DA's grandstanding an 'insult' to the nation
Life is hard for the vast majority of South Africans. Given the high unemployment rate, most are in survival mode. We are doing whatever is required to ensure that our loved ones are fed and safe while contending with rampant crime and rising drug and human trafficking. In this context, the least we expect from our politicians is integrity. We need service delivery and a stable political environment. Above all, we need a president who leads with strength and clarity.
That is why it was refreshing to see President Ramaphosa take decisive action for once. The removal of Andrew Whitfield from his position as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition for travelling abroad without permission was long overdue. He had participated in a political party delegation to the United States (US), where they met with top American officials and reinforced lies propagated about South Africa's transformation policies, especially land reform.
Their conduct not only smears our reputation abroad. It damaged diplomatic relations with one of our key trade partners, jeopardising domestic development. It posed a threat to our sovereignty and security. It also compromised the smooth handover of the G20 chairpersonship from South Africa to the US. The impact of their actions was severe. The dismissal of Whitfield is a very light punishment for the Democratic Alliance's (DA) disgraceful act of political sabotage.
Instead of showing remorse, the DA used the moment as an opportunity to grandstand. The party's arrogance, its blatant disregard for governance processes and inability to recognise the seriousness of the offence are exhausting. They fail to demonstrate the humility and respect required of members of a Government of National Unity (GNU).
The DA has repeatedly chosen to undermine the president. Their representatives refer to him by his first name in official communications. They challenge his authority at every turn and show little concern for the dignity of his office. This distorted sense of self-importance demonstrates disdain towards the president. It is also an insult to all South Africans.
What is most disturbing is the DA's willingness to harm the country in its pursuit of power. Instead of strengthening democracy, they run to foreign governments and institutions whenever they fail to get their way at home. Their cosy relationship with the US and Israel has become a convenient route to bypass the democratic process and cast South Africa in a negative light.
This behaviour is not new. It has been prevalent since the establishment of the GNU. The DA has consistently demonstrated that it believes the law applies only to others. When their actions are questioned, they cry foul. When their members are held accountable, they complain about political persecution. This is not in compliance with the rule of law. It is a double standard.
Steenhuisen's reaction to Whitfield's dismissal is a concrete example of the DA's duplicity. He was informed well in advance that this decision was on the table. Yet when it was implemented, he acted as if it were a surprise. He accused the president of undermining the coalition agreement. He dared to say that he feels disrespected and issued ultimatums. When the president refused to cower to their demands, the DA backtracked. Their desire for power was greater than their honour.
Instead, they decided to withdraw from the National Dialogue. While there is disagreement on the cost and format, there is general acceptance that public engagement and ownership are essential for the collective acceleration of the country's socio-economic advancement. Having committed to the dialogue in writing, the DA is now dismissing it as a waste of time. This is a betrayal of the public and of the agreements that brought the unity government into being.
Furthermore, the DA threatened to initiate a vote of no confidence in the president. It once again sought to create chaos, weaken public trust in leadership, and destabilise the country for narrow party gain. Having suddenly realised just how irresponsible that threat is, it has now also been withdrawn, trapping the government in endless court battles instead.
South Africans are tired of leaders who place their egos ahead of the nation. Tired of the noise. Tired of the never-ending circus of threats, ultimatums and name-calling. We face daily struggles that do not allow for political drama. Food insecurity, the high cost of living, crime and joblessness are real and persistent problems. These cannot be solved while elected politicians behave like squabbling children. The government is not a playground. It is a place for responsible leadership and mature decision-making.
We do not expect miracles. We know the problems are complex. However, we expect those who have been given the responsibility to govern to take it seriously. That includes respecting democratic processes and the offices of the state. It means engaging in dialogue even when it is uncomfortable. It means disagreeing without tearing the house down. And above all, it means remembering that governance is not about promoting party-political power. It is about improving the quality of life of citizens.
The DA must make a choice. It can be part of building a better South Africa, or it can continue on its current path of obstruction, grandstanding and political sabotage. If it chooses the latter, then it should not be surprised when South Africans stop listening. We are looking for solutions, not tantrums. We are looking for accountability, not arrogance.
President Ramaphosa has taken a small but meaningful step in the right direction. He must now go further. He must act swiftly and consistently in holding all members of government accountable. He must reinforce the principle that no one is above the collective goals of unity, service and integrity. If he does, the country will follow.
The time has come for calm, for order and for leadership that puts the people first. Let those who are unwilling to contribute step aside. Let those who are ready to serve do so with humility and focus. South Africa deserves nothing less.
* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Principled protest or performative politics? The DA's budget vote and the real risks to higher education
On 3 July 2025, Parliament debated and voted on the budget allocation for the Department of Higher Education and Training. At face value, it was a routine step in the national fiscal calendar. In reality, it became a stage for a high-stakes political performance — one in which the Democratic Alliance (DA), a key player in the newly formed Government of National Unity (GNU), chose to oppose the Higher Education budget vote, citing Minister Nobuhle Nkabane's alleged misconduct in Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) appointments and misrepresentation to Parliament. The DA's decision may appear principled. After all, allegations of dishonesty in the appointment of public officials are serious and should be investigated with the gravity they deserve. But when weighed against its broader actions — supporting the Appropriation Bill, backing the Divisions of Revenue Bill, and remaining firmly embedded in the GNU — its opposition begins to look more like a carefully choreographed act than a genuine stand for accountability. A convenient dissonance This dissonance is at the heart of the matter. The DA claims it cannot, in good conscience, support a budget administered by a minister it deems untrustworthy. Yet it supports the very bills that enable that same budget to exist. It lays criminal charges, stages high-profile appearances at police stations, and calls for dismissals — all while continuing to co-govern with the very figures it accuses. It denounces cadre deployment but offers little clarity on how it would democratise governance without retreating into technocracy. In a rare and probably never to be seen moment of striking clarity, EFF MP Sihle Lonzi captured the contradiction during the parliamentary debate succinctly: the DA was not voting against the budget for moral reasons — it was engaging in political theatre. It wanted to protest against the firing of its own deputy minister more than it wanted to reform the education system. This is not to diminish the need for transparency or integrity in higher education governance. If our minister misled Parliament or failed to act within ethical and procedural norms, she must account. The principle of accountability must apply equally and without political convenience. But it is precisely because of the gravity of these principles that they should not be deployed as tactical weapons in what has become a rapidly unravelling unity experiment. The real stakes: students, workers and institutions What gets lost in this posturing are the very real consequences for students, workers, and institutions. The 2025/26 budget vote allocated: R96-billion to universities. R14-billion to Technical and Vocational Education and Training colleges. 7-billion to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme — supporting millions of poor and working-class students. It included resources to refurbish Giyani College, build new campuses in mining towns, and expand Centres of Specialisation in TVETs. It committed funds for student housing, campus safety, and infrastructure upgrades in a sector strained by overcrowding, underfunding, and social unrest. Opposing this budget, not for its content but to symbolically target the minister, is not just disingenuous — it is dangerous. It delays service delivery, unsettles institutions already grappling with instability, and undermines the very transformation the DA claims to support. And it does so without offering a credible alternative. Is the DA suggesting that the budget be collapsed and re-tabled under another minister? That students be denied allowances until the political clean-up is complete? That Technical and Vocational Education and Training expansions wait until internal GNU tensions are resolved? This is the risk of performative opposition: it prioritises narrative over necessity. Judicial luxuries and democratic realities There's also a class dimension to this moment. Helen Zille's symbolic march to the police station, dragging her party MP to lay charges, was intended to show resolve. But it also unintentionally revealed a deep inequality in access to justice. How many of the students who rely on this budget have the same legal recourse? How many workers on underfunded campuses can march their grievances into the same institutions with the same certainty of being heard? The DA's self-image as a party of clean governance must confront this paradox: the performance of moral superiority can, at times, obscure the impact of its own decisions. Opposing a budget that funds student meals, campus safety, housing, and worker wages cannot be the righteous act it is presented to be. From symbolism to substance If the DA wishes to be taken seriously as a party of national leadership, it must learn to distinguish between principled dissent and symbolic sabotage. South Africa needs opposition that strengthens governance, not that undermines service delivery for spectacle. It must not fall into the trap of simple-minded populism: governing with one hand while campaigning with the other. At the same time, the GNU cannot become a fragile house of mirrors — one where parties selectively engage depending on which faction is being challenged. Unity must not mean uniformity, but nor can it survive hypocrisy. If this coalition is to endure and serve the nation meaningfully, its members must honour both accountability and responsibility. There is space for critique, investigation, and reform — but there is no space for empty performance when the stakes are this high. There is no theatre more dangerous than that which mistakes its script for reality. South Africa's higher education system is not a stage — it is a lifeline. It deserves more than posturing. It deserves principled, pragmatic governance. That is what students, workers, and our national development agenda demand. Anything less is a betrayal. DM

IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Africa Energy Forum presents a unique opportunity for African collaboration
In the rural village of Gwanda, Zimbabwe, a mother walks several kilometres each day to find firewood so she can cook for her children. She's never had access to reliable electricity, and her story is not unique. Across Africa, 600 million people still live without energy access – a fact that affects every aspect of their lives. The former United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, summarised Africa's biggest challenge when he said: 'Energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, increased social equity, and an environment that allows the world to thrive'. Without electricity, communities cannot run clinics, power schools, or create jobs – all of which are fundamental to dignity and development. That is why I attended the Africa Energy Forum in Cape Town recently, a milestone that marked the first time in the event's 27-year history that it was hosted in South Africa. This year's theme, 'Africa United', could not be more fitting. As the global investment meeting for Africa's power, energy, infrastructure and industrial sectors, it was attended by stakeholders who hold the key to accelerating energy access - African presidents, ministers, policymakers, continental executives, the World Bank, African Development Bank and DFIs. With South Africa chairing the G20 this year, the continent must use the momentum of the Africa Energy Forum (AEF) and the G20 Summit to amplify a cohesive African voice in global energy governance. As geopolitical instability rises, with trade wars and fractured alliances, it's more urgent than ever to ask: Can Africa present a united energy agenda? And can it do so on its terms? To seize this opportunity, Africa must first agree on a set of shared energy priorities. These must include scaling up renewable resources like solar, wind and hydro, where the continent has a competitive advantage, while also affirming the sovereign right to include coal, gas and nuclear in the energy mix where needed. This is not a contradiction, but a necessity. Industrialised countries built their economies using all available energy sources. Africa must be afforded the same space to grow. Some of the critical arguments at this year's event will be around balancing the need for energy access and economic development with plotting a sustainable energy future that includes an abundance of Africa's renewable energy resources. Favourable terms for the financing of African energy projects will also be another important topic of debate. Although there are hundreds of initiatives to ensure the achievement of universal energy access on the continent, more than half the continent still lacks access to modern energy, which is why African energy stakeholders believe that amid the drive for reducing carbon emissions, Africa should have a sovereign right to include coal, gas and nuclear as part of its energy mix in line with how developed nations built their economies. What will the US role be in Africa's energy future? The first Power Africa Summit was launched by former US President Barack Obama in June 2013 as a private sector-led initiative with the ambitious goal of doubling electricity access on the continent. Through USAID, 12 US government agencies implemented Power Africa activities by providing financing and technical assistance to support the power sector in 40 African countries. Though different US administrations advised countries on electricity access for years, Power Africa's approach was different in that it took a demand-driven, transactional approach by reviewing actual transactions between private-sector players like investors, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and with governments and then identified obstacles that were preventing transactions from moving forward. A large reason for the success of Power Africa in the past was the power of diplomacy to level the playing field for U.S. investments in the energy sector. US President Trump and his administration announced that Power Africa would be dismantled, after more than a decade of successful work on the continent. With almost all of Power Africa's programmes listed for termination, the diminishing role of the US in Africa's energy sector opens opportunities for new alliances and greater intra-African collaboration. Energy financing must be favourable The challenge for Africa is that it needs to industrialise and electrify its economy, but at the same time, it needs the finances to do so in a sustainable way. Africa has also been most severely affected by climate change, and so its infrastructure development needs to be climate-resilient. Most African nations don't need an energy transition, but energy accessibility. Many African countries are grappling with rising inflation, which has also impacted the amount of developmental finance available to African nations. But America may want to maintain its presence and footprint in Africa's energy sector, especially as China seeks to play a leading role in the continent's infrastructure development. Despite the challenging global environment, Africa needs its member states and voices to unite with a collective vision to fund Africa's energy revolution with international financing mechanisms that are just. After all, Africa is responsible for less than 3% of the world's carbon emissions and home to massive, unlocked energy potential, while also being home to 1.2 billion youth aged between 15 to 24 years that account for 16% of the global population (according to the UN). Greg Nott is Director Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc

SowetanLIVE
9 hours ago
- SowetanLIVE
DD, the unifier, was a man of his word, and I can vouch for his dependability
On Thursday, former deputy president David Debede Mabuza sadly departed. Aged 64, his untimely passing deepens the moment of grief. Mabuza's extensive record in public affairs offers valuable insights into leadership. This is particularly so, since his story is part of SA's post-apartheid journey under the leadership of an African National Congress (ANC) of which he was a member and leader. 'DD' – as Mabuza was popularly known – was a mathematics teacher who cut his anti-apartheid activism in the Azanian Students Organisation (Azaso) in his youth in the 1980s, and later joined the Congress Movement, led by the ANC. After the first democratic elections in 1994, he was deployed to the government to help realise the society of the promise of the Freedom Charter, whose 70th anniversary we mark this year. As an ANC deployee in government, Mabuza was one of the early pathfinders of our democracy, whose ingenuity provided the foundation upon which the democratic edifice stands. Their commitment to the cause of democracy helped to restore the people's confidence in the government following the erosion of trust during the apartheid era. His effusive and staid disposition proved to be an added advantage in the post-apartheid confidence-building process – without which the democratic government would have struggled to rebuild and sustain the confidence of the people. In the tradition of the ANC, leadership is a collaborative process. Each leader brings their strengths to bear, while simultaneously mitigating the shortcomings of their colleagues. One has to see oneself as a team player; indeed, as part of a collective with a shared outlook, roles and responsibilities. In this, Mabuza distinguished himself well, inspiring many around him. He was a man of his word, and I can personally vouch for his dependability. Once he had committed himself to something or a course of action, he stuck to it regardless of the cost or inconvenience to his personal wellbeing. He was also a man of few words. Yet, when he spoke, his voice carried authority and decisiveness. To be a team player also means that one should endeavour to be a unifier, a trait that Mabuza possessed in sufficient stock. In the run-up to the 2017 ANC national conference, and after, he was widely associated with the concept and practice of 'unity'. He appealed to Mpumalanga and all conference delegates to promote organisational unity and cohesion, in word and in deed. Unity is essential not only for the ANC. It is of critical importance to all South Africans, black and white. We sink or swim together. There is no better way to achieve national unity than to work towards the SA envisioned in the Freedom Charter. History is the work of the hands of more than an individual leader. However, it is nearly impossible to analyse the 2017 conference and its aftermaths without the role of Mabuza, among other actors.