The fatal failure of SA's political opposition
While the creation of our first national coalition government was supposed to be a major change in government, it has also led to major changes in the opposition benches. Despite the fact that the coalition has failed to improve the lives of most South Africans, parties that oppose it have failed to make much headway.
South Africa's 2024 elections led to the biggest changes in the opposition benches.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), which had become very effective in opposition, was suddenly in government (and taking many of its oppositional habits into the Union Buildings).
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
A party (MK) which had never been represented in Parliament before was suddenly the Official Opposition. And was led by someone who himself had never been an MP.
The previous time John Hlophe had been mentioned in the National Assembly was the day he became the first judge to be impeached in the democratic era.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), used to being able to make noise as the third-biggest party, found itself in a reduced role, even though its greater parliamentary experience has made it more effective than the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party.
And there are several smaller parties who have both tried to be oppositional to the coalition, and flirted with joining it.
It is perhaps the greatest indictment of our opposition parties that despite the fact the coalition has delivered GDP growth of just 0.1%, they cannot craft an effective message.
A major part of this has been the divided nature of the MK party.
Considering President Jacob Zuma's history of a lust for personal power and for wrecking institutions, this was always going to be the case.
The revolving door of people in the position of secretary-general has surely created massive instability.
It was also entirely predictable that the trio of Zuma, Hlophe and Floyd Shivambu was going to be about as stable as the Trump-Musk relationship.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
Zuma also had very few people to choose from.
The fact he had to appoint someone like Mzwanele Manyi to the position of Chief Whip and then demote him is proof of that.
Probably only one other individual has said more and contributed less to our politics than he.
Meanwhile, Hlophe has appeared to battle with the transition from being a judge, where your instructions are simply obeyed, to leading a parliamentary caucus, where people must be persuaded.
He has also not been able to deliver a single speech in Parliament that has captured the public imagination.
For the Leader of the Opposition, a constitutionally mandated position, this is a massive failure. Parliamentary speeches are a massive platform for the opposition and the leader of that party should be able to use it effectively.
However, as has been said many times, MK's real problem is that there is no internal democracy and thus no durable legitimate structures.
It is unlikely that this will change and thus unlikely that it will become a more effective opposition.
The EFF has shown itself to be more effective than MK, partly because its members have more parliamentary experience and partly because its leader, Julius Malema, is prepared to be in Parliament and thus use its platform (unlike Zuma).
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
That said, it still appears as if the EFF has not yet got over the shock of being relegated to the position of fourth-largest political party.
Certainly, Malema appears to be unable to grab the political agenda in a way he did, say, five years ago.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
Even though videos featuring him were shown during President Cyril Ramaphosa's Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump, he was unable to really insert himself into that story.
It may be that Malema's previous focus, on attacking first Zuma and then Ramaphosa so personally, has turned into a strategic weakness.
Ramaphosa is not as powerful as he was and, while he may symbolise the coalition government, Malema has been unable to turn him into a hate figure.
Crucially, Malema announced at the start of this Parliament that he would no longer disrupt proceedings as he had in the past.
So far, he has not been able to come up with a new tactic, or a new line of attack that has really given him traction.
One of the more intriguing dynamics of this period has been the role of some of the smaller parties that are not formally in the government coalition.
ActionSA has found itself in a position where it can at times support the coalition or the ANC, and then oppose it.
In the hours after ActionSA took the decision to vote with the ANC to support the fiscal framework of Budget 2.0, the party's Athol Trollip was incredibly honest when asked if ActionSA would now join the coalition.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
He summed up the situation for the party when he said: 'If the DA leaves the GNU [Government of National Unity], whether they get kicked out or they decide to leave, the opposition space is going to get crowded and we will have to take a strategic decision. Will we still make an impact in opposition, or must we look at perhaps going into government? But that depends on the GNU, whether they want us there or not. We will wait and see, but we will make a strategic decision where we can make the greatest impact.'
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
This revealed the options the party was dealing with in essence.
But it also meant that when the ANC and the DA found each for Budget 3.0, ActionSA had to be content in the opposition benches, despite the fact voters would have known it considered joining the ANC.
Build One South Africa, meanwhile, has appeared to struggle to gain traction with a consistent message. Its leader, Mmusi Maimane, has made regular media appearances and often provided principled opposition to government proposals. But it is hard to know if they have been able to really change government policy or win more votes.
So far, it seems the coalition government has completely failed to make a difference to the lives of most people.
Parties in opposition have failed too; they have not yet provided a credible alternative for voters. DM
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
The poor will always be last: The mirage of unity and the necessity of disruption
As South Africa once again contemplates a Government of National Unity (GNU), it is tempting to celebrate the idea of political stability, inter-party cooperation, and the so-called 'maturity' of our democracy. But beneath this surface lies a more troubling pattern; one that reveals the persistent exclusion of the poor, the co-optation of transformation discourse, and the retreat of the state from its moral obligation to disrupt patterns of inherited inequality. History has repeatedly shown us that, when elites call for unity, it is often a euphemism for consolidating power and preserving privilege. The original GNU of the post-1994 settlement, for all its symbolism, was a delicate compromise between political liberation and economic continuity. It preserved existing capital structures, deferred radical land reform, and entrenched a neoliberal macroeconomic framework that has since calcified into orthodoxy. It is no coincidence that Black poverty, youth unemployment, and rural underdevelopment remain defining features of our post-apartheid condition. Today, more than 30 million people live below the upper-bound poverty line. Approximately 60% of youth are unemployed, while more than 3.7 million people remain on the housing backlog, waiting for the dignity of a stable roof. Black Africans remain the least likely to own land. As of 2022, only 8.8% of land in private hands was black-owned, and a significant portion of this is not productive or urban land. These figures are not just numbers; they represent a systematic denial of opportunity to the very people who were promised transformation. Instead of material redress, millions of poor South Africans are locked in a downward spiral of dependency on social grants, a system which, while necessary for survival, is neither developmental nor liberatory. Over 18 million people depend on grants, and yet, every year, the promise of employment, industrial inclusion, and quality public services rings hollow. For over a decade, ambitious rhetoric about inclusive growth and social impact has failed to translate into measurable outcomes. The burden of this failure is borne disproportionately by indigenous South Africans, Black people and Africans in particular, who continue to suffer the most in a democratic society that has yet to reckon with the economic architecture of apartheid. The poor are not an unfortunate side-effect of incomplete transformation; they are a structural outcome of a society designed to exclude them. South Africa's political economy remains profoundly racialised, extractive, and elite-driven. The so-called 'black middle class' and a newly-minted billionaire class are often paraded as evidence of progress. Yet they serve largely as buffers, intermediaries between the desperation of the majority and the opulence of the few, without redistributing power in any meaningful sense. The emerging political consensus today, as represented by discussions of a GNU or coalition-based governance, is disturbingly void of any real commitment to economic justice. Instead, it pivots around the technocratic language of fiscal discipline, market confidence, and investor friendliness, language that insulates elite decision-making from democratic accountability. In this context, calls for unity function as a depoliticising mechanism. They silence dissent, dismiss radical alternatives, and pathologise the anger of the poor as destabilising or immature. Authentic transformation is not a product of elite negotiations behind closed doors; it is the outcome of struggle, disruption, and radical reimagination. If we are to honour the constitutional promise of substantive equality, we must reject the cynical notion that consensus is always virtuous. In truth, some interests are irreconcilable. A society cannot simultaneously defend property rights and guarantee land justice. It cannot shield monopolistic capital while claiming to empower informal economies. And it cannot continue to pacify the masses with promises of reform while the instruments of wealth creation remain in the hands of a tiny, racially exclusive elite. So what will it take to change the system? What will it take for Black South Africans, and Africans in particular, to participate fully in the economy and shape its architecture? It begins with reclaiming the narrative. We must stop accepting incrementalism as a virtue. True transformation requires a redistributive economic model that acknowledges historical injustice and deliberately dismantles racialised capital concentration. We must ask: what will it take to accelerate the pace of progress to see Africans leading as the majority in the corporate sector within JSE-listed companies? As of 2023, Black African CEOs led less than 15% of JSE's top 100 companies. This is not a failure of skills; it is a failure of imagination and will. It reflects the enduring gatekeeping of corporate South Africa and the superficial commitments to transformation targets that are never enforced. We must support Black businesses, not through token funding schemes or ceremonial procurement programmes, but through deliberate state-backed incubation, eased regulatory entry, access to markets, and ownership of infrastructure. SMMEs, particularly Black-owned enterprises, hold the key to mass employment, yet they face the highest barriers to financing, compliance, and market access. We must also cultivate a new generation of Black industrialists, farmers, and tech entrepreneurs. This is not about romanticising the idea of 'start-ups' in a vacuum. It is about building the ecosystem for innovation, from broadband and logistics infrastructure to research funding and digital education, so that we are not merely consumers of global technology but producers of indigenous solutions. We must build our own Silicon Valley, a Southern African tech frontier that draws from our realities, not imported templates. Finally, we must confront the painful truth that the current political elite, across party lines, is increasingly indistinguishable from the economic elite. Many of those who today speak the language of the poor have built careers by exploiting their pain. Their allegiance is not to justice, but to power. They wear the language of liberation like a mask while participating in the architecture of continued dispossession. In the end, unity without justice is a betrayal. It is unity for the sake of comfort for billionaires to retain their portfolios, for technocrats to deliver stability, and for political parties to secure positions. But for the poor, it is merely another season of waiting. Another promise postponed. Another betrayal repackaged as progress. Let us not be seduced by elegant formulations of compromise. Let us instead ask: who benefits, who decides, and who pays the price for this so-called unity? Only then can we begin to imagine a politics that does not merely include the poor, but is led by them.
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
uMkhonto weSizwe party's politics of convenience
It is ironic that the MK party has put itself forward as an organisation that fights for issues on principle when its own internal operations are not. When the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town ruled that it makes no sense for an impeached judge to sit on a body that selects judges, it struck a blow for the good guy in South Africa. For far too long a situation has been allowed to develop where the three arms of state, the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, are constantly being put at odds with each other, not for the positive development of the country, but for selfish short-term interests of corrupt individuals and their political parties. But this time, the judiciary said no, common sense must prevail. John Hlophe, who was impeached as a judge, cannot take part in the process of selecting judges. Former president Jacob Zuma's party uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party has vowed to appeal the judgment on principle and not simply to have Hlophe reinstated to the Judicial Service Commission. It is not because it benefits the country that they want this to happen, but simply that it benefits the MK to have a decision of the legislature overturned by the courts. This way, the MK, although just the thirdbiggest party in parliament, can get to 'govern through the courts', something parties of the left have always accused opposition parties to the right of the political divide, like the DA, of doing. It is ironic that the MK has put itself forward as a party that fights for issues on principle when its own internal operations are nowhere close to being based on a set of established principles that can be identified by all and sundry, especially its own members. Its recently fired secretary-general (SG), Floyd Shivambu, found out in the most painful way that where there are no defined principles, anybody can be a victim. He was fired as SG for what he thought was acceptable within the party: identifying with a disgraced fugitive. He saw nothing wrong with that but was fired for it. ALSO READ: Court finds impeached judge John Hlophe unfit to serve on JSC Truth be told though it was not for meeting pastor Shepherd Bushiri that he was fired. The MK has shown a lot of brazenness when it comes to dealing with corruption-tainted prominent individuals that it has become their political home. In the bigger scheme of things, by their own standards, a meeting with Bushiri wouldn't move their moral needle. It was simply that Shivambu had served his purpose in the party. He was parachuted in to demonstrate that the party was not a Zuma one-man-show, an ethnically defined entity based in one province, but that it had appeal to all South Africans. Sadly, the learned Shivambu fell for the ruse and centred himself in a party where he was always an unwanted outsider from day one. Shivambu probably believed that he could mould the MK into the revolutionary force that he always publicly pronounced it to be but, from the beginning, he had to contend with defending unprincipled decisions, such as wanting parliament to accept that an impeached judge was a fit and proper person. In other words, honesty and good moral judgment could be sacrificed at the convenience of the party. That judgment by the court goes to the heart of what is wrong with this country and its politics: an organisation that does not embrace democracy in its own internal operations wants to control the outcomes of a democratically elected legislature and have them overturned. The lesson for Shivambu and the MK is that good, morally-based judgments might appear expendable in achieving short-term goals, but history leans towards what is right for society. NOW READ: MK party removes Floyd Shivambu as SG
The South African
3 hours ago
- The South African
MK Party rejects Helen Zille's 'nonsensical' Joburg mayoral run
UMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has rejected the Democratic Alliance's possible mayoral candidate in Joburg for the 2026 local government elections Helen Zille. Zille, who was born and bred in Hillbrow, where she worked for the Rand Daily Mail as a journalist during apartheid, has expressed her desire to run for mayor in the City of Johannesburg. She previously served as the leader of the Blue Party from 2007 to 2015 and also served as the Premier of the Western Cape for two five-year terms. In an interview with Radio 702 on Monday, 9 June, Zille said she would consider being mayor because South Africa can't succeed if Johannesburg remains broken as it is the country's economic capital, and it must be fixed. 'South Africa can be on the road to success but we've got to fix it bit by bit and I've always said that's gonna start with local government. That's why we put all our eggs into trying to win somewhere at the local level, demonstrating better governance and building from there, from the bottom up. I've always said that is the way to transform South Africa and that is what we're doing,' she said. Reacting to the news, the MK Party said 'it is nonsensical to consider the possibility of a Capetonian holding mayoral capacity in a city that she is alien to' given the number of qualified men and women who reside in the city of gold. The party said it is vital to remind 'Helen Zille and her cronies' that the current state of disarray found in the City of Johannesburg is courtesy of absent mayor Dada Morero and has resulted in the metropolitan municipality being brought to its knees. 'Dada Morero and the ANC should hang their heads in shame for emboldening a white supremacist and giving her the confidence to believe that she can adequately run this city,' MK Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said. Ndhlela also called on Johannesburg residents to 'reject the propaganda that the DA does not see colour. As shown in the City of Cape Town, the DA's priorities tend to shift depending on the race of the residents.' 'There are more than enough black candidates that can adequately fulfill the mayoral mandate in the City of Johannesburg. The MK Party remains steadfast in our belief that the failures of the ANC should not be recycled, nor should they rest on the shoulders of candidates who want to effect real change,' Ndhlela said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
