GNU or Coalitions? Therein Lies the Rub.

First thing that crept into this writer’s mind at the resurrection of ‘government of national unity’ (GNU) were the televised images of Rooivalk helicopters hovering eerily over Lesotho on the orders of the late Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Those of a certain age will remember the dramatic scenes with a sense of mild dread. Shenge, serving in Nelson Mandela’s GNU cabinet was standing in as acting president for the old man and when post-election violence erupted in the Mountain Kingdom, he wasted no time in deploying SANDF troops to quell the uprising. At the time, both Mandela and deputy president Thabo Mbeki were outside the country. Although they’d reportedly been briefed on the intervention, it’s anybody’s guess whether either man would’ve resorted to the same militancy.

That is not to say the move was necessarily a cock-up on the part of Buthelezi. But it demonstrated a simple lesson: GNU is little more than a romanticized acronym. In practice these marriages resemble not so much a polygamous union and cannot be divorced from ‘individual’ characters with their own mores, proclivities and – as such – those with toxic kinks to iron out could potentially pose a threat for everybody else. Ditto those with big egos.

Former presidents F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. Image: The Nobel Prize on X.

Following the violent 2002 elections in Zimbabwe, Mbeki found himself in a similar predicament to Buthelezi. But rather than take the hardline with the late former Zanu-PF leader Robert Mugabe, Mbeki’s delegation sought ‘quiet diplomacy,’ even going to great lengths to cover up the damning Khampepe report which exposed that election process as a sham. Mandela – at least the one who walked out of Robben Island in 1990 – had gone from a bellicose revolutionary calling for armed resistance against apartheid to a wholesale pacifist. Rightly or wrongly, these men prioritised order and national cohesion ostensibly for the greater good, even if that came at the expense of their personal reputations and credentials. And in recounting these episodes, which, no matter how one looks at them, the shortcomings were inevitable, nonetheless the crux of the message persists; Country before Party, gents, please! Although Mbeki chose to appease rather than put his foot down to Mugabe, he is still widely blamed for Zimbabwe’s horrendous economic situation and, by default, our own growing immigrant problem. But nobody has yet accused him of having blood on his hands, not on Zimbabwe anyhow.

Former president Thabo Mbeki. Image: Wikipedia.

Going through the governance options that lie before the ANC, one is confronted by similar concerns around violence, attacks on the constitution as well as the subliminal ‘what-ifs’ which – riddled with uncertainties – give cause to even greater consternation. The ANC’s historic ballot loss has us in limbo. Even the papers that usually keep us up to speed are mostly left to speculate like the rest of us as the key players talk – or try to – behind closed doors. Some of that speculation is, indeed, cause for concern.

Like, as Tim Cohen asks in Daily Maverick, what happens if the MKP does good on its threats to boycott the first sitting of the National Assembly (set for Friday, 14 June) and where new members will be sworn in and the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and President are due to be elected? Or its members refuse to be sworn in? ‘The Constitution,’ writes Cohen, ‘does not say what happens if an MP decides not to take the oath, it just says they must swear the oath. Presumably, they would be excluded from Parliament if they didn’t, but once again, the drafters of the Constitution couldn’t really imagine that any party would want to scrap the Constitution. But here we are.’

He notes that ‘the Constitution does stipulate that the National Assembly “consists of between 350 and 400 women and men elected as members.”‘ In a bid to delay things, what happens if the MKP then challenges Parliament for pressing on (in the event that they do) in the former’s absence? Apart from an acute aversion to both the nation’s founding document as well as our incumbent president, MKP (specifically Jacob Zuma) aren’t taking the nation into their confidence.

MKP leader, Jacob Zuma. Image: Britannica.

Zuma seems to be the man that all the important people want to talk to but he’s stealing his time and making it clear that as long as Ramaphosa remains a ‘no-go,’ the ANC can’t at all be serious about wanting to negotiate. By all indications, the self-styled political strategist has everybody on tenterhooks, pondering what he’s playing at. And, in light of the 2021 July riots, also anxious as to whether if he does not get his way with the recounting of votes, would his supporters not turn to violence? It doesn’t help that his daughter Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla was fingered as a key figure in those riots and that the MKP has swiftly come to be seen as a Zuma fiefdom. Heaping further panic to what is already a tense situation, are the hundreds of riot police being deployed to KZN. Certainly not a good omen in such precarious times.

While the power games seem to take priority over national interests, the more cunning minority parties are looking to take advantage of things in order to worm themselves into crucial roles they would not otherwise enjoy. In such unprecedented circumstances, everybody is in on capitalising on the ANC’s vulnerability. In stating that Zuma is earnestly praying for an ANC-DA coalition the Patriotic Alliance’s Gayton McKenzie has set the wolf among the pigeons. Why? Well, this will result in a mutiny where, according to McKenzie, some 71 councillors in the metros will dump the ANC for the MKP. Invariably, this will have dire consequences and the metros will ‘collapse’ (his wording). Not exactly the kind of language that brings comfort amidst the chaos. Unsurprising, therefore, that McKenzie has not made it a secret that his designs are firmly set on the home affairs department. He is sticking to his guns on the #Abahambe campaign – to get rid of all illegal migrants.

PA leader Gayton McKenzie in a top brandishing the infamous #Abahambe slogan. Image: PA Facebook page.

It is however the EFF who’ve thrown us a curveball, albeit a somewhat refreshing one. At a post-election presser, Julius Malema conceded that ‘negotiations of this nature need you to be ready to compromise on certain things.’ He was quick, however, to point out that the issue of land was simply not one of those. For somebody who’s called Ramaphosa a criminal, one was equally floored by his next gem. ‘We want to work with the ANC. If there is any party that we can work with and work properly, it’s the ANC because when compromised it is not arrogant,’ he said.

In the same breath he also welcomed to work with both the MKP and the DA whom he casually referred to as ‘those racists’ but was doubtful whether they’d manage to ‘find each other’ in such talks. He confirmed the desire for his deputy Floyd Shivambu to take up the finance ministry but said he had no wish to call for Ramaphosa’s resignation, even though he regards him as a sellout. Although he noted ‘discrepancies’ in the election process, he resoundingly welcomed the results as well as his party’s defeat.

EFF leader Julius Malema. Image: Instagram.

It was all getting too sentimental to be true and it was only a matter of time before vintage Malema would unravel on the issue of GNU. ‘We are not the likes of Mandela,’ he sneered, ‘we don’t do government of national unity. We don’t want it … we want [a] coalition.’ This is Malema’s ambitious demeanour kicking in: where he seeks eminent status in governance and where – in a GNU – he’ll find himself surrounded by a host of ‘small boys’ which will simply not do. His being the fourth biggest party, and MKP unwilling to find common ground with the ANC, could possibly put him amongst the big three in Parliament, alongside the DA and ANC. It could be that the reason he’s keeping communication channels open with MKP is aimed at gaining a foothold in the provinces of Gauteng, KZN and Mpumalanga where that party enjoys substantial support. ActionSA, which had looked like it would do well in the polls has also opted not to jump onto the GNU, preferring instead to operate as a ‘constructive opposition’ that is not corrupted by the trappings of power.

Then of course there’s the official opposition DA. In purely ideological leftist circles, a marriage with this party will be construed as good as pandering to the baases and madams at ‘Stellenbosch.’ It will be akin to handing the country back to former oppressors and old-guard purists will sooner resign than commit such a treasonous act. However, the devil is in both Ramaphosa and Mbalula’s phrasing. Perhaps in calling the potential arrangement a ‘GNU,’ was Ramaphosa’s way of, as best he could, allaying such fears. To say, Comrades, it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve had to sleep with the enemy; we did it in 1994. Mbalula’s echoing of ‘like a CODESA’ is probably aimed to similar ends.

Whether the crimson amongst the NDR will accept this is uncertain. But in the event of a majority buy-in, will the DA manage to reconfigure itself to adjust to this new reality? What will it make of its promise to scrap race-based redress laws? Will Helen Zille crook the knee and accept that in this new environment, colonialism was bad and that’s it! Can those who swear by cadre deployment work side by side with meritocrats? Can it conscientiously share the same gallery with those ANC cadres that it has been trying to nail? Many of its supporters have threatened to leave if the party ever entered into such a coalition.

DA leader John Steenhuisen. Image: SA Parliament.

But for party leader John Steenhuisen, doubtless with the backing of the top brass, this would seem precisely the sort of result they’d been hoping for. The chance to show their mettle in strategic areas of governance and to replicate the kind of successes they’ve achieved in the Western Cape to other parts of the country. With this in mind, they may very well likely make compromises on the aforementioned areas of disagreement if only for an opportunity to prove themselves to the electorate. Depending on how they play their cards, theirs could signify an unprecedented moment in SA’s post-1994 history. But will they be able to shed the ‘old boys club’ tendencies and ‘baaskap‘ attitude they often find themselves accused of?

Only time will tell. If you ignore a disgruntled Ace Magashule in the Free State and an angrier Jacob Zuma in Nkandla, majority of parties seem ready to meet the future with open minds. Despite political differences, the general attitudes suggest that they understand that they have election promises to fulfill, a country to run and many have too many economic interests to protect besides. Violence would not be good for anybody. Certainly on that score, the nation feels pretty much the same way.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *