'Fail!' – ActionSA rejects GNU's progress
In fact, they have awarded the GNU an F on their report card in their self-generated GNU tracker, saying the grand coalition is a 'complete failure', adding that they have had no meaningful performance, and their obligations have remained entirely unmet, with a collapse in delivery and accountability.
The party's parliamentary leader Atholl Trollip said this outcome rubber-stamps their decision not to join the governing coalition, as they were concerned about playing a 'constructive role' in the opposition.
Taking a swipe at the MK Party and the EFF, Trollip said they made this decision because with 'regressive forces in the opposition benches of parliament, who played key roles in robbing the state of hundreds of millions during the state capture era, along with the radical, violence-inducing rhetoric that was recently put on display for the whole world, we recognised that ActionSA's most effective role was in opposition'.
With a six-seater caucus in parliament, the party vowed to hold the executive to account, scrutinise the delivery of services and monitor how public funds are spent.
'To do this, ActionSA in parliament developed our GNU Performance Tracker, a comprehensive index designed to monitor and hold accountable the GNU. Drawing on data from sources such as Stats SA and official parliamentary replies, the tracker benchmarks performance against government targets, international best practice and ActionSA policy positions.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
David Mabuza Made Modern South Africa, His Choice Changed Everything
Yesterday, South Africa learnt of the passing of Former Deputy President David Mabuza. An ANC political stalwart, not many South Africans know his name but all have been affected by his actions. His impact has been changed the trajectory of Cyril Ramaphosa, the MK Party, the EFF, the DA and politics at large. Let's get in to it.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Mbeki urges the DA to engage in national dialogue for South Africa's future
Former President Thabo Mbeki urges the DA to engage in national dialogue for South Africa's future. Image: File Former President Thabo Mbeki's open letter to Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen, published this week, is more than just a scathing rebuke- it's a timely reminder of the moral and political imperative for inclusive national dialogue. Mbeki, in his characteristically dense but principled tone, offers not just criticism but a clarion call: South Africa's future depends on collaborative governance, not cynical obstruction. In this, he is right. The DA's withdrawal from the national dialogue process is not only shortsighted, it is irresponsible. The central premise of Mbeki's 11-page letter is clear: South Africa's political parties, having agreed to form a Government of National Unity (GNU), have a shared duty to engage honestly in the national dialogue envisioned by that agreement. By walking away from this process, the DA appears to be choosing political point-scoring over the needs of the people. Mbeki accuses Steenhuisen and DA federal chair Helen Zille of 'arrogance,' and while that language may sting, it is far from unwarranted. Let's begin with the facts. The DA entered into the GNU following the 2024 general election, which produced no outright majority. A statement of intent signed by GNU partners explicitly commits them to a national dialogue aimed at building consensus on the country's direction. Yet, after President Cyril Ramaphosa removed DA MP Andrew Whitfield from his deputy ministerial position, the DA abruptly withdrew from the dialogue process. That decision, Mbeki points out, is not just a reaction to personnel changes; it signals more profound discomfort with meaningful public engagement. What is most troubling is the DA's claim that the national dialogue is nothing more than an ANC election strategy. Zille reportedly dismissed the process as a political ruse, calling it a 'sham' and 'a hollow exercise.' Mbeki responds with a sharp but essential rebuttal: if the DA truly believes that the people of South Africa cannot engage in shaping their future without DA participation, then that position is not only arrogant but fundamentally anti-democratic. Mbeki is correct in asserting that the national dialogue has broader roots than the ANC or any one party. He traces its origins to a 2016 agreement between several respected foundations, including those of FW de Klerk, Desmond Tutu, Kgalema Motlanthe, and Helen Suzman. These institutions, with diverse political legacies, united to form the National Foundations Dialogue Initiative. Their goal is to rebuild public trust through a participatory process grounded in shared values. That the current dialogue structure has been endorsed by these foundations and facilitated in part by volunteers only reinforces its legitimacy. The DA's departure from this effort suggests a refusal to engage with South Africans beyond its voter base. Worse still, its pledge to 'mobilise against' the process raises the spectre of political sabotage. One can disagree with aspects of a national dialogue without rejecting its entire premise. To actively campaign against a participatory process, one endorsed by civil society, foundations, and the Presidency—is to subvert the GNU's stated mission. It is worth noting that Mbeki, despite his past differences with Ramaphosa and the ANC's current leadership, has taken a principled stance in favour of inclusive governance. His letter does not read as blind loyalty to the ANC; rather, it reflects a belief in a political culture founded on dialogue, accountability, and public service. His criticism of Zille's comments about the so-called 'sham' nature of the dialogue reveals a concern for the people who are too often left out of the national conversation, citizens who feel powerless and unheard. Indeed, one of Mbeki's most powerful lines reminds us that 'the people are our country's sovereign authority.' Any party that claims to represent the people must take that seriously. Political leadership requires humility—the willingness to listen even when the process is uncomfortable or imperfect. By withdrawing, the DA risks aligning itself with a politics of exclusion. That is not what the moment demands. There are legitimate questions to ask about the structure, transparency, and goals of the national dialogue. But those questions are best answered from within the process, not from the sidelines. By choosing to engage, the DA could influence the outcomes and ensure accountability. Instead, its decision to walk away hands that power to others and betrays its own stated commitment to democratic engagement.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
The ANC and DA clash: A pivotal moment in South African politics
The latest showdown between the ANC and the DA hits different this time, writes Zohra Teke. Image: IOL The Democratic Alliance (DA) is starting to remind me of that school bully who demands protection money. And, this time, they're not getting any, so battle lines are dawn. Their latest salvo is their criminal charges against Higher Education Minister, Nobuhle Nkabane ostensibly for misleading parliament over what was meant to be the appointment of an independent panel. The DA claims she lied and appointed ANC cadres instead. But the hornet's nest was really triggered by the president's axing of the DA's deputy minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Andrew Whitfield. The DA has been having a meltdown ever since, with Helen Zille threatening to unleash a 'nuclear option' - a DA vote of no confidence against President Cyril Ramaphosa. Protection of Ramaphosa against such a vote in return for the protection of DA interests in the GNU has long been the expectation on both sides when they entered GNU. But, tensions have been simmering for a while between the two parties, despite efforts on both sides to keep the GNU together, in spite of the squabbles and power struggles to captain the GNU ship. Throw in an iceberg and its the perfect battle for survival. There's no question that the DA's case has merit. Nkabane has been in their crosshairs for a while. The public's wrath over her lack of professionalism when she comfortably chewed gum before a portfolio committee does not help her image. The latest debacle over her questionable appointments and the ANC's silence does make it look like cadre protection – and the DA is going full throttle. It does then beg the question – is the axing of Whitfield justified in comparison to other transgressions by ANC members of the cabinet? Whitfield – fired for going on a DA party trip abroad without the president's permission, should have been rebuked, sanctioned or suspended. Fired? A tad extreme given the tension in the GNU. Its not surprising then that the DA has come out guns blazing. And with that, their overbearing authoritarian, bullying aggression which is characteristic of of the party's image. Demanding Ramaphosa acts within 48 hours, threatening a vote of no confidence, audaciously claiming they have the power to collapse government and withdrawing from a national dialogue aimed at finding solutions affecting South African lives. Yet the DA claims they remain in the GNU because they put South Africans first. It's not what the DA says that irks most South Africans – and black South Africans in particular. It's how they express their disagreements. That colonial tone of talking down with contempt and the arrogance in overarching importance to their position in the GNU. They behave as though they are captains on the GNU ship and all others mere passengers. Any disorderly conduct and they threaten to throw them overboard. And those on board have had enough. They're now daring the DA to do that – or risk being pushed. The unfortunate image of the DA as an arrogant party has been difficult for them to shake off – akin with the ANC and corruption. It's a defining perception. And, like not all in the ANC are corrupt, that arrogance in the DA is not a fair assumption of all its leaders. Compare DA leaders in Cape Town to those in KwaZulu-Natal. Chalk and cheese. It comes down to understanding how to address each other as South Africans and respect for cultural ethics. Helen Zille and John Steenhuisen should observe how their party leader in KZN, Francois Rodgers engages. Humble, respectful but disciplined to the DA's values. Shortly after the DA joined the GNU, I began noticing, as we all did, a shift in their approach. That combative, opposition ferociousness had simmered down. In fact, the ANC was treated like a new friend in the early GNU days. I questioned this, confidentially, with a DA insider. "We've been told to play nice. Not to go after them because of the GNU," came the response. And it was obvious. In the early GNU days, the DA were relatively mute in their criticisms of the ANC. So, what's changed? Clearly the dynamics. And more importantly, the timing. 2026 is the year of local government elections. The DA wants to govern more municipalities. Gloves are off. They can't do that while remaining silent or playing nice. And so, the DA is back to playing an opposition role. Exposing the ANC, heading to court, brandishing its superiority complex and why it's the saviour of all South Africans. That is really their game plan. Only this time, the ANC has other options to choose from and has called the DA's bluff. The EFF and MK are willing parties, waiting in the wings – the DA's worst nightmare and kiss of death for them in the GNU, something they don't want. It's self inflicted and the DA will need serious introspection if it ever came to that. The question is, can the DA humble itself? Can it behave like a GNU partner and not an opposition member? Even if they win their case and do succeed in getting those ANC ministers removed, there's no going back. This battle with the ANC hits different. The GNU mask is off. And there can be only one victor. * Zohra Teke is a seasoned journalist, freelancer and contributor. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
