Latest news with #Zille
![[WATCH] Politricking with Tshidi Madia: Helen Zille](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache.primedia-service.com%2Fmedia%2Fd5vd1huv%2Fhelen-zille-politricking2.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D630&w=3840&q=100)
![[WATCH] Politricking with Tshidi Madia: Helen Zille](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic-mobile-files.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com%2Feyewn.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
[WATCH] Politricking with Tshidi Madia: Helen Zille
Zille shares her reaction to the firing of Minister Nkabane and weighs in on the unresolved issues with Health Minister Simelane while addressing the party's growing public frustration with ANC-led policy decisions, including the NHI and Expropriation Act. She reflects on John Steenhuisen's leadership and the DA's performance in national and local government. She speaks about the party's ambition to become a majority party. She also delves into succession politics and why Paul Mashatile remains a 'no-go' for the DA. She addresses the controversy around Andrew Whitfield's dismissal, and the DA's strategic positioning on foreign policy—from Washington to Zuma in Morocco. She wraps up the conversation by reflecting on racial identity politics, Liam Jacobs' departure, and the DA's evolving relationship with voters.
Eyewitness News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
DA's Zille says working with ANC in GNU a culture shock
JOHANNESBURG - After a year of working with the African National Congress (ANC) in a national coalition, the Democratic Alliance (DA)'s federal council chairperson, Helen Zille, said it's been a culture shock. This week, following threats not to support some departments during Parliament's budget votes, the DA voted in favour of the Appropriations Bill. ALSO READ: Politricking | DA will walk away 'only when it's the least bad option', says Helen Zille The bill was the last hurdle the Government of National Unity (GNU) needed to pass in order to get the 2025/2026 proposed budget passed. A series of spats between the ANC and DA, most recently around the budget, have characterised the year-long multiparty coalition. Zille, speaking on EWN's Politricking with Tshidi Madia , said the ANC has held up its end of the bargain throughout the national partnership 'Where we were naive is that we expect certain elements to be taken for granted in relationships. We believe that people give their word, then stick to their word. We believe that people sign a document, then they fulfil their obligation under that document. We believe that people we agree on certain mechanisms of meetings and others and people will bring their part responsibly and with commit to the process.' The DA federal council chairperson said, despite frustrations with the ANC, the DA will remain in the GNU for the foreseeable future. Zille, using the recent firing of Dr Nobuhle Nkabane as Minister of Higher Education to make a point, the DA is constantly weighing its options when it comes to the continued participation in the GNU. 'There are always 6 or 7 options - you can do nothing, walk away, and everything in between. We decided it wasn't something we should bring the government down necessarily, we should say to the president, 'Okay, we are not going to participate in the National Dialogue because you can't have a dialogue with us, number 1; Number 2, we will not vote for [Thembi] Simelani or Nkabane's budgets.' It's very simple.'
IOL News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
How the DA's Lobbying Agenda Undermines South African Sovereignty
DA Federal chairperson Helen Zille addressing recent media briefing. Zille's recent assertion that the DA is the final bulwark against 'illiberalism' and 'Marxist economics' is strategic messaging for Western ears, says the writer. Clyde N.S. Ramalaine Structural inequalities, racialised identities, and a legacy of economic exclusion have long shaped South Africa's domestic politics. Yet a more insidious trend has emerged in the post-2024 electoral landscape: the outsourcing of political grievances to global arenas. Central to this is a strategic lobbying offensive by political and civil formations, particularly the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Freedom Front Plus (FF+), instrumentalising Western institutions, especially in the United States, for narrow domestic interests. This is not diplomacy; it is neo-imperial leverage by proxy, where white-interest elites outsource influence to stall transformation and entrench the socio-economic status quo. In recent months, South African politics has increasingly aligned with U.S. foreign policy priorities. FF+ leader Corné Mulder led a delegation to Washington, lobbying members of Congress with demands including the prioritisation of '[white] farm murders,' rejection of land expropriation without compensation, and exemption from B-BBEE compliance for over 600 American companies. Cloaked in human rights language, these interventions aim to realign U.S.–South Africa relations in favour of white-minority interests. Though the DA distances itself from explicitly race-based entities like AfriForum and Solidarity, its policy goals mirror theirs, protecting white privilege and preserving the economic legacy of apartheid. Its defence of private property, opposition to land reform, and resistance to empowerment stem from a shared imperative: to protect white-held capital, land, and influence. These actors are not formally allied, but are ideologically united by a commitment to protect white privilege, resist economic justice and shape national discourse via global platforms. To the DA, defending 'the economy' equates to defending inherited privilege; to the ANC, reform is a political survival mechanism. Neither approach centres the lived experience of the majority. These lobbying campaigns are not neutral. They are part of a broader ideological project portraying South Africa as governed by racial populists and economic incompetents. This narrative implies the country was better governed under apartheid, legitimising that regime through veiled nostalgia. Although the DA projects a liberal image, it more accurately represents a conservative agenda. Helen Zille's recent assertion that the DA is the final bulwark against 'illiberalism' and 'Marxist economics' is strategic messaging for Western ears. It recycles colonial tropes of African misrule while promoting white-led liberalism as synonymous with stability. Disguised as policy advocacy, this is calculated image manipulation, and it's working. This convergence of domestic white interest with Western power was evident during the 2023 'Lady R' scandal, when a Russian vessel allegedly loaded arms in Simon's Town. Amid rising U.S.–South Africa tensions, the DA lobbied Washington against the ANC. Rather than defending sovereignty or calling for clarity, it invoked AGOA to suggest trade benefits should be tied to U.S. alignment. This effort to weaponise foreign pressure for domestic advantage risked economic exclusion. Such manoeuvres are not new. During apartheid, the West selectively intervened when it suited Cold War priorities. Today, the pattern persists: conservative elites appealing to Western power to safeguard class interests. Brazil's post-Workers' Party elites did so by invoking anti-corruption rhetoric. Kenyan donor influence has long blocked land reform. In postcolonial contexts, elite actors recast the West not as democratic champions, but as tools of privilege. The real danger lies in how these narratives shape foreign policy. Elevating 'farm murders' while ignoring broader rural violence politicises crime to privilege white victimhood. Attacks on B-BBEE, framed as economic rationalism, erase the constitutional imperative of redress and portray historically advantaged groups as present-day victims. This moral inversion lies at the heart of a foreign policy subverted by internal lobbying. The result: distorted global perception and stalled domestic reform. This is not political chess; it is coercive diplomacy. The DA and its allies portray themselves as moderates and business-friendly stabilisers in a state they frame as erratic. They assure Washington that their presence in government is the safeguard against punitive U.S. action, even as they threaten to trigger it. They act as both shield and saboteur, depending on convenience. The DA's 21.81% share of the 2024 vote is often misrepresented as evidence of national trust or a mandate. In reality, it reflects a racially consolidated vote among white South Africans. It is not a broad consensus but a minority bloc seeking to preserve its interest and influence in a changing society. To present this as the definitive voice of democracy is misleading. It is a vote for preservation, not transformation. Emboldened by this foothold, the DA has adopted a posture of entitled defiance. In a political climate shaped by President Cyril Ramaphosa's weakness, the notion has emerged that South Africa can only be governed effectively through DA inclusion. Meanwhile, the MKP (14.58%) and EFF (9.52%) are conveniently framed, synonymous with erstwhile swartgevaar tactics, as destabilising threats. Ramaphosa's attempt to host Donald Trump at the G20 Summit is a desperate bid to restore credibility. But this aspiration is hostage to the DA, which holds the real 'Trump card', control over South Africa's international narrative. A shift in their tone could instantly portray Ramaphosa as unfit for global partnership. This is no longer mere opposition politicking. It is the institutionalisation of parallel diplomacy, driven by race-based interest, elite self-preservation, and resistance to redress. The DA and its affiliates are not lobbying on behalf of South Africa, but rewriting its image to cast black governance as inherently unstable and white conservatism as order. They offer the West not just policy influence, but an ideological stake in our future. This is not diplomacy; it is the outsourcing of sovereignty. The implications are dire. Through narratives of ANC misrule and economic irrationality, the DA facilitates foreign intervention that aligns with its domestic agenda. This reframes internal debates in language palatable to Western actors, distorts global perceptions, and subordinates democratic transformation to foreign approval. Sovereignty is not only lost through military conquest. It is surrendered through silence, backroom trade-offs, and press releases that dress betrayal as moderation. What passes as diplomacy may be the dismantling of South Africa's democratic project, brokered by those who claim to defend it. If we are to safeguard South Africa, the real contest lies not only in electoral outcomes but in who gets to shape the global discourse. The future of South Africa must not be determined in foreign capitals. It must be owned, fought for, and narrated from within. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
09-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Foreign Policy: How the DA's Lobbying Agenda Undermines South Africa's Sovereignty
DA Federal chairperson Helen Zille addressing a media briefing in Johannesburg. Zille's recent assertion that the DA is the final bulwark against 'illiberalism' and 'Marxist economics' is strategic messaging for Western ears, says the writer. Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Media Clyde N.S. Ramalaine Structural inequalities, racialised identities, and a legacy of economic exclusion have always shaped South Africa's domestic politics. Yet a more insidious trend has emerged in the post-2024 electoral landscape: the outsourcing of local political grievances to global arenas. Central to this is a strategic lobbying offensive by political and civil organisations, particularly the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Freedom Front Plus (FF+), seeking to instrumentalise Western institutions, especially in the United States, in pursuit of narrow domestic interests. This is not diplomacy; it is neo-imperial leverage by proxy, wherein white-interest led elites outsource influence to Western capitals to stall redistributive transformation and entrench the socio-economic status quo. In recent months, the convergence of South African politics with U.S. foreign policy priorities has accelerated. FF+ leader Corné Mulder led a delegation to Washington, lobbying members of Congress and the Senate with demands including the prioritisation of '[white] farm murders,' rejection of land expropriation without compensation, and exemptions from Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) for over 600 American companies. Cloaked in the language of human rights and investor protection, these demands are tactical interventions aimed at realigning U.S.–South Africa relations in favour of domestic white-minority interests. Although the DA attempts to distance itself from overtly race-based entities like AfriForum or Solidarity, its policy framework mirrors their goals: protecting and preserving white interests, meaning protecting the economic legacy of apartheid. The defence of private property, opposition to land reform, and resistance to empowerment quotas stem from the same imperative: to preserve white minority-held capital, land, and influence. These actors are not formally allied, but ideologically unified by a commitment to resist economic justice and shape the national narrative through global platforms. To the DA, defending the economy means defending inherited privilege; to the ANC, reform is a matter of political survival. Neither approach, however, adequately centres the lived experience of the marginalised majority. These white-interest lobbying campaigns are not neutral international engagements. They form part of a broader ideological project portraying South Africa as hijacked by racial populists and economic illiterates. This narrative, carefully crafted, implies that the country was better governed under apartheid, thereby legitimising that discredited regime through veiled nostalgia and coded murmurs of approval. Although the DA presents itself as a liberal party, closer scrutiny reveals that it more accurately reflects conservative politics. Helen Zille's recent remarks casting the DA as the last bulwark against 'illiberalism' and 'Marxist economics' are less domestic critique than strategic messaging for foreign audiences. This rhetoric reproduces colonial tropes of African misrule while promoting white-led liberalism as a synonym for stability and market rationality. These manoeuvres, disguised as policy diplomacy, are calculated efforts to manipulate Western perceptions, and disturbingly, they are succeeding. This alignment of domestic white interest with Western power was laid bare following the explosive 'Lady R' incident in 2023, when a Russian vessel allegedly loaded arms at Simon's Town. Amid escalating U.S.–South Africa tensions, the DA sent a delegation to Washington to lobby against the ANC government. Instead of defending national sovereignty or calling for an impartial investigation, the DA invoked the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) to suggest trade benefits should be conditional on alignment with U.S. policy. This brazen attempt to weaponise foreign pressure to weaken a domestic rival risked national economic exclusion. Such dynamics are not new. During apartheid, the West selectively interfered in South Africa's affairs when it aligned with Cold War interests. Today, that legacy re-emerges in a new form: domestic elites invoking Western pressure to safeguard class privilege. Brazil's post-Workers' Party elites did the same, using U.S. support to roll back redistribution under anti-corruption pretences. In Kenya, donor influence has long obstructed land reform. Across postcolonial societies, conservative actors have learned to recast the West not as champions of democracy, but as instruments of elite preservation. The real danger lies in how these narratives shape foreign policy. The elevation of 'farm murders' as a diplomatic concern, while ignoring broader rural insecurity and racialised poverty, politicises violence in a way that privileges white victimhood. Similarly, attacks on B-BBEE, framed as pro-market reform, erase the constitutional imperative of redress and cast historically advantaged groups as present-day victims. This moral inversion is the core logic behind foreign policy, subverted by internal lobbying. The result: global misunderstanding and domestic policy paralysis. This is not political chess; it is coercive diplomacy. The DA and its allies leverage their image as 'moderate' and 'business-friendly' to gain Western favour, portraying themselves as stabilisers in a state they characterise as ideologically erratic. The disturbing truth is, it's working. The DA seeks to assure Washington that its presence in government is the only bulwark against Trump-era punitive tariffs. They present themselves as both the shield from and trigger for Western punishment, depending on political convenience. The DA's 21.81% share of the national vote in the 2024 election is often cited as evidence of widespread trust or a mandate to shape South Africa's direction. But this interpretation is analytically thin. The DA's support base is largely a racially consolidated vote among white South Africans, who overwhelmingly back white-led parties aligned with historical privilege. It reflects not a national consensus, but a minority bloc seeking to retain influence in a transforming society. To present the DA's electoral base as the definitive voice of democratic legitimacy is misleading. It is a vote for preservation, not transformation. Emboldened by this electoral foothold, the DA has adopted a posture of defiant entitlement. It has flourished in a political climate under President Cyril Ramaphosa that suggests South Africa can only be effectively governed through DA inclusion, while the 14.58% of the uMkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) and 9.52% of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) are cast as existential threats to stability. Unfortunately, Ramaphosa remains a president increasingly paralysed by overlapping crises of legitimacy. He has failed to provide any coherent economic leadership or implement structural reform. Having presided over two job summits with no results, the official unemployment rate now exceeds 32.9%. The unresolved Phala Phala scandal, centred on undeclared foreign currency concealed at his private game farm, continues to fester. Billions in COVID-19 relief funds were looted on his watch, with little accountability. His R740 million 'National Dialogue' initiative is widely viewed as an expensive distraction rather than a meaningful solution. These failures have rendered Ramaphosa dependent on white capital, ANC nostalgia, legal ambiguity, and the quiet complicity of the DA. Ironically, it is the same white interest, embodied by the DA, that now threatens his presidency with the prospect of impeachment if he fails to conform to their expectations. Ramaphosa's diplomatic aspiration to host Donald Trump at the G20 Summit in Johannesburg this November, beyond procedure, is also meant to restore his international credibility. Yet this ambition is hostage to the DA, which holds the real 'Trump card': the power to shape South Africa's global image. A single rhetorical pivot could see the DA reframe Ramaphosa as weak, scandal-tainted, and a threat to investment. This is no longer merely opposition meddling in foreign affairs; it marks the institutionalisation of a parallel diplomacy driven by race-based interests, elite self-preservation, and resistance to transformation. The DA and its affiliates are not lobbying in the national interest; they are rewriting South Africa's global narrative to portray black governance as unstable and white conservatism as order. In doing so, they offer Western powers not just influence, but an ideological stake in the country's future. This is not diplomacy; it is the outsourcing of sovereignty. The DA's foreign lobbying poses a direct threat to South Africa's sovereignty by enabling external actors, especially Western governments, to shape domestic outcomes through ideologically biased narratives. By leveraging discourses of ANC misrule and economic populism, the DA invites punitive foreign responses that align with its internal agenda, effectively exporting political pressure to foreign capitals. This reframes South Africa's internal debates in terms palatable to foreign interests, weakening democratic self-determination, distorting global perception, and subordinating national transformation to external validation. As citizens, we must recognise that sovereignty is not only lost through conquest. It is surrendered through silence, traded away in backroom negotiations, and dressed up in press releases that proclaim moderation while masking betrayal. What passes for diplomacy may be the slow dismantling of our democratic project, brokered behind closed doors by those who claim to defend it. If we are to safeguard our republic's integrity, then the real contest is not only at the ballot box, but in the global discourse that defines whose voices, and whose interests, shape our future. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Eyewitness News
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
Zille unfazed by suggestion DA ministers could face consequences for National Dialogue withdrawal
CAPE TOWN - Democratic Alliance (DA) federal chairperson Helen Zille said she's unfazed by the Presidency's suggestion that DA ministers could face consequences for the party's decision to withdraw from the National Dialogue. On Monday, the Presidency said it would be viewed as insubordination if ministers who form part of the interministerial committee, like DA leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen, refused to participate. ALSO READ: - Final leg of national budget process in peril amid DA's plans to boycott budgets of compromised ministers - ANC NWC resolved to not engage in tit-for-tat with DA over departments' budgets - Withdrawal from National Dialogue likely to see Steenhuisen in hot water The DA's federal executive did an about-turn on the National Dialogue over the weekend, following Andrew Whitfield's axing as deputy minister and in response to compromised African National Congress (ANC) ministers not being removed from their positions. Speaking to the media in Cape Town, Zille said she believed the dialogue would give rise to more corruption within the state. Zille said the DA changed its tune about supporting a National Dialogue when it learnt of the estimated price tag of more than R700 million and after being ignored by ANC secretary general Fikile Mbalula when it requested an opportunity to make input on the format of the dialogue. Zille claimed the dialogue will be used by the ANC for electioneering ahead of 2026's local government polls. 'We all know that is another way of tapping into state resources to give the contracts and the tenders to ANC cadres for the transport, for the catering, for the tents, for everything else. It will all enrich a few people.' Asked about potential consequences for the DA if its executive members failed to get involved, Zille had this to say: 'Well, bring it on. What's he going to do to us for standing up against corruption? Bring it on.' The party said the National Dialogue, which is set to start in August, has no constitutional standing to take or impose decisions, and its members in the executive can't be forced to participate.
