South African politics is facing a moment of reckoning — and it has less to do with the Government of National Unity (GNU) than with how voters respond to elite maneuvering across party lines.
When President Cyril Ramaphosa removed Andrew Whitfield, the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, the official explanation cited a breach of “discipline” and “protocol.” However, this political drama goes far beyond one man or one office. It underscores a deep-rooted pattern in South African politics: elites cooperating behind the scenes to retain power while citizens are distracted by performative outrage.
The real crisis in South African democracy isn’t just the protocol breach — it’s the selective application of accountability standards. Whether Whitfield was punished for insubordination or for exposing corruption in the National Lottery Commission, the issue reveals systemic dysfunction: rules are enforced based on political convenience, not principle.
Elites Protecting Elites
This culture of selective accountability isn’t new. The African National Congress (ANC) has long protected its own members. Notable figures like David Mahlobo, Thembi Simelane, and Nobuhle Nkabane remain in positions of power despite serious allegations of misconduct. For example, Nkabane misled parliament about the appointment process of education authorities, yet faced no consequences.
Similarly, Gayton McKenzie of the Patriotic Alliance (PA) has made discriminatory statements without any formal disciplinary action. These examples highlight a clear pattern: elite protection trumps public accountability. This deeply embedded culture of impunity has only worsened under the GNU.
The GNU: Unity or Entrenchment of Dysfunction?
The Government of National Unity, formed with promises of reform and cooperation, risks consolidating dysfunction instead of correcting it. Several watchdog organizations have noted an uptick in corruption and cadre deployment since the coalition’s inception.
While the GNU was supposed to stabilize governance, it seems to be a smokescreen for elite deal-making. Instead of fostering transparency and good governance, it’s becoming a shield for bad actors across party lines.
The DA’s Double Standards
The DA’s reaction to Whitfield’s dismissal, framing it as punishment for “fighting corruption,” seems inconsistent. The same party has benefited from its insider role in the GNU and has remained largely silent during other questionable appointments and power-sharing deals.
This raises critical questions: Is the DA genuinely committed to accountability, or is it merely using the language of reform to maintain its own share of influence?
Time for Voters to Break the Cycle
South African voters must resist the false binary of ANC vs DA. The real battle is between elite self-preservation and genuine public service. Voters must begin asking tougher questions:
- What are both parties really trying to protect?
- Who benefits from the constant political theatre?
- What is the real cost of this elite-driven status quo?
The opportunity cost is staggering. Shielding politicians from scrutiny undermines trust, delays reforms, and fosters cynicism. The erosion of trust in South Africa’s democratic institutions is perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all.
Accountability Starts with the Electorate
As Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others.” But democracy’s success hinges on voters who are informed, skeptical, and engaged. Merely reshuffling ministers or adjusting coalitions won’t bring about change unless the underlying culture shifts.
South Africa must cultivate a political culture that prioritizes transparency over theatrics and reform over rhetoric. It needs voters who not only listen but interrogate — who not only hope for change but demand it.
Redefining What It Means to Be a Politician
For centuries, the word “politician” has carried a cynical meaning — a person primarily interested in power for selfish ends. This definition thrives when citizens disengage or settle for slogans. The burden of democracy is constant vigilance, especially within coalition governments like the GNU.
In the end, the case of Andrew Whitfield isn’t just a test of GNU governance — it’s a test of voter integrity. If South Africans don’t ask deeper questions now, they risk being governed by elites who operate behind closed doors while the public foots the bill.
Final Thoughts
South Africa stands at a political crossroads. The GNU’s true measure lies not in speeches or alliances but in whether voters will hold every party and every leader accountable. The time to act is now — not in the next election cycle, but today.
By Zimkhitha Manyana, Lecturer in International Relations at the University of the Witwatersrand and PhD graduate in Political Science from the University of Johannesburg.
Learn more about South Africa’s political system
Related analysis on the GNU at Mail & Guardian
Thanks for reading. for more new news visit our website: voiceafricadaily.com
