Cape Argus

‘GNU’ code word for a bloodless coup by DA

IF THERE were ever a question on whether the country was destined for a DA-led government, the much-publicised interview of Helen Zille with 702’s Clement Manyathela this past week provides a definitive answer.

You must give it to Zille. She drives a hard bargain. No time for games and she is quick to call a spade a spade.

First, Zille was bold to indicate that had the ANC not signed the binding statement of intent for the establishm­ent of the so-called government of national unity (GNU), the DA would not have supported the ANC’s nomination of Thoko Didiza as a Speaker of the National Assembly. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Zille threw the second volley by revealing that the DA expected to be offered 30% of the ministeria­l positions. She reminded the ANC that to do so would not be an act of charity; the ANC had no choice.

Zille cut through the false narrative that the ANC was being generous in inviting parties to a GNU.

She warned the ANC to stop deluding itself that it had won the elections. It, therefore, could not make decisions as it pleased; the DA had to ratify such decisions. Carefully read, the DA has effectivel­y staged a silent but bloodless coup.

To ensure that she was not misunderst­ood, Zille went further, pointing out that the DA expected nothing less than a ministry in the Office of the President. That would be in addition to other portfolios.

Should that happen, the minister would be the country’s de facto prime minister who had more executive powers than those of the Office of the Deputy President. Zille’s master stroke was deliberate­ly aimed at cutting through the veneer of pretence that has become the trademark of Ramaphosa’s administra­tion.

To put paid to any delusions that some might have, Zille informed the ANC and Ramaphosa that they did not have a free hand when it came to the compositio­n of the executive.

In that regard, the signed statement of intent for the GNU was unequivoca­l. In making appointmen­ts, the president would take “into account the number of seats parties have in the National Assembly” and “such appointmen­ts should be done in consultati­on with the leaders of the respective parties”.

The ANC needs to be schooled in the difference between “in consultati­on with” and “after consultati­on with”. In law, “in consultati­on with” implies that “the decision-maker has to seek the agreement or consent of the person or body that is consulted before making a decision”. And it may also mean that “the person or body that is consulted may have a veto power or a review power over the decision”.

The third salvo was Zille’s indication that the DA “won’t vote to impeach a president we voted for” if the Phala Phala matter was brought back to Parliament. The cat is out the bag. The entire charade of the GNU has nothing to do with the interest of the country. It has more to do with shielding Ramaphosa from accountabi­lity in the Phala Phala scandal.

The Phala Phala scandal hangs like a sword of Damocles over Ramaphosa’s head. His attempts to cover up a theft of reportedly millions of rand, which were hidden under a mattress on his property, renders him ill-qualified to lecture anyone about corruption and accountabi­lity. The stench of Phala Phala is too foul to ignore.

A three-person parliament­ary panel comprising former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired senior judge Thokozile Masipa and senior council Mahlape Sello concluded that there was enough evidence to show that Ramaphosa might have fallen foul of section 96(2)(a) of the Constituti­on.

He is possibly guilty of serious violation of section 34(1) of The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act. The panel also concluded that he was possibly guilty of serious misconduct of violating section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that was inconsiste­nt with his office. In addition, Ramaphosa was found to have violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibi­lities and his private business.

Zille’s comment on the Phala Phala matter is a polite warning to the ANC. Decoded, it boils down to: “Don’t mess with us; we have complete control over you.” To put it bluntly, Ramaphosa is the DA’s prisoner. And as a prisoner, he can negotiate only from a position of weakness.

With the announceme­nt of the GNU, the mainstream media that gave us Ramaphoria is at it again. It has sought to put lip gloss on the mooted GNU. The plan is to portray Ramaphosa positively to airbrush out a history of colossal failure.

The fact remains, however, that Ramaphosa presided over the precipitou­s decline of 17% of the ANC from its past electoral share. Any self-respecting leader would have resigned. The recasting of Ramaphosa in a favourable light is aimed at doctoring the fact that he has demonstrab­ly been the worst president of the ANC and the country.

No amount of historical revisionis­m can hide the painful truth that at the helm of the seventh administra­tion sits a compromise­d and fatally wounded president. The notion of the GNU allows the ANC to sound bullish but it does not erase the fact that Ramaphosa’s hands are tied.

The second painful truth is that with a measly command of 40% of the electoral vote, the ANC should disabuse itself of the claim of being a leader of society. The inescapabl­e reality is that a party of liberation has been punished by the very constituen­cy it purports to represent.

The third bitter and painful truth is that a party that failed to deliver on its promise of “a better life for all” when it had an outright majority is unlikely to do so when it is no longer in total control of the government. For the GNU to survive, the ANC must ensure that the interests of beneficiar­ies of apartheid colonialis­m are protected.

The DA anticipate­d the turn of events and primed itself to gain maximum advantage out of the ANC’s disastrous performanc­e. In 2019, Zille had this to say: “Let me make a prediction, because the ANC doesn’t know what it stands for anymore, because it can’t revert to principles because it hasn’t got any. Believe me, in my lifetime, I will see that party die too.

“Believe me, no one would ever have said in their wildest dreams that within my lifetime the National Party would be gone, and it is.”

As far back as 2016, the DA knew that all it required was 20% of the share of the electoral vote to push the ANC over the edge. This much it has almost achieved.

The ANC is facing a self-created crisis. Ordinarily, any party that has been punished by its traditiona­l constituen­cy would want to make amends. Embracing what it considers to be an enemy camp wouldn’t be the first port of call.

The ANC has also sought to disregard the counsel of its allies in Cosatu and the SACP.

The choice before the ANC could not have been clearer. It was either you remain true to the historical mandate of advancing the liberation of black people in general, and Africans in particular, or you choose to go to bed with a party that Nelson Mandela described as a “party of white bosses and black stooges”.

“No matter how they cover up by getting a few black stooges, they (the whites) remain the bosses ... they remain a white party.” Mandela must be turning in his grave.

With the ANC leaders having been transforme­d into modern-day security guards and shop stewards for white capital and white privilege, the responsibi­lity of advancing the interests of the poor invariably shifts to the black-led parties political alliance comprising the EFF, Al Jama-ah, United Democratic Movement, United African Transforma­tion, African Transforma­tion Movement and uMkhonto weSizwe Party.

The parties draw their constituen­cies from the majority who remain trapped in conditions of squalor. We have been here before. A rehash of a failed “rainbow nation” would lead to more of the same. This is the stuff that creates revolution­s.