Cyril Ramaphosa's Ignorance: A Symptom of South Africa's Governance Challenges

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

South Africa’s foreign policy is under siege, not from foreign powers, but from the fragmentation of its own State centre.

The controversy over SANDF Chief General Rudzani Maphwanya’s visit to Iran is more than a military misstep; it exposes fractures in governance, civil–military discipline, and institutional coherence. That a senior military officer could conduct politically charged diplomacy without the President’s knowledge signals a State adrift, where factionalism, ideological signalling, and individual prerogatives dictate the nation’s global posture.

Maphwanya’s visit lies at the intersection of foreign policy confusion, eroding civil–military discipline, and structural governance weaknesses. By bypassing diplomatic channels and publicly articulating solidarity with a sanctioned state, he blurred the line between military command and political advocacy.

The episode raises fundamental questions: Who truly directs South Africa’s foreign engagements? Does the President still control the levers of statecraft entrusted to him?

In my assessment, General Rudzani Maphwanya’s statements in Iran exceeded the bounds of military neutrality.  And straddled overreach. By declaring that “South Africa and Iran have common goals,” condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank, criticising U.S. sanctions, and framing his visit as delivering a “political message” at “the best possible time,” he stepped directly into the political and ideological arena. 

These were not neutral observations or ceremonial remarks; they aligned with Iran’s foreign policy positions and implicitly endorsed its strategic narratives. While some may argue he was “merely articulating South African policy,” the timing, specificity, and ideological tenor suggest otherwise: this was a deliberate straddling of political space.

In doing so, Maphwanya undermined the constitutional role of the Presidency and DIRCO, blurring the line between defence leadership and foreign policy-making, and raising urgent questions about civil-military discipline and the ability of the state centre to assert control over high-ranking officials acting on the international stage.

Civil–Military Boundaries Shattered

By convention, defence chiefs remain neutral, executing policy rather than shaping it. Maphwanya’s public alignment with Iran undermined this principle, encroaching on the exclusive domain of the Presidency and DIRCO. Military neutrality safeguards against politicisation of the armed forces and ensures civilian oversight.

The contradiction between Maphwanya’s emphasis on neutrality in SA Soldier, Volume 32, No. 4 (2025), and his actions in Iran may suggest deliberate signalling. Domestically, it reassured the ANC’s pro-Palestinian and nationalist base that senior military leadership aligns with ideological positions championed within party structures. Internationally, it signalled to Tehran that South Africa’s military is willing to engage beyond formal diplomatic channels, potentially bypassing the Presidency and DIRCO.

The general’s confidence may reflect awareness of Minister Motshekga’s backing, particularly her dismissive stance toward perceived American deference. By straddling the political space with ministerial support, Maphwanya tests the boundaries of presidential authority, raising questions about civilian control over the armed forces.

This is not merely a lapse in protocol but a visible assertion of institutional autonomy, where senior officials act in alignment with factional or ideological allies rather than under the unified command of the Commander-in-Chief.

When considered alongside Lt. General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, the KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner’s July 6 statement, a pattern emerges: senior security officials asserting independent positions. Individually, each may seem isolated, but collectively, they indicate persistent strain on institutional discipline and oversight.

This dynamic suggests the State centre—the Presidency and Cabinet—is increasingly challenged by high-ranking officials operating with their strategic calculus.

Mixed Messaging and Diplomatic Risks

Mixed messaging amplified the damage. Ramaphosa urged caution, Motshekga defended the visit, and the military chief effectively freelanced policy in Tehran. These contradictory signals create openings for external actors to exploit South Africa’s internal dissonance.

Iran is under sweeping US sanctions. Any appearance of military endorsement risks being interpreted as a strategic pivot, with billions in AGOA trade benefits hanging in the balance. Beyond economic stakes, the timing compounded the risk: the Israel–Hamas war sharpened global ideological divides, and Iran’s accession to BRICS added symbolic weight to the visit. While some Global South states may applaud Pretoria’s independent posture, symbolic gains come at the cost of trade, investment flows, and currency stability vital to South Africa’s fragile economy.

The Centre Not Holding

At the heart of the crisis is the divergence between the Presidency and Defence Minister Angie Motshekga. Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya described the visit as “ill-advised,” emphasising Ramaphosa neither knew of nor sanctioned it, and reiterating that foreign policy is the sole domain of the Presidency and DIRCO.

By contrast, Motshekga insisted “all protocols were duly observed” and defended Maphwanya, dismissing concerns as undue deference to America. When Minister Motshekga asserts that “all protocols were observed,” this implies that the President, DIRCO, and all relevant structures within the state’s diplomatic apparatus were duly informed and that established procedures governing high-level international engagements were followed.

This contradiction reveals more than bureaucratic tension. DIRCO’s absence, the sidelining of South Africa’s ambassador in Tehran, and the conflicting narratives suggest parallel centres of power within the state. Authority is fragmented, ministerial prerogatives clash with the Presidency, and accountability is obscured.

There is, however, an alternative reading.  Perhaps Ramaphosa and Motshekga are performing a calculated balancing act. The Presidency’s rhetoric of caution appeals to Western partners concerned about sanctions and AGOA eligibility, while Motshekga’s defiance speaks to the ANC’s domestic base, where suspicion of Western pressure runs deep. Even if intentional, this “good cop/bad cop” choreography carries real risks: the absence of coherent coordination allows foreign influence to seep in, institutions are undermined, and the Presidency appears weak at home and abroad.

Institutional Tensions and Governance Failures

Ramaphosa’s claimed ignorance is a constitutional red flag. Either the reporting lines failed, or the trip was deliberately concealed. Both scenarios weaken civilian supremacy over the military, a cornerstone of democratic governance. Maphwanya’s rhetoric, echoing partisan ANC positions on Israel and Palestine, threatens to drag the SANDF into factional politics.

Unchecked, this sets a precedent for “parallel diplomacy,” where provincial governments, municipalities, SOEs, and the military pursue independent foreign agendas. For a middle-power state, multiple competing voices erode credibility, trust, and negotiating leverage. South Africa risks becoming a cacophony of internal agendas broadcast to the world, with each actor signalling its alignment.

Domestic Political Dilemmas

The Democratic Alliance’s call for a court-martial underscores a constitutional imperative: the military must remain neutral. Ramaphosa faces a dilemma. Disciplining Maphwanya would reaffirm civilian supremacy but risk alienating ANC hardliners and pro-Palestinian constituencies. Inaction normalises military autonomy and chips away at presidential authority, sending a signal that the chain of command can be disregarded without consequence.

Strategic Incoherence and Policy Vacuums

Beyond the immediate controversy, the episode exposes a broader malaise: South African foreign policy is a patchwork of ideological impulses, factional agendas, and reactive positioning, managed from a State centre increasingly unable to assert coherent authority. Policy vacuums invite unauthorised actors to step in.

Maphwanya’s initiative broadcast positions never sanctioned by the Presidency or DIRCO, creating inconsistent diplomatic signalling. Symbolic alignment with sanctioned states may appeal to ideological allies but risks alienating Western governments critical to trade, investment, and economic stability.

Iranian Influence

Persistent allegations that Iran funded the ANC in the 2024 elections and possibly supported South Africa’s ICJ and ICC cases underscore the stakes. Beyond military channels, Iran is expanding its cultural footprint in Pretoria and municipal agreements in eThekwini. The ambassador’s exclusion from Maphwanya’s meetings exemplifies the danger of unsanctioned diplomacy conducted outside formal channels, with foreign powers embedding influence that bypasses national oversight.

A State Adrift

The Iran visit is more than a breach of protocol; it is a symptom of a leadership vacuum. Ramaphosa’s post-facto explanation of non-awareness signals a frayed constitutional chain of command, allowing politically consequential diplomacy to occur without executive oversight. Parallel diplomacy, via the military, municipalities, or SOEs, invites foreign influence while domestic factionalism increasingly dictates international engagements.

South Africa’s foreign policy incoherence is stark: a tension between declared non-alignment and ideological posturing that risks alienating key economic partners. In a fragile economy, symbolic grandstanding without strategic balance is not diplomacy; it is economic recklessness disguised as moral positioning.

In a functional democracy, the Commander-in-Chief leads. In South Africa today, he must explain why he was unaware. The result is diminished sovereignty, fractured alliances, and a reputation for a state adrift, steered not from the helm but by whoever seizes the initiative.

* 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.