African National Congress (ANC) President Nelson Mandela smiles broadly as he casts his historic vote on April 27, 1994 in Ohlange, outside Durban, during South Africa's first democratic election. Leadership is crucial in shaping a country’s trajectory, particularly one as complex as South Africa. Nelson Mandela is better known for his forgiving and reconciliatory nature. But those who worked with him well know that he brooked no nonsense, says the writer. Picture: Walter Dhladhla, AFP
Dr. Reneva Fourie
THE African National Congress’s most fundamental miscalculation is viewing the current Government of National Unity as a tactical victory and equating it with 1994.
This view ignores the Democratic Alliance’s determination to use the platform to unseat the ANC from political power ultimately. A tussle for policy control of the GNU is already emerging between the ANC and the DA.
Meanwhile, South Africa appears to be without clear leadership. President Ramaphosa must assert his authority with greater vigour to prevent the DA from gaining control of the country through the back door.
There are fundamental differences between the GNU of 1994 and the one that emerged after May 2024. The 1994 GNU represented a critical juncture in South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy, showcasing a collective effort to promote national reconciliation and stabilise a fledgling democracy amid political tensions and violence. Having secured a substantial majority in 1994, the ANC nevertheless created the GNU then because it was in a strong position to guide the power-sharing arrangement towards building a united, non-racial and non-sexist democratic state.
In contrast, the 2024 GNU responds to electoral dynamics and the fragmentation of political parties. Although the ANC won the elections, it fell short of the 50 per cent threshold. While it could have continued as the governing party by forming tactical, issue-based alliances to ensure the passage of crucial legislation, it opted to enter a governing partnership with a broader range of parties, including its ideological adversaries. DA Chairperson Helen Zille calls it ‘an unbelievable short-cut through history’.
Most significantly, the past and current GNUs differ about its leadership. Leadership is crucial in shaping a country’s trajectory, particularly one as complex as South Africa. Nelson Mandela is better known for his forgiving and reconciliatory nature. But those who worked with him well know that he brooked no nonsense.
The public saw this in his fiery denunciation of FW De Klerk at a critical point in the CODESA negotiations. He did not hesitate to defend the interests of the majority of South Africans and the countries that supported the anti-apartheid struggle. Although he tirelessly worked to build consensus among opposing groups, he did not shy away from exposing duplicity and providing firm direction when necessary.
While Mandela’s leadership style was transformational, Ramaphosa’s is pragmatically flexible. He prefers dialogue and consensus-building as a means of addressing contemporary challenges. Thus, he seeks to balance the interests of various stakeholders, including business, labour and civil society and diverging political parties. Given South Africa’s history, participatory governance, especially consulting grassroots communities, is important. But there are times – such as now when our country faces the crises of unemployment, poverty, corruption and a breakdown of global governance – that swift and decisive leadership is necessary. Any reluctance to apply such leadership can be perceived as a weakness, and the DA has not hesitated to exploit it.
The DA is expecting the ANC to collapse and is preparing to be the leading political party in the next general election. Consequently, despite existing tensions, it is improbable that the DA will act on its threats to withdraw from the GNU. Instead, the political arm of capital is laying the groundwork to revive a system dominated by neo-liberal leadership (mostly white) in both governance and economics.
The developments within South Africa are intricately connected to global geopolitics. As the balance of power increasingly shifts towards a multipolar world, South Africa has become a focal point for regime change by the United States and its allies, who seek, inter alia, to disrupt the BRICS Plus initiative. The DA is their desired candidate.
Manipulating the health of economies is one means of effecting regime change. In this regard, credit rating agencies significantly undermined the South African economy and destabilised the currency in the build-up to the elections. Helen Zille even indicated that the rand’s strength was a crucial leverage point during the negotiations to form the GNU. The post-GNU positive market performance suggests that the ANC’s lacklustre results cannot be attributed solely to its actions.
Another regime change method involves influencing the narratives presented by mainstream media. The DA has invested heavily in designing integrated communication systems to ensure that its messaging resonates with the expectations of South Africans. This allows it to downplay its weaknesses while adeptly amplifying its achievements.
The party fails to acknowledge its role in the decline of service delivery across various municipalities, as well as the pervasive crime and violence in the Western Cape, which it governs. Additionally, Africacheck (2024) identified multiple instances of misrepresentation by the DA during its election campaign. Notably, the claim that the Western Cape accounted for 78.9 per cent of all jobs created in South Africa over the past five years has been deemed misleading. Furthermore, the claim that the DA provides the cleanest drinking water and the best sanitation services in the country remains unsupported.
The DA continues to follow the pattern of overstating its strengths while minimising its weaknesses within the GNU. This strategy of inflating its ministerial performance is a calculated effort to shape a perception of its accomplishments that does not necessarily align with reality. It recently, opportunistically, claimed credit for the content of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement. Furthermore, DA leaders intentionally disrespect the President’s constitutional custodianship of international relations through their contradictory foreign policy utterances.
South Africa’s characterisation as a developmental state necessitates a careful balance between promoting business interests and ensuring an equitable distribution of resources. The current political landscape, marked by the tensions between the ANC and the DA, highlights the urgent need for effective leadership. President Ramaphosa’s ability to assert his authority is critical not only for maintaining the integrity of the GNU but also for safeguarding against the growing influence of the Western-backed DA. Clear and decisive leadership is essential to steer South Africa towards a more stable and equitable future.
* Dr. Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security.
** The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The African.