ANALYSIS
Coalitions, Collusions, Collisions: ANC’s renewed efforts with ActionSA inject extra energy into the political biosphere
With public claims being made by the ANC that it could again regain power in the three metros in Gauteng by Christmas, there are some indications that this renewed effort could herald a real change in our politics. In particular, the ANC’s claims that it could in fact work with ActionSA, despite that party’s repeated statements it would never work with the governing party, could be the start of a real shift.
It is also possible that none of this will happen and that many of the statements being made now are promises that will almost inevitably be broken. It is clear that the real question is about confidence, whether parties can trust one another, and whether voters can trust their promises.
On Sunday, both the Sunday Times and the City Press newspapers ran reports quoting ANC leaders in Gauteng as saying they were confident that they would have retaken control of both Tshwane and Ekurhuleni by “Christmas”. Key to this is their relationship with the EFF and with other smaller parties.
Perhaps the most startling claim is that the ANC may in fact be involved in negotiations with Herman Mashaba’s ActionSA and that this party could move away from working with the DA. Should this materialise in the real world, it could change the game dramatically and could potentially shut the DA out of power in many places for a long time.
In response to this issue, ActionSA National Chairman Micheal Beaumont has told Daily Maverick the party’s senate has decided to start a review of its approach to coalitions. He also says that as the ANC is now running Joburg, “If Dada Morero … if he comes to ActionSA and says we are delivering a budget, would you like to make an input, why would ActionSA say no?”
‘Constructive opposition’
It may be that this is really a conversation with many nuances. From his point of view, it is clear this is not about talks aimed at a coalition, but at something which could be described as “constructive opposition”.
It would also make some sense for ActionSA to do this.
If it is the case that one of the biggest problems for parties like the DA, ActionSA and many of the smaller parties is differentiating themselves in the political market, then it may help ActionSA to move away from the DA. It is clear that ActionSA and the DA are fishing in the same pond of voters, and such a move could possibly help highlight the ways in which ActionSA differs from the DA.
There are possibly limits to how far ActionSA can go in this approach, however.
Herman Mashaba has stated countless times that the reason he formed his party is to remove the ANC from power. As he put it in February:
“A prosperous South Africa and the ANC cannot co-exist. One has to die. And it is not going to be South Africa. It is going to be the ANC.”
It would surely be tough for him to now betray that promise, and all the people who voted for him.
That said, some may feel that he has already betrayed voters. He ran in the local elections last year as ActionSA’s mayoral candidate in Joburg. Even before he took the oath of office as a councillor, he was forced to concede in an interview with Newzroom Afrika that he would leave that council to campaign for a seat in Parliament.
It is important to note here that virtually all public statements made by parties around potential coalitions should be met with disbelief and cynicism.
It is entirely possible that the ANC, when it claims that it is involved in these negotiations, is really trying to put pressure on both the DA and ActionSA. And thus it is in the ANC’s interests to claim as loudly as possible that it could end up working with ActionSA.
Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations
Trust
This gets to the heart of the question of whether parties who are all trying to win votes can really trust one another.
Obviously, the short answer is no. But the longer answer may be that they have no choice.
No matter what happens, there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved all over the place here.
For example, it has become common for ANC figures to suggest, when forming coalitions, that the position of mayor is not that important to them, “because we are not obsessed with power”. Really? Coming from people currently involved in political negotiations about power?
This goes in all directions.
Many claim that the ANC and the EFF are about to form some kind of coalition. For some, this would clearly be the end of civilisation as they wish it to be.
But it appears to ignore recent history.
Just last week, during the Gauteng legislature vote for a new premier, the EFF delegation was led out by its provincial leader, Nkululeko Dunga, who said that the ANC and the DA “are the same”.
EFF leader Julius Malema has said publicly that he would “use the ANC to destroy itself”.
And in Morero’s new Mayoral Committee in Joburg, there are no members of the EFF.
In short, it appears that the ANC is very much aware of the risk that working with the EFF would pose, that it would allow Julius Malema, the person expelled by a committee chaired by the ANC’s current leader, to suddenly have them over a barrel.
All of this shows how important trust is to these relationships, and how little of it there is.
But there are some suggestions on how to change this situation.
Public coalition agreements
The president of the SA Local Government Association, Bheki Stofile, has said that parties forming coalitions should be forced to sign coalition agreements, and then make them public.
This would allow voters to see who has kept their word and who has not. In the current situation, it would allow people to decide for themselves whether the minority parties in the previous DA-led coalition in Joburg were correct to call the DA “arrogant” for its refusal to give up the position of Speaker. Or whether it was in fact the minority parties who simply broke an agreement they had signed.
This would be very valuable to voters. And put pressure on all players in a coalition business.
For example, if the ANC and the EFF were to get together, would they really publish such an agreement? Certainly, if they did, it is likely that voters would want to see it. It could even be argued that voters have a right to view such a document.
It is the voters who need to be at the centre of all of this. While political parties, both big and small, are likely to claim that they have been poorly treated, or that they are the victims of foul play, or “arrogance”, there is little to no evidence that any of them are putting voters first.
This may well leave the door open to any party which is able to prove, through its conduct, that it will be a principled player that would comply with written and public coalition agreements.
And this could be the starting point for stronger, more durable, coalitions, where the wishes of voters are taken more seriously. DM
Become an Insider
Action SA cannot pretend to be a principled party when it puts the ANC back in power in JHB. Siding with criminals in government who you have vowed to replace in your manifesto smacks of pure hypocrisy. They are now part of the problem and not part of the solution!!
You have the facts wrong. ActionSA has not changed and Mashaba has reiterated that in the Beeld which was reported in the Sunday English papers. As a DA supporter you need to get your facts correct not by reading this article only but by checking other papers. What Stephen has cobbled is really not informative nor educational. ActionSA has a right to review its relationship with the DA that is very arrogant and plainly dishonest if you look at the facts properly.
Especially being led by a man who’s company spent a lot of its time trying to make black people whiter with its products, at serious consequences for their health.
You dream, Stephen. Do you think EFF would sign anything binding, let alone go public with it? There’s no honour among thieves. Cope can hardly agree with itself without dividing! And so the list continues. A bunch of scoundrels governs us; until the electorate wants to change that, the politicians can run amuck.
Any party that chooses to work with criminals may as well be considered criminals themselves.
And those that vote for them,
The DA’s record 0f failing to hold small parties into their coalitions and shedding so many talented, middle of the road Black political aspirants as members suggests that it is in effect standing in the way 0f a process of coalitions that could over time lead to a middle of the road party. Such a party could lead South Africa into the digital 21st century at the same time as addressing the socio-economic consequences of exclusion that characterized our history – which the ANC has failed to address.
One is at pains at what the article is actually about beyond the hyperboles and the questions the writer raises. The articles does not leave the reader informed and educated. In Beeld, Mashaba has reiterated his position of not working with the ANC which Sunday English papers reported. The fact that ActionSA is reflecting on the coalition with the DA of which they be a subject of insults by the arrogant DA. Just today, the DA through Mpho says the idea of the IFP to become speaker came from the PA after for days accusing the ActionSA for that. You then ask what was the nonsense about the ActionSA or is the DA having an imaginary relationship with the truth? Stephen as a journalist I respect has a responsibility to get his facts right so that analyst who are putting reports on the political landscape of the country do so on facts not innuendo. He talks of an ANC and EFF coalition agreement that the public would want to see and not those of the DA and other parties which seems to be saying transparency matters when the ANC and the EFF are involved and it not matters not where the DA is concerned which is wrong for a journalist to assert. The EFF was not in the DA Mayoral Committee despite having voted the DA Mayor, Speaker and Chief Whip even before the coalition agreements were in place with other parties a matter the raised as a basis for review of the coalition agreement. A point Stephen misses in his article. The ActionSA and EFF have kept their word except for the DA.
The way I see it is this…. The Democratic Alliance is the least risky party. They stick to their word. They also have to only record of good service delivery. I will continue to support them. I would expect any party that wants to join the DA in a collision should publish, with the DA, a public coalition agreement.