After a string of arguments and public altercations between the two sides, well-placed ANC sources have acknowledged that the deal is all but broken down.
Quarrel about roles and ministries.
With the signature of a document of intent by other parties, the ANC and DA built a voter base with around 60% of the vote as part of the Government of National Unity (GNU) arrangement.
But according to reports, the agreement collapsed a week after Ramaphosa was elected president because of a dispute over roles and ministries.
Preamble of the two parties’ leaked letters
Negotiated cabinet posts are revealed by the DA when a dispute over the Trade and Industry ministry arises.
“We are in a parlous state,” says the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, one of the SA charities calling for national discourse to bring the country together.
“We’ll shut down the borders”: The Public Servants Association considers the DA’s suggestions for directors general SACP to Ramaphosa to be “provoked.” “Go quickly, form a Cabinet, and move forward—Democratic Alliance or not.”
“It’s practically finished. A DA coalition generally didn’t make the ANC very happy.
The source claimed that the way the DA has handled itself, especially in regards to information and letter leaks to the media, has made this worse.
The ANC negotiation team was not pleased with the DA’s stance, according to a second source who was informed of the high-level discussions.
“There is an issue with the ANC’s communication style and the way the DA is perceived.
We don’t need the DA to form a government, therefore they shouldn’t assume they can impose their will on us, the insider stated.
The ANC letter to the DA
In a letter to John Steenhuisen, the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), President Cyril Ramaphosa charged that the DA was acting as a chameleon during the Government of National Unity (GNU) negotiations, endangering the possibility of a unified government.
The Department of Trade and Industry portfolio is reportedly a point of contention in the ongoing talks between the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African National Congress (ANC).
The head of the Democratic Alliance Federal Committee, Helen Zille, sent a letter to ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula, stating that her party was entitled to several ministerial positions in the GNU. Newsaih.com saw this mail.
The deputy president was one of the twelve cabinet positions that the Democratic Alliance first sought. But after things were worked out, the ANC decided to hand over six ministerial portfolios to the DA. IOL was also made aware of this decision through a letter.
Home Affairs, Basic Education, Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), Public Works and Infrastructure, Communications and Digital Technologies, and Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment were among the portfolios that were available.
But in a letter to Ramaphosa, Steenhuisen said that six postings was not enough. He asked for two more portfolios, for a total of eight.
Steenhuisen proposed that the portfolios of Sports, Arts and Culture, Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform, or Public Service and Administration be assigned to them in addition to the six current Cabinet responsibilities.
Ramaphosa charged the DA of altering the “goalposts” with their frequent decisions in a farewell letter to Steenhuisen.
What the law says about what happens if the GNU collapses
According to South African law, a province government may dissolve a local government council for failing to carry out its duties, but when this occurs at the provincial level, things become much more complicated.
Thandiwe Seboletswe and Cohen Grootboom of the legal company Adams & Adams conducted an analysis that states that while the national government is legally able to step in when provincial coalitions break down, it is not authorized to dissolve provincial governments and hold fresh elections.
In a post-2024 South Africa, the question of what can be done in dysfunctional or impoverished provinces is becoming increasingly relevant.
After the election, the ANC was unable to gain a majority of 50% or more of the vote, and no single party was able to secure a majority share of the vote in important provinces such as KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng. This resulted in a sea change in the political landscape of the nation.
South Africa’s governance has entered a new era as a result, with the ANC-led “Government of National Unity” (GNU) emerging as the preferred system.
Although the GNU is not being marketed to the country as a coalition, many of the same guidelines were followed in its creation, such as the requirement that all parties sign and adhere to a “founding document.” One of the main pillars supporting the Constitution and the rule of law in the case of the GNU.
The so-called founding members of the GNU have already united to pick Cyril Ramaphosa as their national leader, and they have begun to spread to the provinces, where they have established the predetermined provincial leadership.
It hasn’t all been plain sailing, either, with reports indicating that the parties involved reached a dead end in their negotiations for executive and cabinet roles in the provinces and nationally. This begs the question of what would happen in the event that these coalitions and agreements collapse.
The legal experts issued a dire warning, saying that “should these coalitions collapse, the consequences could be disastrous for the economy and governance, particularly for the impoverished groups in society.”
The following summarizes Seboletswe and Grootboom’s legal position:
Coalition Disintegration in the Community
According to the experts, the consequences of a coalition agreement’s members breaking their promises are usually political rather than legal.
But occasionally, malfunctions in South Africa have resulted in legal disputes.
Since 2021, South Africa’s local government coalitions have varied in terms of stability; the City of Tshwane offers a noteworthy case study of the legal ramifications when “coalitions” fall apart.
The case was a disagreement over the dissolution of the Metropolitan Council of the City of Tshwane when the Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters’ informal cooperation collapsed in the metro.
The province executive’s decision to dissolve the council in accordance with section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution was evaluated by the Constitutional Court for justification.
If a municipality doesn’t carry out its executive duties, this clause permits intervention—even dissolution.
Citing a failure to fulfill executive commitments, the provincial executive in the Tshwane case disbanded the council.
A provincial executive may intervene by giving directives, taking on responsibility, or dissolving the council in certain cases in order to guarantee that a municipality complies with its executive duties as stated in section 139(1).
The court considered whether these interventions were acceptable and applicable, paying particular attention to the dissolution requirements.
The majority ruling determined that the council’s dissolution was not justified and that the jurisdictional facts necessary for it did not exist. The court stressed the value of cooperative governance and the requirement that actions be situation-appropriate and proportionate.
The province executive was ordered by the High Court to look into the reason behind the impasse in the council and suggest a course of action.
Dissection at the provincial level
Section 100 of the Constitution, which is drafted similarly to section 139(1), offers a helpful template for directing federal interference in provincial administration, thanks to the ruling in the Tshwane case.
In order to handle coalition breakdowns, it emphasizes the significance of proportionality, cooperative governance, and the need for a clear legal framework.
The absence of a dissolution clause in Section 100 of the Constitution, which deals with provincial interventions, is a crucial difference between it and Section 139.
A provincial executive may step in immediately when a municipality disregards its legal or constitutional duties by using Section 139, which expressly allows for the dissolution of a local council in certain situations.
This section is essential since it offers a decisive action that may be done to remedy municipal governance failure.
Although there is no dissolution clause in Section 100, national interference in provincial government is permitted.
Since Section 100 does not contain a dissolution clause, the federal government cannot dissolve provincial legislatures and hold new elections, even though it can take other measures to guarantee that province governments carry out their responsibilities, such as issuing directives or taking on specific tasks.
This framework upholds the independence of the provinces and emphasizes the cooperative governance concept, which is the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy.
In line with the constitutional mission to enhance the efficacy of government at all levels while upholding the democratic process, it guarantees that interventions are focused on assistance and correction rather than control or replacement.
Local Governance Affected by National and Provincial Coalitions
The kind of coalitions that currently hold power in many city councils is expected to be influenced by the co-governing arrangements that have been created at the federal and provincial levels, particularly in those where no single party was able to achieve a clear majority.
Professor Jannie Rossouw, a political economist at the Wits Business School, believes that the upcoming agreements on cooperative governance, especially in provinces where assemblies are hung, will probably have a cascading impact.
This may have an effect on the makeup of other similarly hung municipal councils, which are frequently entangled in unstable coalition agreements.
Parties must significantly boost coalition negotiations’ and agreements’ transparency and expose them to public scrutiny in order to hold elected officials responsible if coalitions are to be successful.
Rossouw emphasized that all contracts and agreements with the governing coalition have to be made available to the public for review. Pranish Desai of Good Governance Africa shared this view, saying that in order for voters to hold elected politicians accountable, formal coalition agreements need to be made public.
