There can be no question that the 2024 elections saw political parties drive voter choice with tactics of identity and fear. Parties that grew in support were those who mobilized around ideas like switching off the life support machines at Raheema Moosa Hospital, sending young pregnant women to Robben Island or the gewaar tactics reminiscent of politics of the past.
Many South Africans have adopted the view that the crisis of what has been avoided alone should engender a national appreciation for this grand coalition government that has emerged. The problem with this thinking, is that it serves politicians who derive public appreciation for, quite literally, breathing rather than doing anything that delivers change in any one of the many pressing challenges that confront South Africans daily.
Even in the immediate wake of the elections, as South Africans contemplate a world of a grand coalition between the ANC and the DA (with other parties unable to resist the trappings of power), there has been almost zero critical analysis of this new government. One major news outlet this week led with the headline; “While Schreiber Wants to Bring Dignity to Home Affairs Xenophobia Rears its Ugly Head in Budget Debate.” This is the headline of a publicist, not a serious news outlet.
The problem with cheerleading this new government based solely on what has been avoided as a country is that the history of South Africa, and indeed the world, has revealed in technicolour detail, that when politicians are not under public critical scrutiny to deliver – they don’t.
This government cannot rely on being measured over the next five years by what it avoided, but rather in terms of what it delivers. And the delivery scoreboard, at least in its headline form, is not too difficult to imagine; are South Africans more employed, less unequal, more safe and living under a less corrupt government that is reforming government to be more effective?
While there have undoubtedly been some positive murmurings arising from this grand coalition government, and credit must be given where it is due, there have already been some concerning indications that this grand coalition may really be a continuation of the same ANC governance that was voted out in this election.
The negotiations were the first indication of concern. Talks were shrouded in secrecy and the only transparency arose when parties selectively leaked one document after the next to gain advantage. Even as it stands today, no clarity has emerged from the grand coalition’s policy lekgotla in terms of how strikingly different policy positions and South Africans have not been deemed worthy of this information. It also appears there were terms to the negotiated agreements that do not form part of published documents – as Helen Zille revealed that talks included the premeditated defence of the President on the Phala Phala matter.
This particular point should be a massive red flag to a country reeling from decades of majorities used to stop accountability of political leaders who break the law. Just 12 months ago many of the ANC’s newfound coalition partners were calling the report of the Public Protector “a whitewash” and likening the Phala Phala scandal to Nkandla. This week the DA affirmed that they will not support accountability measures on this matter because “Phala Phala pales into insignificance in the light of the Mathodzi affidavit [VBS matter].” This is the first sign of the slippery slope of coalition partners contemplating their newfound perks of office when they argue that accountability should not be directed to their coalition partner on the grounds that political leaders of a party outside of your coalition may have perpetrated a worse crime.
Consider next the presentation of a cabinet of 75 members, the largest in the history of democratic South Africa. Every party in the grand coalition has previously stood up in Parliament and spoken of the need to reduce one of the most bloated cabinets in the world, however when the dispensing of positions (with the associated perks) was required for their benefit, such prior commitments vaporized. The problem is that the largest cabinet in our history sends a message throughout government that it is business as usual at a time where change is contingent upon altering the practice and ethos of government.
The budget votes this week were telling in and of themselves given that this was the first opportunity for this new government to align funding to its strategic priorities. Put differently, budgets reflect priorities. The budget for Home Affairs was cut in the context of an election campaign where many parties in the grand coalition campaigned on immigration reform. The budget for the Police grew only because of increases to VIP policing (largest cabinet in history) and administration. An additional R156 million in Justice was taken from Agriculture and Land Reform to Legal Aid to the defense of people charged with crimes rather than to improve the prosecution rate. Despite even the strong signals of increased support to the arts from the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, this budget is reduced despite being previously inadequate.
South Africans labour under the increasing weight of unemployment, slow economic growth, crime, corruption and bad, bloated government. This 7th administration cannot rely much longer on the appreciation of South Africans that a ‘doomsday coalition’ has been avoided. Rather, it must be assessed on what it does to deliver real change in the lived realities of South Africans. Based objectively on this, and this alone, the grand coalition appears to be continuing where the ANC left off.
Doomsday Talk Must Make Way For Delivery
There can be no question that the 2024 elections saw political parties drive voter choice with tactics of identity and fear. Parties that grew in support were those who mobilized around ideas like switching off the life support machines at Raheema Moosa Hospital, sending young pregnant women to Robben Island or the gewaar tactics reminiscent of politics of the past.
Many South Africans have adopted the view that the crisis of what has been avoided alone should engender a national appreciation for this grand coalition government that has emerged. The problem with this thinking, is that it serves politicians who derive public appreciation for, quite literally, breathing rather than doing anything that delivers change in any one of the many pressing challenges that confront South Africans daily.
Even in the immediate wake of the elections, as South Africans contemplate a world of a grand coalition between the ANC and the DA (with other parties unable to resist the trappings of power), there has been almost zero critical analysis of this new government. One major news outlet this week led with the headline; “While Schreiber Wants to Bring Dignity to Home Affairs Xenophobia Rears its Ugly Head in Budget Debate.” This is the headline of a publicist, not a serious news outlet.
The problem with cheerleading this new government based solely on what has been avoided as a country is that the history of South Africa, and indeed the world, has revealed in technicolour detail, that when politicians are not under public critical scrutiny to deliver – they don’t.
This government cannot rely on being measured over the next five years by what it avoided, but rather in terms of what it delivers. And the delivery scoreboard, at least in its headline form, is not too difficult to imagine; are South Africans more employed, less unequal, more safe and living under a less corrupt government that is reforming government to be more effective?
While there have undoubtedly been some positive murmurings arising from this grand coalition government, and credit must be given where it is due, there have already been some concerning indications that this grand coalition may really be a continuation of the same ANC governance that was voted out in this election.
The negotiations were the first indication of concern. Talks were shrouded in secrecy and the only transparency arose when parties selectively leaked one document after the next to gain advantage. Even as it stands today, no clarity has emerged from the grand coalition’s policy lekgotla in terms of how strikingly different policy positions and South Africans have not been deemed worthy of this information. It also appears there were terms to the negotiated agreements that do not form part of published documents – as Helen Zille revealed that talks included the premeditated defence of the President on the Phala Phala matter.
This particular point should be a massive red flag to a country reeling from decades of majorities used to stop accountability of political leaders who break the law. Just 12 months ago many of the ANC’s newfound coalition partners were calling the report of the Public Protector “a whitewash” and likening the Phala Phala scandal to Nkandla. This week the DA affirmed that they will not support accountability measures on this matter because “Phala Phala pales into insignificance in the light of the Mathodzi affidavit [VBS matter].” This is the first sign of the slippery slope of coalition partners contemplating their newfound perks of office when they argue that accountability should not be directed to their coalition partner on the grounds that political leaders of a party outside of your coalition may have perpetrated a worse crime.
Consider next the presentation of a cabinet of 75 members, the largest in the history of democratic South Africa. Every party in the grand coalition has previously stood up in Parliament and spoken of the need to reduce one of the most bloated cabinets in the world, however when the dispensing of positions (with the associated perks) was required for their benefit, such prior commitments vaporized. The problem is that the largest cabinet in our history sends a message throughout government that it is business as usual at a time where change is contingent upon altering the practice and ethos of government.
The budget votes this week were telling in and of themselves given that this was the first opportunity for this new government to align funding to its strategic priorities. Put differently, budgets reflect priorities. The budget for Home Affairs was cut in the context of an election campaign where many parties in the grand coalition campaigned on immigration reform. The budget for the Police grew only because of increases to VIP policing (largest cabinet in history) and administration. An additional R156 million in Justice was taken from Agriculture and Land Reform to Legal Aid to the defense of people charged with crimes rather than to improve the prosecution rate. Despite even the strong signals of increased support to the arts from the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, this budget is reduced despite being previously inadequate.
South Africans labour under the increasing weight of unemployment, slow economic growth, crime, corruption and bad, bloated government. This 7th administration cannot rely much longer on the appreciation of South Africans that a ‘doomsday coalition’ has been avoided. Rather, it must be assessed on what it does to deliver real change in the lived realities of South Africans. Based objectively on this, and this alone, the grand coalition appears to be continuing where the ANC left off.