DA must navigate coalition politics rather than divide the GNU and South Africa – The Mail & Guardian

Democratic Alliance leader John Steenhuisen. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy/M&G

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.