ActionSA is quite aware of the many questions that often get asked, and issues raised, by supporters, observers, critics, and others. These questions and issues often get brought-up following steps taken by ActionSA or some of its leaders, including the party’s President, Herman Mashaba.
As a political party operating in a highly contested environment, we welcome public interest in what we do, especially when such interest is communicated constructively, even with ‘tough love’, because we know that many people would like to:
1. See us remain firm and consistent on the founding principles that attracted many South Africans to us,
2. See us stand apart from other parties, especially the more established ones that have failed to live up to expectations and that have even betrayed their members and followers, and
3. See us succeed in introducing an alternative leadership approach to all levels of governance in South Africa.
The following issues come up often:
1. Why did Herman Mashaba resign as Mayor of Johannesburg in 2019?
It is on record, and can be verified through a simple online search, that Herman Mashaba decided to resign from his mayoral position in Johannesburg after it was brought to his attention that the DA, of which he was Mayor, had surreptitiously approached the ANC with a proposal to institute a vote of no confidence in him. This was in response to his seeming cordial relationship with the EFF, whose votes he needed to pass budgets and other key decisions in Council. It must be remembered that Mashaba led a minority coalition government with several other parties and that, to get things done, he required the support of the EFF. This meant that he had to give some in return for some, as is the norm in coalition governments all over the world.
The EFF had adopted an “issue-by-issue” approach to its relationship with other parties in the municipal government, including the DA. This meant that each Council matter that came up needed support by several parties so that it could garner enough votes to pass. It is on this basis that Mashaba got to accept that it was best to work in the best harmony possible with all opposition parties, including the EFF; else governance would be crippled.
The decision by the DA to go behind Mashaba’s back and discuss his possible ouster with the ANC was confirmed by Helen Zille, leader of the DA’s Federal Council, in a subsequent SABC News interview.
2. Why did ActionSA leave the Multiparty Charter (MPC) after the 2024 general elections?
It is on record that parties in the MPC had agreed that at the core of their mission was to defeat the ANC and remove it from power. None of them were to go into any pre-electoral discussions with the ANC to discuss possible post-electoral coalitions. Despite this agreement, the DA continued to have such discussions with the ANC even after being asked by its MPC partners to stop doing this. ActionSA left the MPC as soon as it became clear that the DA was double dealing by saying one thing to its partners and doing the exact opposite. ActionSA was also becoming weary of the fact that remaining in the MPC while the DA behaved as described would upset its supporters.
3. Why did ActionSA reverse its 18-month support of former DA Mayor for Tshwane, Cilliers Brink, vote for his ousting, and subsequently form a coalition with the ANC and the EFF in the Tshwane Metro?
Many will remember that the Tshwane Metro betrayal by the DA was its third strike against, first, Herman Mashaba, then ActionSA, following the two explained above. Those who follow local government politics will also remember that there would never have been a Mayor Cilliers Brink without the support of ActionSA, which supported his election as Tshwane Mayor. The thinking at the time, well before the 2024 general elections, was still that the DA was the least of the devils and that working with it would ensure cleaner and more caring local governance in Tshwane. It was also expected that as Tshwane Mayor, Brink would ensure that services get delivered to all Tshwane communities, especially mindful of the historical backlogs, as well as the neglect and abuses of the 2-3 decades, mostly under ANC misgovernance. In hindsight, this was a big mistake.
As was the case in Johannesburg, it was reliably brought to the attention of ActionSA that comfortable with its relationship with the ANC at national level – as part of the Government of National Unity (GNU) – the DA had, again, approached the ANC with a view to also co-governing together at local level. This would mean removing ActionSA from Tshwane in favour of a DA-ANC government. It seems like what the DA underestimated this time around was the gulf that sat between ANC National, under President Ramaphosa, and ANC Provincial, under Premier Panyaza Lesufi, as well as the latter’s distrust of and disdain for the DA. The ANC in Gauteng simply did not like the way the DA was known to operate, particularly its known tendency to be arrogant and to treat its coalition partners with disrespect, often as if they were little boys and girls.
ActionSA simply took the information brought to its attention seriously and decided to withdraw its 18-month support from the DA Mayor in Tshwane. It made it clear from the onset that it would support the ANC’s announced vote of no confidence in Mayor Brink in exchange for a bigger role and opportunity for ActionSA to lead a local government and demonstrate its proposed alternative governance approach to a local municipality. Its only conditions were that an ActionSA Mayor would be proposed and that the party would be allocated some key mayoral committee positions without which any participation in the local government would not serve any purpose.
In any case, given the level of voter support held by all the parties, with none in a position to govern alone, there would never have been a government in Tshwane without votes from ActionSA. Had it abstained from voting, it would have triggered the placement of Tshwane under administration. ActionSA had to choose between voting for a DA-led government or one led by it, in coalition with the ANC and the EFF. Given the above-described experience of the DA, it was no brainer that it went the way it did.
So, in summary: 1) the DA went behind its backer, ActionSA, to discuss the latter’s possible removal from government, 2) the DA misunderstood the political dynamics within the ANC and, 3) ActionSA could not, reasonably, be a sitting duck waiting to be stabbed in the back. It did what any reasonable party would do and pre-empted what would have been a politically fatal attack on it by acting first.
Finally, no one can deny that in ActionSA Tshwane Mayor, Dr Nasiphi Moya, ActionSA is already demonstrating without any doubt that there is another way to govern, in South Africa, by placing the interests of all communities at the center of government decision-making and action, and while working constructively with coalition partners, mindful that they too were elected by the voters.
4. Why has ActionSA moved from its plan to remove the ANC from power to working with it?
Contrary to suspicions in some quarters, ActionSA does not, and will not, participate in any coalition government to seek friends or love from other parties. It does so to serve the people of South Africa. To get into government, it will not compromise its founding values and principles, such as considering corruption as Public Enemy #1 and refusing to shield corrupt acts and individuals. It also stands resolutely for non-racialism.
Being in any coalition follows the dictate of the electorate, which did not give any one-party sufficient majority to govern on its own. We therefore do not enter any coalition space blindly, like we did in the past. We do so having clearly considered our chances of making a difference and made our principle-based conditions clear. It is for this reason that we have opted to remain outside of the GNU, at national level, even when parties that obtained far less voter support than us rushed in, seemingly just to occupy cushy government positions and help deliver ANC policies. We could have been in the GNU, and Herman Mashaba would have been an MP in parliament, but we chose not to go that route. ActionSA is not driven and motivated by greed.
In addition, we find it strange that many seem to see nothing wrong with the DA and other parties working with the ANC – given the latter’s role in South African affairs over the past three decades – yet they find it unacceptable for ActionSA to collaborate with it in places where we believe we can add governance sanity, especially mindful of the 2024 electoral turn out.
5. Does Herman Mashaba get paid by the party or government?
As stated above, Herman Mashaba does not receive a salary from any level of government or from ActionSA. He is, instead, one of the party’s biggest funders. He also funds many other social causes from his family’s coffers, many of which he never even publicly talks about. Amongst the known causes that he supports and is passionate about are the funding of several university students and the drive for the retrieval of the container that sank with three mine workers at Lilly Mine. Led by him, ActionSA has also supported many of the families who lost children following poisoning by food purchased from rogue spaza shops.
It was mischievous of the DA to run a malicious campaign, several months ago, which was clearly intended to damage Mashaba’s reputation by depicting him as a greedy politician who was out only to get the money for himself. Understandably, this constituted an insult Mashaba was unprepared to countenance.
Mashaba’s track record as a businessman is, arguably, the most transparent of all known businesspeople in South Africa, particularly those who are active in politics. His story to success has been spoken about in reels of media coverage and through several books. To this day, he gets invited to address students at many reputable Business Schools across the world to tell his story. Unlike those who obtained their wealth through hard political connections that opened vast tender and questionable public purse funding doors to them, he obtained his wealth through sheer hard work. It is a reputation he has worked hard to build. It is a reputation he has all the reasons to work hard to protect because everything he does is anchored on it.
In conclusion, ActionSA remains open to engaging all South Africans and to be engaged by them. It is also open to fair, honest, even harsh scrutiny and, if needs be, criticism, because these are some of the drivers of political engagement. But it cannot be expected to sit by and not defend itself and its leaders against malicious campaigns by individuals and groups who, having run out of facts and sound arguments, see it fit to resort to slander.
Here are useful links to relevant facts as outlined:
https://www.actionsa.org.za/actionsas-reason-to-cease-working-with-former-coalition-partners-in-the-city-of-tshwane/
https://x.com/HermanMashaba/status/1594223473496567808
https://www.actionsa.org.za/the-facts-tell-a-different-story-about-tshwane/
Responding To Often-Raised Issues
ActionSA is quite aware of the many questions that often get asked, and issues raised, by supporters, observers, critics, and others. These questions and issues often get brought-up following steps taken by ActionSA or some of its leaders, including the party’s President, Herman Mashaba.
As a political party operating in a highly contested environment, we welcome public interest in what we do, especially when such interest is communicated constructively, even with ‘tough love’, because we know that many people would like to:
1. See us remain firm and consistent on the founding principles that attracted many South Africans to us,
2. See us stand apart from other parties, especially the more established ones that have failed to live up to expectations and that have even betrayed their members and followers, and
3. See us succeed in introducing an alternative leadership approach to all levels of governance in South Africa.
The following issues come up often:
1. Why did Herman Mashaba resign as Mayor of Johannesburg in 2019?
It is on record, and can be verified through a simple online search, that Herman Mashaba decided to resign from his mayoral position in Johannesburg after it was brought to his attention that the DA, of which he was Mayor, had surreptitiously approached the ANC with a proposal to institute a vote of no confidence in him. This was in response to his seeming cordial relationship with the EFF, whose votes he needed to pass budgets and other key decisions in Council. It must be remembered that Mashaba led a minority coalition government with several other parties and that, to get things done, he required the support of the EFF. This meant that he had to give some in return for some, as is the norm in coalition governments all over the world.
The EFF had adopted an “issue-by-issue” approach to its relationship with other parties in the municipal government, including the DA. This meant that each Council matter that came up needed support by several parties so that it could garner enough votes to pass. It is on this basis that Mashaba got to accept that it was best to work in the best harmony possible with all opposition parties, including the EFF; else governance would be crippled.
The decision by the DA to go behind Mashaba’s back and discuss his possible ouster with the ANC was confirmed by Helen Zille, leader of the DA’s Federal Council, in a subsequent SABC News interview.
2. Why did ActionSA leave the Multiparty Charter (MPC) after the 2024 general elections?
It is on record that parties in the MPC had agreed that at the core of their mission was to defeat the ANC and remove it from power. None of them were to go into any pre-electoral discussions with the ANC to discuss possible post-electoral coalitions. Despite this agreement, the DA continued to have such discussions with the ANC even after being asked by its MPC partners to stop doing this. ActionSA left the MPC as soon as it became clear that the DA was double dealing by saying one thing to its partners and doing the exact opposite. ActionSA was also becoming weary of the fact that remaining in the MPC while the DA behaved as described would upset its supporters.
3. Why did ActionSA reverse its 18-month support of former DA Mayor for Tshwane, Cilliers Brink, vote for his ousting, and subsequently form a coalition with the ANC and the EFF in the Tshwane Metro?
Many will remember that the Tshwane Metro betrayal by the DA was its third strike against, first, Herman Mashaba, then ActionSA, following the two explained above. Those who follow local government politics will also remember that there would never have been a Mayor Cilliers Brink without the support of ActionSA, which supported his election as Tshwane Mayor. The thinking at the time, well before the 2024 general elections, was still that the DA was the least of the devils and that working with it would ensure cleaner and more caring local governance in Tshwane. It was also expected that as Tshwane Mayor, Brink would ensure that services get delivered to all Tshwane communities, especially mindful of the historical backlogs, as well as the neglect and abuses of the 2-3 decades, mostly under ANC misgovernance. In hindsight, this was a big mistake.
As was the case in Johannesburg, it was reliably brought to the attention of ActionSA that comfortable with its relationship with the ANC at national level – as part of the Government of National Unity (GNU) – the DA had, again, approached the ANC with a view to also co-governing together at local level. This would mean removing ActionSA from Tshwane in favour of a DA-ANC government. It seems like what the DA underestimated this time around was the gulf that sat between ANC National, under President Ramaphosa, and ANC Provincial, under Premier Panyaza Lesufi, as well as the latter’s distrust of and disdain for the DA. The ANC in Gauteng simply did not like the way the DA was known to operate, particularly its known tendency to be arrogant and to treat its coalition partners with disrespect, often as if they were little boys and girls.
ActionSA simply took the information brought to its attention seriously and decided to withdraw its 18-month support from the DA Mayor in Tshwane. It made it clear from the onset that it would support the ANC’s announced vote of no confidence in Mayor Brink in exchange for a bigger role and opportunity for ActionSA to lead a local government and demonstrate its proposed alternative governance approach to a local municipality. Its only conditions were that an ActionSA Mayor would be proposed and that the party would be allocated some key mayoral committee positions without which any participation in the local government would not serve any purpose.
In any case, given the level of voter support held by all the parties, with none in a position to govern alone, there would never have been a government in Tshwane without votes from ActionSA. Had it abstained from voting, it would have triggered the placement of Tshwane under administration. ActionSA had to choose between voting for a DA-led government or one led by it, in coalition with the ANC and the EFF. Given the above-described experience of the DA, it was no brainer that it went the way it did.
So, in summary: 1) the DA went behind its backer, ActionSA, to discuss the latter’s possible removal from government, 2) the DA misunderstood the political dynamics within the ANC and, 3) ActionSA could not, reasonably, be a sitting duck waiting to be stabbed in the back. It did what any reasonable party would do and pre-empted what would have been a politically fatal attack on it by acting first.
Finally, no one can deny that in ActionSA Tshwane Mayor, Dr Nasiphi Moya, ActionSA is already demonstrating without any doubt that there is another way to govern, in South Africa, by placing the interests of all communities at the center of government decision-making and action, and while working constructively with coalition partners, mindful that they too were elected by the voters.
4. Why has ActionSA moved from its plan to remove the ANC from power to working with it?
Contrary to suspicions in some quarters, ActionSA does not, and will not, participate in any coalition government to seek friends or love from other parties. It does so to serve the people of South Africa. To get into government, it will not compromise its founding values and principles, such as considering corruption as Public Enemy #1 and refusing to shield corrupt acts and individuals. It also stands resolutely for non-racialism.
Being in any coalition follows the dictate of the electorate, which did not give any one-party sufficient majority to govern on its own. We therefore do not enter any coalition space blindly, like we did in the past. We do so having clearly considered our chances of making a difference and made our principle-based conditions clear. It is for this reason that we have opted to remain outside of the GNU, at national level, even when parties that obtained far less voter support than us rushed in, seemingly just to occupy cushy government positions and help deliver ANC policies. We could have been in the GNU, and Herman Mashaba would have been an MP in parliament, but we chose not to go that route. ActionSA is not driven and motivated by greed.
In addition, we find it strange that many seem to see nothing wrong with the DA and other parties working with the ANC – given the latter’s role in South African affairs over the past three decades – yet they find it unacceptable for ActionSA to collaborate with it in places where we believe we can add governance sanity, especially mindful of the 2024 electoral turn out.
5. Does Herman Mashaba get paid by the party or government?
As stated above, Herman Mashaba does not receive a salary from any level of government or from ActionSA. He is, instead, one of the party’s biggest funders. He also funds many other social causes from his family’s coffers, many of which he never even publicly talks about. Amongst the known causes that he supports and is passionate about are the funding of several university students and the drive for the retrieval of the container that sank with three mine workers at Lilly Mine. Led by him, ActionSA has also supported many of the families who lost children following poisoning by food purchased from rogue spaza shops.
It was mischievous of the DA to run a malicious campaign, several months ago, which was clearly intended to damage Mashaba’s reputation by depicting him as a greedy politician who was out only to get the money for himself. Understandably, this constituted an insult Mashaba was unprepared to countenance.
Mashaba’s track record as a businessman is, arguably, the most transparent of all known businesspeople in South Africa, particularly those who are active in politics. His story to success has been spoken about in reels of media coverage and through several books. To this day, he gets invited to address students at many reputable Business Schools across the world to tell his story. Unlike those who obtained their wealth through hard political connections that opened vast tender and questionable public purse funding doors to them, he obtained his wealth through sheer hard work. It is a reputation he has worked hard to build. It is a reputation he has all the reasons to work hard to protect because everything he does is anchored on it.
In conclusion, ActionSA remains open to engaging all South Africans and to be engaged by them. It is also open to fair, honest, even harsh scrutiny and, if needs be, criticism, because these are some of the drivers of political engagement. But it cannot be expected to sit by and not defend itself and its leaders against malicious campaigns by individuals and groups who, having run out of facts and sound arguments, see it fit to resort to slander.
Here are useful links to relevant facts as outlined:
https://www.actionsa.org.za/actionsas-reason-to-cease-working-with-former-coalition-partners-in-the-city-of-tshwane/
https://x.com/HermanMashaba/status/1594223473496567808
https://www.actionsa.org.za/the-facts-tell-a-different-story-about-tshwane/