South Africa’s greatest democratic test may not be whether we can elect governments, but whether we are willing to remove them when they fail.
That is why removing the African National Congress (ANC) from government matters.
This is not simply about which political party occupies the government benches. It is about establishing a fundamental principle of our democracy. No political party owns government, and no political party is entitled to the people’s vote. The people do.
For three decades, South Africans have witnessed the consequences of prolonged political dominance. We have seen corruption, State Capture, failing municipalities, deteriorating infrastructure, unemployment, crime, unreliable electricity and water services, declining public institutions and the waste and abuse of public resources.
These are not merely statistics or political talking points. They affect whether a child can attend a functioning school, whether a business can operate, whether a family has reliable electricity and water, whether a municipality can collect refuse and maintain roads, and whether citizens can have confidence that their government is capable of delivering the most basic services.
But the deeper question is what happens to a democracy when a governing party becomes so accustomed to power that losing power begins to appear almost unimaginable.
Democracy requires consequences. An electoral mandate is not a permanent entitlement. Political power is entrusted to those elected to exercise it, and that trust must be continually earned through competent, ethicaland accountable government.
Elections therefore serve two purposes. They allow citizens to choose who should govern, but they also give citizens the power to withdraw their confidence from those who have failed. That principle must apply to the ANC.
South Africa must also be mature enough to distinguish between history and contemporary political performance.
The ANC’s role in the struggle against apartheid and in the establishment of our democratic order is an important part of South Africa’s history. That history should neither be denied nor diminished.
But the sacrifices of previous generations cannot become a permanent governing mandate for subsequentgenerations.
The democratic settlement of 1994 gave South Africans something profoundly important: the right to choose their government. That right includes the right to change it.
Respecting the ANC’s historical contribution does not require South Africans to support the party indefinitely. In the same way, acknowledging the achievements of any political organisation does not mean citizens must ignore its failures.
A mature democracy must be able to say: We respect what you did, but we are judging you on what you are doing now. This is particularly important when we consider accountability.
A constitutional democracy cannot function if political loyalty becomes more important than the Constitution, Parliament, independent institutions, or the public interest. The questions raised by matters such as the Phala Phala saga demonstrate why institutions must be able to scrutinise those entrusted with the highest offices in the land.
The lesson should not be about which political faction one supports. It should be much bigger than that. Accountability must apply to everyone.
The same principle applies to the failures exposed by State Capture and the broader erosion of state capacity. The Zondo Commission laid bare the extent to which public institutions and state-owned enterprises could be compromised by political influence, corruption and private interests.
The consequences are ultimately paid by ordinary South Africans.
Every rand lost through corruption is a rand that cannot be invested in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, electricity, water or public safety. Every compromised institution makes it harder for the state to perform its constitutional responsibilities. Every procurement process manipulated for private benefit undermines public confidence. And every time political loyalty is placed above accountability, democracy itself is weakened.
We must also be honest about the basic functions of a sovereign state.
A government must know who is entering and leaving the country, must be able to administer its borders effectively, must know who is legally entitled to remain in South Africa and must enforce its laws fairly and consistently.
This is not an argument against migration. Nor is it an argument against people who come to South Africa seeking safety, opportunity or a better life. It is an argument for a capable state.
A government that does not have reliable information, functioning institutions and the capacity to enforce its own laws cannot effectively plan for public services, infrastructure, employment, security or economic growth.
State capacity is not an ideological luxury. It is a basic requirement of responsible government. But removing the ANC must never mean simply replacing one permanent political establishment with another.
That would miss the point entirely.
Today, the argument is about the ANC. Tomorrow, it may be about another political party. That is precisely how democracy should work.
South Africans should never regard their political affiliation as a permanent obligation. There should be nothing unusual about a citizen saying: I supported you before, but I no longer believe you are serving my interests. There should be nothing contradictory about voting for one party in one election and another party in the next.
Political parties are vehicles through which citizens organise themselves to pursue political objectives. They are not the owners of the electorate. Our deepest loyalty must therefore be to the Constitution, democratic principles, our communities and the future of South Africa not to a political party. And this principle must apply to all political parties as well.
If another party assumes power and fails, citizens must have exactly the same right to remove that party. Our objective should not be to create another political organisation that becomes permanently entrenched in government. Our objective should be to establish a political culture in which every party understands that it must continually earn the confidence of the people.
This is perhaps the deeper significance of removing the ANC.
It would demonstrate that no political organisation, regardless of its history, size or influence, is bigger than the electorate. It would remind political parties that government is not an entitlement. It is a responsibility. And it would remind politicians that the authority to govern does not belong to them. It belongs to the people.
South Africa does not need permanent political loyalties. It needs permanent democratic principles.
We must be able to respect our history while demanding a better future. We must be able to acknowledge past contributions while honestly evaluating present performance. And we must be able to support political parties without surrendering our independent judgement to them.
Ultimately, South Africa does not belong permanently to the ANC, ActionSA, the DA, the EFF or any other political party.
South Africa belongs to its people.
Political parties come and go. Governments change. Leaders are replaced. Political fortunes rise and fall. What must remain constant is the principle that those entrusted with public power must remain accountable to the people who gave them that power.
Removing the ANC, therefore, is not simply about removing one political party from government. It is about affirming a democratic principle that must apply to every party that seeks to govern.
No party is entitled to the people’s vote. Every party must earn it.
Why Removing the African National Congress Matters
South Africa’s greatest democratic test may not be whether we can elect governments, but whether we are willing to remove them when they fail.
That is why removing the African National Congress (ANC) from government matters.
This is not simply about which political party occupies the government benches. It is about establishing a fundamental principle of our democracy. No political party owns government, and no political party is entitled to the people’s vote. The people do.
For three decades, South Africans have witnessed the consequences of prolonged political dominance. We have seen corruption, State Capture, failing municipalities, deteriorating infrastructure, unemployment, crime, unreliable electricity and water services, declining public institutions and the waste and abuse of public resources.
These are not merely statistics or political talking points. They affect whether a child can attend a functioning school, whether a business can operate, whether a family has reliable electricity and water, whether a municipality can collect refuse and maintain roads, and whether citizens can have confidence that their government is capable of delivering the most basic services.
But the deeper question is what happens to a democracy when a governing party becomes so accustomed to power that losing power begins to appear almost unimaginable.
Democracy requires consequences. An electoral mandate is not a permanent entitlement. Political power is entrusted to those elected to exercise it, and that trust must be continually earned through competent, ethicaland accountable government.
Elections therefore serve two purposes. They allow citizens to choose who should govern, but they also give citizens the power to withdraw their confidence from those who have failed. That principle must apply to the ANC.
South Africa must also be mature enough to distinguish between history and contemporary political performance.
The ANC’s role in the struggle against apartheid and in the establishment of our democratic order is an important part of South Africa’s history. That history should neither be denied nor diminished.
But the sacrifices of previous generations cannot become a permanent governing mandate for subsequentgenerations.
The democratic settlement of 1994 gave South Africans something profoundly important: the right to choose their government. That right includes the right to change it.
Respecting the ANC’s historical contribution does not require South Africans to support the party indefinitely. In the same way, acknowledging the achievements of any political organisation does not mean citizens must ignore its failures.
A mature democracy must be able to say: We respect what you did, but we are judging you on what you are doing now. This is particularly important when we consider accountability.
A constitutional democracy cannot function if political loyalty becomes more important than the Constitution, Parliament, independent institutions, or the public interest. The questions raised by matters such as the Phala Phala saga demonstrate why institutions must be able to scrutinise those entrusted with the highest offices in the land.
The lesson should not be about which political faction one supports. It should be much bigger than that. Accountability must apply to everyone.
The same principle applies to the failures exposed by State Capture and the broader erosion of state capacity. The Zondo Commission laid bare the extent to which public institutions and state-owned enterprises could be compromised by political influence, corruption and private interests.
The consequences are ultimately paid by ordinary South Africans.
Every rand lost through corruption is a rand that cannot be invested in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, electricity, water or public safety. Every compromised institution makes it harder for the state to perform its constitutional responsibilities. Every procurement process manipulated for private benefit undermines public confidence. And every time political loyalty is placed above accountability, democracy itself is weakened.
We must also be honest about the basic functions of a sovereign state.
A government must know who is entering and leaving the country, must be able to administer its borders effectively, must know who is legally entitled to remain in South Africa and must enforce its laws fairly and consistently.
This is not an argument against migration. Nor is it an argument against people who come to South Africa seeking safety, opportunity or a better life. It is an argument for a capable state.
A government that does not have reliable information, functioning institutions and the capacity to enforce its own laws cannot effectively plan for public services, infrastructure, employment, security or economic growth.
State capacity is not an ideological luxury. It is a basic requirement of responsible government. But removing the ANC must never mean simply replacing one permanent political establishment with another.
That would miss the point entirely.
Today, the argument is about the ANC. Tomorrow, it may be about another political party. That is precisely how democracy should work.
South Africans should never regard their political affiliation as a permanent obligation. There should be nothing unusual about a citizen saying: I supported you before, but I no longer believe you are serving my interests. There should be nothing contradictory about voting for one party in one election and another party in the next.
Political parties are vehicles through which citizens organise themselves to pursue political objectives. They are not the owners of the electorate. Our deepest loyalty must therefore be to the Constitution, democratic principles, our communities and the future of South Africa not to a political party. And this principle must apply to all political parties as well.
If another party assumes power and fails, citizens must have exactly the same right to remove that party. Our objective should not be to create another political organisation that becomes permanently entrenched in government. Our objective should be to establish a political culture in which every party understands that it must continually earn the confidence of the people.
This is perhaps the deeper significance of removing the ANC.
It would demonstrate that no political organisation, regardless of its history, size or influence, is bigger than the electorate. It would remind political parties that government is not an entitlement. It is a responsibility. And it would remind politicians that the authority to govern does not belong to them. It belongs to the people.
South Africa does not need permanent political loyalties. It needs permanent democratic principles.
We must be able to respect our history while demanding a better future. We must be able to acknowledge past contributions while honestly evaluating present performance. And we must be able to support political parties without surrendering our independent judgement to them.
Ultimately, South Africa does not belong permanently to the ANC, ActionSA, the DA, the EFF or any other political party.
South Africa belongs to its people.
Political parties come and go. Governments change. Leaders are replaced. Political fortunes rise and fall. What must remain constant is the principle that those entrusted with public power must remain accountable to the people who gave them that power.
Removing the ANC, therefore, is not simply about removing one political party from government. It is about affirming a democratic principle that must apply to every party that seeks to govern.
No party is entitled to the people’s vote. Every party must earn it.