GNU's Fragile Unity: Israel and the Ideological Crisis Within SA's Ruling Coalition

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Since the 2024 national elections, South Africa has been governed by a new coalition misleadingly branded as a Government of National Unity (GNU). This alliance, led by the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), excludes major opposition parties like uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) while it accommodates much smaller parties like the PA.

Despite its name, the coalition resembles a Grand Coalition formed out of electoral necessity, and political machinations, not ideological consensus. This dissonance is increasingly visible in policy disputes, most glaringly in the lack of a unified foreign policy, especially on South Africa’s stance toward Israel.

While the term “GNU” is repeatedly invoked by the state and its coalition members, some of us have persistently argued that it inaccurately describes the coalition’s identity and structure. The 7th Administration, inaugurated in June 2024, has already faced serious internal tensions:

• National Budget: The DA and Freedom Front Plus (FF+) voted against it, exposing fiscal division.
• BELA Bill: The DA challenged President Ramaphosa’s assent to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill through legal action.
• Expropriation and NHI Bills: The DA declared formal disputes, accusing the ANC of violating coalition commitments.
• Internal Trust: The ANC has been accused of unilateralism, particularly after Ramaphosa claimed the ANC remained “in charge” despite lacking a majority.
• Cabinet Disputes: The DA initially rejected the six ministerial positions offered, demanding greater power.
• Policy Vacuum: The coalition lacks a coherent agenda, with criticism that economic and industrial interests are prioritised over urgent social needs.

While each of these tensions merits attention worth unpacking, this article focuses on the coalition’s failure to articulate a coherent foreign policy, with particular attention to the South African state's position on Israel.

The ICJ case against Israel, alleging genocide in Gaza, was initiated under the ANC-led sixth administration before the coalition’s formal establishment. However, its continuation under the 7th Administration places shared accountability on all coalition partners. The critical question: Can these parties, having entered into government, reasonably distance themselves from state actions on the international stage? Can coalition members simultaneously maintain pro-Israel positions while serving in a government prosecuting Israel for genocide?

These contradictions expose not just fragility within the coalition but a deeper ideological incoherence. This has implications for both domestic accountability and South Africa’s credibility on the world stage.

A closer look at the DA and Patriotic Alliance (PA), two vocal coalition partners, reveals shared support for Israel. Often painted as ideological rivals, both parties converge in their staunch backing of Israel, underpinned by different but overlapping motivations.

The DA frames its support through a purported liberal-democratic lens, casting Israel as a fellow constitutional democracy. It has routinely criticised the ANC’s pro-Palestinian stance as biased, reaffirming Israel’s right to security and sovereignty. This position is echoed by party leaders and in parliamentary debates, often aligning with mainstream pro-Israel rhetoric.

The PA’s support is more overtly religious, grounded in its alignment with Coloured Pentecostal and Charismatic communities. The party has sent several delegations to Israel, praising its economic and security frameworks. This pro-Israel stance is not incidental; it reflects both ideological affinity and, arguably, strategic political alignment.

Though unproven, allegations persist that both parties receive support from Israeli-linked institutions. Regardless of their accuracy, the frequency and visibility of DA and PA engagements with Israel, amid a state-led genocide case against that very country, raise at least three critical questions. 

1. Can coalition partners conduct parallel diplomacy that contradicts official policy?

Parallel diplomacy by coalition members, especially when it directly opposes formal state positions, raises serious constitutional and political challenges. It undermines South Africa’s diplomatic identity, weakens international trust, and confuses global partners about who represents the state. While ideological diversity is inherent to coalition governance, the lack of a binding foreign policy framework risks turning pluralism into instability.

2. Does public support for Israel breach collective governance and cabinet responsibility?

In parliamentary systems, coalition members with executive roles are bound by collective governance and cabinet responsibility. Public dissent, especially on significant matters such as the ICJ case, can erode cabinet cohesion and undermine state credibility. Yet, the current coalition lacks a transparent agreement that clarifies such responsibilities. Without a formalised framework, parties like the DA and PA may argue their actions fall within party autonomy, especially if they do not control foreign affairs portfolios.

3. What does this reveal about South Africa’s foreign policy credibility under the so-called GNU?

The contradictory positions of coalition partners on Israel reflect a broader governance crisis. The supposed GNU is not united on core policy pillars, particularly foreign affairs. This dissonance undermines South Africa’s moral authority and strategic coherence. Without a clear, binding coalition framework, foreign policy risks becoming a terrain of partisan expression rather than a reflection of national interest.

The ANC’s long-standing solidarity with Palestine, rooted in anti-colonial struggle, clashes with the DA and PA’s pro-Israel stances. This ideological disconnect renders key diplomatic positions vulnerable to internal sabotage or ambiguity, weakening South Africa’s moral clarity and domestic trust in the state’s international engagements.

The invocation of “national unity” masks what is, in reality, a fragile arrangement between actors with divergent worldviews. The absence of a formal coalition agreement available to the public deepens concerns about the ad hoc nature of governance. Foreign policy, like other key domains, appears to be negotiable rather than principled. The Israel question thus becomes a prism for understanding deeper contradictions within South Africa’s coalition government.

Until the 7th Administration resolves these ideological fractures, it remains a government of convenience, not unity. The claim of national consensus is untenable when major foreign policy initiatives are undermined by internal dissent.

Conversely, it can be argued that parties like the DA and PA have every constitutional right to maintain independent foreign policy positions. The coalition was not founded on ideological unity or a detailed agreement binding all members to specific international stances. The Grand Coalition ‘GNU’, born of electoral arithmetic and political sophistication rather than shared vision, does not require unanimity on all matters.

Expecting parties to abandon long-held foreign positions for coalition membership may be politically unrealistic and democratically problematic. In a diverse democracy, coalition governance must allow for a degree of policy autonomy, particularly on issues not subject to explicit coalition consensus. The absence of a comprehensive agreement defining foreign policy obligations arguably permits such divergence.

Nonetheless, without a shared framework, South Africa’s international posture remains fractured. The ongoing public support for Israel by key coalition partners, while constitutionally defensible, undermines coherence and credibility. Whether this divergence is interpreted as democratic pluralism or political opportunism depends largely on the standards of governance that South Africa aspires to.

The 7th Administration’s approach to foreign policy, particularly on Israel, reflects deeper structural incoherence within the Governance Pact. While framed as a Government of National Unity, the alliance is ideologically divided, lacking clarity, accountability, and shared values. The result is a fragmented foreign policy apparatus that jeopardises South Africa’s standing and exposes the coalition as a political compromise rather than a principled partnership.

The Israel-Palestine issue, far from peripheral, exposes the moral fault lines within the coalition. If unresolved, these contradictions will continue to destabilise governance and erode South Africa’s credibility as a crusader for human rights and international justice.

* 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 or Independent Media.