Prof Bheki Mngomezulu
FOLLOWING the outcome of the 2024 general election which did not produce an outright winner, South Africa was set on a new political path. The ANC which had won every election with a convincing majority since 1994 failed to reach the fifty plus one threshold, only managing 40.18%. On the other hand, the DA, which has been the official opposition political party until the sixth administration was unable to capitalise on the ANC’s weaknesses.
This unprecedented situation tested the leadership prowess of both the ANC and the DA. Although the ANC failed to get an outright majority, it still had more seats compared to other political parties – obtaining 159 seats in the National Assembly.
It had several options at its disposal.
The first option was to form a Grand Coalition with the DA. This possibility was nullified by the response from members of the Tripartite Alliance comprising the ANC, Cosatu and the SACP. The two arguments advanced by the two partners were that the DA was associated with the old apartheid regime. Secondly, they cited the DA’s pre-election campaign utterances where DA leaders were clear that they would not work with the ANC because it is full of corruption.
The second option was for the ANC to form a Government of National Unity (GNU). This would have meant working with the DA, MKP and the EFF. Unfortunately, some in the ANC did not want to work with either the EFF or MKP. As such, this option too fell by the wayside.
The third option was for the ANC to form a multiparty coalition. This is what eventually happened when nine political parties joined hands with the ANC to constitute government. For some reason (wittingly or unwittingly), this multiparty coalition is dubbed the GNU. This is where the problem starts. Failure to understand the type of government currently in place leads to various political parties making wrong and ill-informed decisions.
Another option would have been to form a minority government where the party constituting government did not have the majority.
In the current coalition government, the ANC and the DA are fighting turf wars and suffer from an identity crisis. They behave as though one party (the ANC) is the governing party, and the other one (the DA) is an official opposition, which is not the case. Other coalition partners are undermined. This is not the spirit of coalition politics.
The public spat between the ANC and the DA has been one of the characteristic features of the current coalition government. As the ANC reminds the DA that it has more seats and is the one that invited other political parties to form the present coalition government, the DA constantly reminds the ANC that it did not win the election and therefore cannot dictate terms.
This turf war delays the promised ‘better life for all South Africans’ as promised before the election. It also negatively affects the political stability of the coalition government.
The DA miscalculated and thus shot itself on the foot when handling the budget debate. It punched above its weight. The party worked on the wrong assumption that since it has more numbers compared to the other coalition partners except the ANC, it will determine the final decision on the budget vote. The DA did not bother even to lobby other coalition partners. This has backfired.
The ANC knew that unlike in previous administrations, this time it did not have enough numbers to push its position through. When it realised that the DA was determined to vote differently, the leadership of the ANC was proactive. It held discussions with other political parties and appealed to them to support the budget. Meanwhile, the DA remained unfazed. It was prepared to vote with the EFF and the MKP – the parties it despised and was ready to work with the ANC to avoid what it called a ‘Doomsday Coalition.”
Intriguingly, ActionSA decided to work with the ANC. Other parties like Al-Jamah, BOSA, Good Party the IFP, PA, PAC, RiseMzansi and UDM voted with the ANC. That is how 194 MPs voted in favour of the budget while 182 voted against it.
This development left the DA confused. Its immediate response was to announce that it would convene an urgent meeting of its Federal Council to review the party’s continued membership in the coalition government. Secondly, it resolved to take legal action against a government it is part of. Thirdly, after calming down and considering the possible loss of cabinet positions, the party stated that it was still determined to remain in the coalition government.
On its end, the ANC also convened a meeting of its top 7 and the National Working Committee (NWC) to discuss the DA’s behaviour. Such developments pitted the two parties against each other.
This triggers two pertinent questions. The first question is: ‘is South Africa ready for coalition politics at national level? The second question becomes: ‘would an early election rescue South Africa from this conundrum?
The answer to the first question is an emphatic no! Both the ANC and the DA have no idea how coalition politics work. They are not knowledgeable on how to run and sustain a coalition government. There is a hangover of ‘governing party’ status and the ‘official opposition’ tag. This makes other coalition partners feel sidelined.
On the second question, an early election would work provided it is preceded by political education to both politicians and the electorate. Given the number of political parties currently registered with the IEC, and given the possibility that new parties will emerge, chances of having a single political party obtaining an outright majority are almost non-existent.
Therefore, South Africa must consider two options. The first one is to draw lessons from other countries which have sustained coalitions and work on sustainable coalitions. The second option is to amend Chapter 2, Sec 19, sub-section 1 (a) of the constitution and put a ceiling on the number of political parties.
* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.