DA divisions: If he wanted loyalty, why didn’t Steenhuisen just get a dog?

There can be no doubt that the dirt flung by John Steenhuisen at some of his colleagues in his interview with News 24, published on Sunday, has stung.

His claims that Resolve Communications, chaired by former DA leader Tony Leon, was lobbying the DA’s Communications Minister Solly Malatsi over the Starlink issue have led to angry denials from Leon and the company itself.

Their reputation and perhaps even their future as a firm are on the line, particularly because other parties, specifically ActionSA, have used this to claim the DA and Leon are involved in some kind of “state capture”.

While it is nonsensical to claim equivalence between state capture and the actions of a public affairs communications firm, this can still be hugely damaging. It lifts the lid on how business is done and how decisions are made.

It also raises serious questions about the activities of Leon personally.

While he is no longer active in frontline politics, and holds no public office, it is a fact that he represented the DA in the negotiations with the ANC that led to the current national coalition. This means that he cannot just claim to be an observer, or on the periphery of our politics.

Just this act alone, playing such a role at such an important time in such a crucial process, makes him a player. The claim against him now would be that he was able to access certain people in government, in this case a Cabinet minister, due to his active role in politics, and was benefiting from it financially.

While Leon clearly does not see it that way, it also means that critics of the DA are likely to use this against both him and the party for some time to come.

Toxic politics

Some of the political issues around the question of Starlink have the potential to become incredibly toxic. The personality of Elon Musk, his views, his wealth and his interference in the politics of several countries, along with the hugely contested issue of BEE, mean that our society could have an intense and lengthy debate on these issues.

Parties such as MK and the EFF have already publicly opposed the introduction of Starlink, while even Rise Mzansi has concerns.

Now Steenhuisen’s comments – that Leon’s firm is lobbying for them – throw the DA and ethics into this debate.

The result is likely to be lasting damage to the DA.

Resolve Communications has said several times since Steenhuisen’s interview that it always behaves ethically and lawfully.

While it may well have acted lawfully at all times, just one example where it is shown to have acted unethically, through the bullying of party members, journalists or anyone else, could be highly damaging. Should such examples exist, this might be the real damage to the firm.

POLITRIX

DA eyes local government polls as Geordin Hill-Lewis makes big moves

June 21, 2026

Meanwhile, Steenhuisen’s motives in making these comments, both about Leon and about Hill-Lewis, appear to be entirely personal, and are probably short-sighted.

It is almost unprecedented for a party leader who has been demoted to start telling their party’s secrets in public. Even former president Jacob Zuma, as critical as he has been of the ANC, has not told secrets.

While Steenhuisen might well have every right to feel hugely aggrieved at how he has been treated, his actions seem less than rational.

While he clearly feels Hill-Lewis has broken a promise in demoting him from being a full minister, he must have known this was possible.

If he really wanted loyalty, he should have got a dog.

While his comments about Leon and Resolve Communications might have been motivated by their actions in the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, he must also have known this would blow back on the DA.

If this damage does prove to be deep or effective, he might well face calls from DA members for his removal from government altogether.

It also removes any chance that he could one day make a comeback to a frontline position.

For someone who has depended on politics for his salary since his early twenties, this is mind-bogglingly short-sighted.

It shows that he has allowed his emotions, his personal grievances, to take the place of his own rational self-interest.

This might well confirm the views of his critics – that he was clearly unsuited for the position of DA leader because he allowed his emotions to run away with him.

Also, as News24’s Carol Paton has explained, it repeats a strange pattern of what she calls “The fragility of the DA’s male leaders”.

It seems that those involved at the top of the DA do not understand that no one votes for those who indulge in public pity parties.

Breaking from the Steenuisen era

One of the crucial tests for Hill-Lewis may now be trying to change what appears to be a toxic internal culture.

He has said he believes the DA could one day be the biggest party in our politics. To do that, the party will have to be inclusive, both in terms of who it appeals to and in how its members behave inside the party.

Perhaps the biggest break he could make with the Steenhuisen era would be to find a way to stop this kind of division.

If he cannot do this, he faces the prospect of a DA divided in the same way the ANC can sometimes appear, with people sniping at one another and appearing to get away with it.

Steenhuisen’s behaviour in the past few days may seem like a small, petty matter. But it is much more indicative of serious problems in the DA – problems Hill-Lewis has to grapple with. DM