Political analyst warns of severe repercussions for South Africa amid DA-ANC tensions
Image: Jairus Mmutle/ GCIS
If President Cyril Ramaphosa were to dare to fire the Democratic Alliance (DA) from the Government of National Unity (GNU), the Western powers might jump into action to punish South Africa severely, warns political analyst Zakhele Ndlovu.
Ndlovu, who is from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, commented on the worsening standoff between the ANC and DA since the inception of the GNU.
The DA had begun implementing its threat to frustrate Ramaphosa by rejecting the budget vote for two ANC-led departments, whose ministers it accused of corruption and incompetence.
Among those ministers whom the DA wanted to be fired were Human Settlements' Thembi Simelane and Higher Education's Nobuhle Nkabane. The party also wanted Water and Sanitation Deputy Minister David Mahlobo out of the position.
The DA's demands were sparked by Ramaphosa firing its MP, Andrew Whitfield, as the Trade, Industry and Competition deputy minister, last week.
When Ramaphosa refused to succumb to the pressure, DA leader John Steenhuisen announced a boycott of some of the ANC departments' budget votes and that the party was pulling out of the National Dialogue.
The DA said the National Dialogue was pro-ANC as Ramaphosa decided without consultation which eminent persons would participate.
Steenhuisen threatened a vote of no confidence against the head of state, who has constitutional powers to appoint and remove members of his Cabinet.
Said Ndlovu: 'Ramaphosa won't dare to use his power to fire DA ministers or force the DA to exit the GNU. The DA knows that investors and Western governments are on its side to severely punish the ANC and South Africans.'
Ndlovu called on Ramaphosa to respect the GNU parties because the ANC did not receive the voters' mandate to govern alone.
Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said: 'As far as we understand, there's no standoff in the GNU. Parties joined the GNU voluntarily, equally, they'll leave the GNU if they so choose out of their own accord.'
Ndlovu said Ramaphosa's hands were tied as kicking the DA out would have consequences.
'The economy would be sabotaged, and that would mean higher unemployment, more poverty, and South Africa doesn't want to become another Zimbabwe,' said Ndlovu.
He said the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act, the National Health Insurance Act, and the Land Expropriation Act were a result of bullying 'as if it (ANC) was still in control of the executive'.
'The ANC no longer has an outright majority and, therefore, needs to compromise to reach consensus with its coalition partners, particularly the DA (because) clearly, the gloves are off now.
'By pulling out of the National Dialogue, the DA hopes to frustrate and punish the ANC for acting as if it still has an outright majority,' said Ndlovu.
Ndlovu said that although the DA felt like an abused partner in a marriage, it does not want the marriage to end because it has more to lose than to gain in a divorce.
'There is no hope to iron out the differences, but to hang in there until the end of the term of office.
'The only way to manage the differences is to keep reminding each other that they need each other. Already, these differences are disrupting the work of the GNU and making it ineffective,' said Ndlovu.
During a media briefing in Cape Town on Saturday, Steenhuisen challenged the ANC when he said: 'If the ANC wants to kick the DA out for fighting against corruption, well, so be it.'
Soon after Minister Simelane tabled her R33 billion budget vote in Parliament on Thursday, the DA rejected it.
'We cannot support allocating R33 billion to a department led by a minister implicated in serious corruption. Since President Ramaphosa refuses to act, the DA will take every possible step to prevent further misuse of public funds,' read its statement.
The DA was joined by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in rejecting Nkabane's budget.
DA national spokesperson Willie Aucamp said his party was not opposed to the budget, but to ministers who are handling it 'as part of the fight against corruption'.
He said the ANC was not listening to the DA's input in the GNU.
'The ANC had become used to over 30 years of being in power alone, and it will take time for it to come to terms with the fact that they don't govern alone anymore.
'President Ramaphosa must have a Cabinet with people fit for the purpose and who are worthy of being members of the Cabinet,' said Aucamp.
He said the parties should stick to the Statement of Intent, which the parties signed before the formation of the GNU, which says that there should be sufficient consensus in the government's decision.
The ANC questioned the DA's commitment to the GNU, stating that its vote against the departments' budget was 'not only disruptive but also undermined the very spirit and functioning of the GNU, to which the DA has committed itself'.
'South Africans deserve clarity and leadership guided by national interest, not short-term political expediency,' said ANC national spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri.
Another political analyst, Sakhile Hadebe, said the DA was trying too hard to prove its existence and visibility in the GNU.
He did not see the ANC voting against the budget of DA-led departments because, as the biggest party in the GNU, the ANC 'must lead by example and properly'.
[email protected]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
29 minutes ago
- IOL News
How ANC's collusion with big businesses undermines transformation
Nco Dube a political economist, businessman, and social commentator. Image: Supplied South Africa's post-apartheid journey has been marked by a bold constitutional promise: to dismantle the economic structures of racial privilege and build a society where the black majority can share in the country's wealth and opportunities. Central to this promise are the empowerment laws, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Affirmative Action (AA), crafted to drive economic inclusion and redress decades of exclusion. Yet, nearly three decades on, the slow pace of transformation and the growing backlash against these laws reveal a darker reality: a coordinated agenda, both local and global, to halt transformation, preserve white privilege, and enrich a narrow elite. At the heart of this crisis lies a deeply troubling collusion between big business and ANC elites. A symbiotic relationship that has subverted the original intent of empowerment laws, turning them into tools for elite enrichment rather than broad-based economic justice. The Promise and the Betrayal of Empowerment When the ANC was unbanned in 1990 and South Africa embarked on its democratic journey, the vision was clear: to dismantle apartheid's economic legacy and create a more equitable society. BEE and AA laws were designed to open doors for black South Africans through ownership, management, employment equity, and skills development. There have been pockets of progress. Black ownership and representation in certain sectors have increased, and a black middle class has emerged. Some black entrepreneurs have thrived, and certain companies have made genuine strides in employment equity. But for the ordinary black South African, the man on the street, these gains have often been invisible or out of reach. Poverty, unemployment, and inequality remain entrenched, and the benefits of transformation have been captured by a small, politically connected elite. This failure is no accident. It is the product of systemic corruption, incompetence, and a political will that has been fatally compromised by the very leaders entrusted with delivering transformation. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The Symbiotic Relationship Between Big Business and ANC Elites Since the unbanning of the ANC, a problematic alliance has formed between big business and ANC political elites. White monopoly capital, anxious to protect its interests in the new dispensation, extended lucrative BEE deals to ANC insiders. This was not broad-based empowerment, it was a transactional pact: business secured access to government contracts, regulatory favour, and influence, while ANC elites gained wealth and power. This arrangement has had devastating consequences for genuine transformation: Elite Enrichment Through Selective BEE Deals: Instead of empowering the masses, many BEE deals were structured to benefit a narrow group of ANC-connected individuals. Shares, directorships, and business opportunities were handed to political insiders, creating a black elite that often mirrored the exclusivity of the apartheid-era white elite. The majority of black South Africans saw little direct benefit from these deals. Empirical evidence shows that many beneficiaries of these deals were ANC apparatchiks, with the majority of black South Africans seeing little direct benefit. Board Appointments and Political Influence: At least 56 ANC politicians have held directorships in major JSE-listed companies, blurring the lines between political power and corporate governance. This overlap ensured that business interests were protected and that policies favoured entrenched elites rather than broad economic inclusion. Research shows a significant overlap between ANC politicians and the boards of major JSE-listed companies. Many of them holding multiple directorships across a wide array of companies. This integration allowed big business to secure their interests by aligning with politically influential individuals, ensuring favourable treatment and policy influence, rather than driving genuine transformation. Fronting and Window-Dressing: Many companies engaged in fronting, appointing black individuals to nominal positions to meet BEE requirements without transferring real control or economic benefit. This practice allowed companies to access government contracts and benefits fraudulently, undermining the integrity of empowerment laws. While real control and benefits remain with the original (often white) owners. Examples include listing low-level black employees as company directors without their knowledge or creating side agreements that strip black shareholders of real power. State Capture and Policy Manipulation: The alliance between business and ANC elites facilitated state capture, where government resources and policy were manipulated to serve private interests. The mutually beneficial relationship between business and ANC elites has led to 'state capture,' where business interests influence legislation and procurement processes for their own benefit, often at the expense of the broader public. This has included shaping policies to favour certain companies, securing lucrative government contracts, and manipulating regulatory frameworks to protect established interests. The Bosasa scandal, for example, involved manufacturing BEE credentials and funnelling money to the ANC through corrupt tender processes, with cash bribes and fraudulent invoicing used to secure government business and support election campaigns. This collusion has transformed empowerment laws from instruments of justice into mechanisms for elite enrichment and preservation of privilege. The focus on enriching a politically connected elite, rather than fostering broad-based participation and economic inclusion, has led to widespread public disillusionment and persistent inequality. The original vision of BEE as a tool for mass empowerment has been subverted by collusion between big business and ANC elites, resulting in a narrow base of beneficiaries and limited progress for the majority. The Global Rightward Shift and the Anti-Transformation Agenda Adding fuel to the fire is the global political climate. The rise of right-wing populism in the United States and elsewhere has emboldened anti-transformation forces in South Africa. Figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk have amplified narratives of white victimhood, including the false and dangerous 'white genocide' myth targeting South Africa. White interest groups such as the Democratic Alliance (DA), Solidarity, and Afriforum have seized this moment to push back against transformation. They cloak their agendas in rhetoric about 'meritocracy' and 'non-racialism,' but their true aim is to preserve apartheid-era privileges and slow the pace of change. Meanwhile, as the ANC faces potential electoral decline, white monopoly capital is already seeking new political partners to maintain its influence, regardless of who governs. The anti-transformation agenda is thus both a local and international phenomenon, threatening to roll back the hard-won gains of the past three decades. Successes, Failures, and the Road Ahead It is important to acknowledge the successes. There are black entrepreneurs, professionals, and leaders who have leveraged empowerment laws to build businesses and create jobs. Some sectors have made genuine progress in diversifying ownership and management. But these successes are exceptions, not the rule. The systemic failures of corruption, elite capture, fronting, and state capture have undermined the transformative potential of empowerment laws. The struggle over South Africa's empowerment laws is a struggle for the soul of the nation. Will the country continue down a path where transformation is hollowed out by corruption and elite collusion, or will it reclaim the constitutional imperative to build an inclusive economy for all its people? The stakes could not be higher.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
History imposes a burden on us to speak out in defence of the Palestinians
President Nelson Mandela said in December 1997: 'We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.' These words are more than the rhetoric of solidarity, and are not merely a statement of fact. They are also a grim warning. He was speaking in the knowledge of the links between Zionism and apartheid. The links are still real. The 70th anniversary of the Freedom Charter is an appropriate moment to refer to these links. The Congress of the People adopted the Freedom Charter on 26 June 1955. On reading the Bill of Rights in South Africa's Constitution, one will find the entire Freedom Charter has become part of South African law. It thus belongs to all South Africans equally. This was ensured by the manner in which it was drawn up – following a call to all South Africans to state their demands for what South Africa should be like. If the Freedom Charter defines a free South Africa, then we are not free – yet. There is still much work to do, and some of that involves what Mandela had in mind. South African Zionists never welcomed the end of apartheid. As the years have passed since Mandela's speech on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Zionist hostility has intensified against our South Africa striving to build a post-apartheid democratic state. Zionism has much to lose from our efforts. Much is made of the Balfour Declaration by Zionists. Lord Arthur Balfour himself was a racist and anti-Semite, and in 1906 he said of South Africa: 'We have to face the facts. Men are not born equal, the white and black races are not born with equal capacities: they are born with different capacities which education cannot and will not change.' The Freedom Charter was adopted in response to demands which the people of South Africa were asked to make, and which defined the South Africa they wanted to live in. What Balfour said was rejected by the words of the Freedom Charter: 'We, the People of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know: 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people; 'That our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality…' The apartheid government of South Africa had a different plan for our country, and one with which Zionists have never quarrelled. In his book Zionism During the Holocaust: the Weaponisation of Memory in the Service of State and Nation (2022), Tony Greenstein describes how the Zionists accepted an apartheid future for South Africa when the National Party was elected by the white electorate. The compromise was that in return for an end to National Party anti-Semitism, Zionists – in a lying claim to speak for all Jews – would support apartheid. Usually credited with designing the details of apartheid South Africa, Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd said: 'The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.' He was correct. In 2024 his opinion was confirmed by the International Court of Justice. Content with Verwoerd's comparison, Zionist Israel welcomed John Vorster, South Africa's prime minister, to Israel in 1976. He even laid a wreath at the Holocaust Memorial to the six million Jews whose deaths he had supported during World War 2 when he had been interned because of his active support for the Nazis. But the scene has changed. The spirit of the Freedom Charter now rides high in South African law, and Zionism must be confronted as our Constitution demands. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) and the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) have declared war on South Africa's anti-racist and democratic objectives. Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein has even removed the South African government from the Sabbatical prayer. South Africa's Zionists are outraged by the proceedings before the International Court of Justice against Israel under what is known briefly as the Genocide Convention, and the ICJ's provisional conclusions. They refuse to recognise that South Africa's action is demanded by the Freedom Charter itself, which states: 'South Africa shall be a fully independent state which respects the rights and sovereignty of all nations.' South Africa's Constitution binds us to international law. History imposes a burden on us to speak out in defence of the Palestinians, whom the world has recognised to be the victims of Zionist apartheid. Zionist Israel has made no secret of its intentions, and they are free to be read by anyone. What would the world think of South Africa if we remained silent when the gates of hell were opened to unleash the logical conclusions of apartheid on Palestinians? In fact, the world is beginning to act. South Africa is a co-founder of the Hague Group, which was established to protect and uphold international law in the face of Israeli and American defiance of the United Nations, the ICJ and the International Criminal Court. Initially, the Hague Group included Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal. To halt the genocide the group is convening an Emergency Ministerial Conference in Bogotá, Colombia, on 15 and 16 July 2025. Significantly, many more governments from Asia, Africa and Latin America have confirmed their participation. But there is more to the matter than South African solidarity with the Palestinians. The Zionist poison that it is anti-Semitic to criticise Israel in its form as a racist ethno-national state must also be confronted at home. This is a matter of South African self-interest if we are to form a country envisaged by the Freedom Charter, and the Constitution based on it. There is no space here to set out the history of Zionism, beyond noting that it was born out of anti-Semitic violence. Anti-Semitism exists with the ignorant bigotry of all forms of racism, but criticism of Zionism is not anti-Semitic. As free as we are under section 15 of our Constitution in 'conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion', our freedom of expression under section 16 excludes 'propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm'. Zionism urges on us what is forbidden. Defeating Zionism in South Africa is therefore a task we have to discharge. Nelson Mandela's words are a warning – Zionism is an enemy from our past and attempting to haunt our present. This is not a call to ban the SAJBD or the SAZF or their supporters. That is no longer the South African way of doing right, and the enemy we have to defeat and whose harms are still with us must not be our teachers. Our task of defeating Zionism is made both easier and harder by its nature: it is easier because South Africa needs no violence against Zionism; it is harder because changing people's minds is not easy. We will win. Zionists have no hope. The political forces that supported apartheid are becoming extinct dragons of South Africa's past – where is the party of Verwoerd and Vorster today? Zionism is beginning to join them, and we will be a better country when the Palestinians are free. DM
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
613 killed at Gaza aid distribution sites, near humanitarian covoys, says UN
The UN human rights office said on Friday it had recorded at least 613 killings both at aid points run by the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and near humanitarian convoys run by other relief groups including the UN. The GHF uses private US security and logistics companies to get supplies into Gaza, largely bypassing a UN-led system that Israel says had let militants divert aid. The United Nations has called the plan "inherently unsafe" and a violation of humanitarian impartiality rules. "We have recorded 613 killings, both at GHF points and near humanitarian convoys — this is a figure as of June 27. Since then ... there have been further incidents," Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), told reporters in Geneva. The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza at the end of May and has repeatedly denied that incidents had occurred at its sites. Of the 613 people killed, 509 were killed near the GHF distribution points, the OHCHR said.
