washington insiders have attributed this to a campaign by Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum and right-wing US commentators, among them Joel Pollak, who object to the government’s policy of racial redress and land redistribution.
That campaign found fresh ammunition this year in the promulgation of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation of land without compensation in limited circumstances.
The presidency has said the furore was fuelled by disinformation, which it would be happy to clarify in discussion with the Trump administration.
Ramaphosa was asked both about Trump’s possible attendance at the summit and his claims of Afrikaner victimhood by reporters while he was attending the African CEO Forum in Côte d’Ivoire.
He said it was still a long way from November “and a number of discussions will be ensuing”.
“The G20 process consists of 130 meetings, the whole year, and we participate with a number of countries and the US also participates and leading to that summit, we will as South Africa hand over to the United States.
“One would hope that it will all happen seamlessly and in an ordinary and well-managed manner. So one will see how this whole process will all end up,” he added.
Ramaphosa was referring to the US leading the G20 in 2026.
It is customary that the country who takes over the presidency appropriates, at least in part, the themes of the previous presidency. Trump and Rubio’s pronouncements appeared to rule that out.
Ramaphosa on Monday said he was pleased that South Africa’s chosen themes of solidarity and equality were gaining support around the world.
“We expect that our key priorities will become top of mind in the discussions that are currently taking place leading up to the leaders’ summit in November.”
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
