DA announces Cilliers Brink as its Tshwane mayoral candidate ‘to finish what we started'
Brink served as mayor of the city for 18 months before he was removed in a motion of no confidence in September last year, which saw ActionSA's Nasiphi Moya take over the position.
Brink had been elected through a coalition which was backed by Herman Mashaba's party, but was removed when ActionSA shifted its alliance to support the ANC- Economic Freedom Fighters-led coalition in the city.
Before becoming a Tshwane councillor, Brink served as a DA MP.
In March, DA federal chair Helen Zille announced that the party had opened applications for candidates wishing to apply to be considered as mayoral candidates in the cities of Tshwane, Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni and Mangaung. Ziille said the DA was approaching next year's elections with the intention of governing and rescuing these troubled metros.
She said applicants would be interviewed and scored, and asked questions randomly drawn from a pre-approved bank, to ensure the integrity of the process. Successful candidates would thereafter be approved by the DA federal executive.
During Friday's announcement of Brink as the Tshwane candidate, DA leader John Steenhuisen said his priority as mayor would be to improve the lives and livelihoods of Tshwane residents, who he urged to vote for the party next year.
'Right now, there are just five seats separating the ANC from the DA in the council. Five seats. Your vote can decide whether Tshwane moves forward or slides back. In a race this close, your vote is your voice and it can change everything,' Steenhuisen said.
In his acceptance speech, Brink said he was determined to finish the work he had started in his previous stint as mayor to build a capable city. He accused the ANC of stripping the City of Tswane of internal systems and controls for decades, deploying unqualified cadres into management positions.
Before the DA took over control of Tshwane in 2016, the ANC had been in charge of the city since the first democratic elections. The party's eight-year tenure has not been without allegations of corruption, with the city being placed under administration by the provincial government. The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that the move was unlawful.
'When the ANC finally lost power in 2016, it used its network of cadres and tenderpreneurs to make Tshwane ungovernable by disrupting council meetings, blocking disciplinary actions against senior officials and finally colluding with the corrupt Gauteng government to place the city under unlawful administration,' Brink said.
'They plunged Tshwane into chaos and brought the city to the edge of financial ruin. In the 18 months that my team and I led Tshwane, we moved the city forward. We appointed a diverse group of competent professionals to management positions.
'While ActionSA gets to wear the mayoral chain, the decisions of this government are ANC; in fact, in the corridors of Tshwane House, they say George Matjila [ANC regional secretary] is the real mayor.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
2 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
The day that was: The national convention has started, and DA wants Cilliers Brink back as mayor
Eyewitness News 15 August 2025 | 18:04 Democratic Alliance (DA) Cilliers Brink National Dialogue (2)
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity
The National Dialogue is dead, long live a national dialogue, or something to that effect… where or how to start such a dialogue, the lower-case one, is the next big task. We know that we have to talk, but we can't seem to agree on what to talk about, or whom to include in such talks. It's all rather bewildering. As mentioned previously, opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's initiative is, 'in one sense, a good thing', because it meant that people were engaging with the proposal, and that 'a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary'. In among it all lies the way forward, or rather 'a way forward'. For what it's worth, I remain convinced that the Diagnostic Overview of the National Development Plan is a good place to start, with the necessary updates, inclusions and adaptations. Opposition to Ramaphosa's National Dialogue has moved between positions of outright contempt, to self-dramatisation, bad faith and inauthenticity. Then again, it really was a stretch to imagine the Democratic Alliance, MK party and the EFF supporting anything put forward by Ramaphosa; they were, as they usually are, 'a little too precise, a little too rapid' in their response to the National Dialogue. My colleague Stephen Grootes used the term performative, which is a useful way of describing their responses. These political groups are, at least, consistent and have always presented themselves as indispensable for South Africa's future. Taking them at their word, they are the indispensables. The latest withdrawals will probably mean that the National Dialogue, in its current conception, will not start. The latest group of refuseniks who were meant to participate in preparations toward the National Dialogue have accused the president's initiative of rushing, of 'cutting corners' and of 'centralising power'. The latter is difficult to fathom because it seems to me that opening up a discussion on the country's future is actually about decentralising influence and power and about bringing together political and civil society. Never mind. Leading the most recent resistance, and what may well torpedo the president's initiative, are the Thabo Mbeki Foundation and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation, the Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, the FW de Klerk Foundation, the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group. At first glance, the new resistance projects an image of loyal criticism in the sense that they believe, for sure, that something ought to be done, and that they would like to be part of that something if the necessary changes and improvements are made. Closer scrutiny suggests that there may be a loss of the spirit of compromise with which Mbeki and the late former president FW de Klerk (and Ramaphosa, in particular) were familiar. It's all rather confusing. It's a bit like trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. We have to wait and see what emerges. What I want to discuss is the idea of compromise, and of bringing the opposition into the room. The Mbeki-De Klerk non-compromise A long time ago, during the latter stages of the Codesa negotiations, I had a chat with former president De Klerk about compromise in politics and about its gains and losses. Regardless of what I (many of us) thought at the time, De Klerk believed he had made the greatest compromises, first, with his 'own people' about ending legal apartheid, and then with the ANC in the final months of the negotiations process. The conversation ended on a sobering note. 'You don't have to tell me about making compromises,' De Klerk said. And so I was surprised that the foundations of former presidents Mbeki and De Klerk were among the refuseniks. They would at least understand that Ramaphosa's initiative was somewhat of an acknowledgement that the ANC-led state had lost the power and will to steer South Africa, and that it sought to forge stronger alliances with civil society. All the more surprising was that the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation withdrew. They would represent civil society with a little less political baggage than the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations. Then again, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation probably endorsed the (political) compromises that created the current Government of National Unity. The objective of that compromise, it seemed to me, was by and large to maintain the political and economic status quo that took shape after 1994. To the extent, then, that the envisaged National Dialogue included the main parties that gave us concepts like ' sufficient consensus ' in the early 1990s, one may be forgiven for believing that the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations would, at least, enter into preliminary discussions on the National Dialogue. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas Let's try to think harder about negotiations, bargaining and more honest discussions among political and social society. Bringing together political society and social society — all interested parties — into a room to discuss a way forward does not always guarantee optimal outcomes. As the tired idiom has it: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Let's try a more sophisticated example, grounded in reality (turkeys don't actually vote, nè). Imagine a village, somewhere in Central America, that is plagued by crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse. A leader of the village suggests a 'dialogue' about crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse, and invites everyone into a hall to discuss what is wrong and what ought to be done about it. One suggestion is that the local municipality installs high-mast lighting as a way to curb criminal activities at night. Now, among the invited, for the sake of democracy, representation and inclusivity, are criminals who have an interest in darkness. Criminals thrive on operating in the dark. The initiative to install high-mass lighting fails because there is no consensus. The criminal elements on the guest list of civil society vote against high-mast lighting. It is at this point that the local leaders can simply go ahead and authorise installation of the high-mass lighting by some decree or authoritarianism, or on the basis of 'sufficient consensus', or by asking the criminals to vote against their interests. What will it be? What should it be? I just don't know. I return to the befuddlement of a political superposition — trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. Nobody knows what will happen next. I don't know what will happen next. But because I don't know what will happen next, does not mean everyone else does not know what will happen next. Maybe somebody does know what will happen next. I think I mangled a line from the film The Milagro Beanfield War, but it works, kinda. For now, we remain in stasis — what has become South Africa's original position. DM
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Ramaphosa: National Dialogue will launch ‘a million conversations' about SA's problems
President Cyril @CyrilRamaphosa/X President Cyril Ramaphosa put a brave face on Friday to legacy foundations and opposition parties boycotting a convention to kick off a National Dialogue on how to resolve South Africa's numerous problems, saying similar walkouts had occurred during the difficult transition to democracy. 'We are embarking on a process that will launch a million conversations. Across the length and breadth of South Africa, people will — and must — meet to talk about what worries them, what gives them hope and how they think their lives and our country can be better,' Ramaphosa told delegates at the convention's opening ceremony. He defended the National Dialogue, which critics say has lost credibility after foundations promoting the legacies of Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, FW de Klerk, Robert Sobukwe and Desmond and Leah Tutu disagreed with the preparatory task team and pulled out from Friday's convention, calling the process exclusive and government top-heavy. Ramaphosa argued that the dialogue was the only tent to host legitimate people-centred conversations. The president first publicly mooted the idea of a national dialogue at his inauguration last year, after the general elections in which his ANC lost its national parliamentary majority, forcing it into a 10-party coalition. In July, National Dialogue steering committee chairperson Nkosinathi Biko rejected criticism that the initiative was a money and time-wasting talk-shop, saying the 'society-wide' and 'citizen-led' process from August 2025 to March 2026 would result in a national compact and plan of action to jumpstart the stuttering economy. The DA indicated in late June that it was boycotting the dialogue. Freedom Front Plus and ActionSA also pulled out. Trade union federation Cosatu and the civil society caucus have supported the dialogue, stating they will push for accountability and transparency from within. Speaking at the convention on Friday, Ramaphosa said participants would have 'difficult conversations' about questions such as: Why do South African women have to live in fear of men? Why do so many people live in abject poverty while so few live lives of opulence? 'Through this process we want our people to meet in homes and community halls. We want them to meet in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Our people must meet in schools and lecture halls, in boardrooms and on the shop floor, on the pathways of our villages and the streets of our townships and cities,' he said 'We will meet online. We will call into radio stations. We will debate on television. We will share our views and make our suggestions without hesitation. We will be direct and honest.' He noted that the dialogue was taking place during a time of economic hardship, unemployment, inequality, growing poverty and a 'crisis of confidence' in institutions and when the world 'is rapidly changing and our ability to adapt and renew ourselves will define the next generation'. But he said South Africa's history of struggle against apartheid proved that dialogue can be a 'powerful force for transformation', describing the National Dialogue as 'a call to debate and to discuss' and 'a call to action'. 'It is a call to all South Africans to seize this moment for change and progress. It is a call to build a society in which there is a place for everyone, where the country's wealth is shared by all — a South Africa that truly belongs to all who live in it.' Khabela Mahlosa, a former director general for political affairs at the African Union Commission, called the dialogue 'a long-drawn event', saying that after the preparatory phase, implementation would follow. Citing Kenya's post-2007-08 election unrest, he said a similar dialogue process overseen by the AU had led to a new constitution and reduced election-related violence. 'The dialogue process must have a well-defined agenda agreed upon by a multiplicity of actors, with a legal framework, an independent, respected convener and a regional body like SADC to provide oversight,' Mahlosa said. Nomfundo Mogapi, the chief executive of the Centre for Mental Wellness and Leadership, cautioned that South Africa's crisis was often discussed in a 'fight or flight' mode, which made trauma-based conversations unproductive. 'Your greatest work is to be awake to yourself so that we can hear what other people are saying,' she said to the Mail & Guardian. Keitumetse Moutloatse, chairperson of the Black Womxn Caucus, said Ramaphosa had for the first time in a long while 'put his guard down' and used a less stiff diplomatic style in his speech. 'He didn't overcommit. There is a good and clear appreciation of the problem,' she said, commending Ramaphosa's commitment to reducing the government's role but adding that there was a lack of a clear strategy for community-led discussions. Glen Snyman, the founder of People Against Race Classification, told the M&G that his organisation was working to end race classification and that he hoped the dialogue would address personal identity. 'Do we still need to reference people as black, white, coloured and Indian? We need to move forward and can't still stick with old practices. They are prejudicial. They keep us stuck,' he said. Nomboniso Gasa, a member of the eminent persons group appointed by Ramaphosa to guide the National Dialogue, said its role was to champion and advise the president and act as guarantors of the process. She expressed confidence that community discussions would take place. 'There's a clear rollout plan which has been conceptualised. If they stick to the plan these will happen. What we need to ensure is that all of them — the citizens — should take charge,' Gasa said.
