Democratic Alliance interim leader John Steenhuisen, and DA KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislation member Mbali Ntuli. (Photos: Gallo Images / Ziyaad Douglas | Gallo Images / Misha Jordaan) 
The issue itself is likely to shine a spotlight on to many dynamics in our society, simply because it is so rare to see leaders debate each other in a controlled setting (Parliament’s shouting matches mostly don’t count). And the way this plays out may well demonstrate how in these times a debate is not intended to change minds, but merely to shore up a base of voters.
It is generally assumed that Steenhuisen is the front-runner to be formally elected as the DA’s new leader when the conference finally happens. He has control of some of the party machinery, more experience, and has been the face of the party during the Covid-19 pandemic. Vitally, he is known for his performances in Parliament, where he played a key role in trying to hold former president Jacob Zuma to account.
Ntuli, on the other hand, is the challenger, the real outsider. Not only is she black while he is white, she is also a younger voice, representing the yet-to-be influential wing of the party.
It is impossible to ignore the importance of racial dynamics here. If Steenhuisen wins, the ANC and the EFF will use his race against him. If Ntuli wins, this weapon will fall away to an extent. Some of the recent growth of the DA can be attributed to the fact that it was harder to attack Mmusi Maimane than it was to attack Helen Zille.
So far, the argument about whether there should be a leadership debate has followed the normal lines. If you believe you will win a leadership contest it is much riskier to take part in a debate, while if you think you are behind in the contest, a debate is a good opportunity for gaining support.
Thus, even before the racial dynamic is considered, Steenhuisen would probably be well-advised to avoid a debate, if possible. He simply has nothing to win and so much to lose.
He is, of course, vulnerable to a debate on the issue of race. Ntuli could easily win support by pointing out that he benefited from apartheid while she and her family did not. It is also easy to make a political misstep, to say something controversial or that many people disagree with. The reason why the DA has so many arguments about the issue of race-based redress is because its members have wildly differing views on the subject. And Ntuli would surely push Steenhuisen for a straight and unambiguous response, on live TV.
If she were to damage him in the debate, but he were to win the leadership campaign anyway, the ANC could then use the clip against the entire party for years to come.
That said, it could also be argued that if Steenhuisen wins, he is going to spend much of his time debating and discussing race anyway. Thus, if he can’t do it now, he shouldn’t be campaigning for the top DA job at all.
There are many other risks — it is entirely possible for one moment, one soundbite, one tiny incident to define such a debate in the public mind.
debate between Richard Nixon and JFK, it is often claimed that those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had “won” the debate, while those who watched it on TV thought he had “lost” it. Part of the reason was that JFK just looked fresher while Nixon had a five o’clock shadow.
The ANC represents a wide range of interests. The situation we see now is partly the result of the fact that coalitions of different sectors of society came together from 1912 onward, united against first colonialism and then apartheid. Now that that is gone, those interests want different things, dividing the party ever-deeper, although it can appear more united during elections when it has an opponent to focus on.