(John McCann/M&G)
The merry-go-round in municipalities continues. Nelson Mandela Bay has just installed a new coalition, while the one governing the City of Johannesburg has collapsed. Though the instability has its roots in the defects that have come to characterise our party structure and politicians, it is also an unavoidable manifestation of the competitive nature of electoral democracy.
In the midst of what looks gloomy, however, there are some signs, albeit dim, that others have heeded the lessons offered by previous failures on how to build a potentially stable coalition.
Let’s start with the collapse of the coalition in Johannesburg. This is a result of the failure of strategies adopted by each party, both in the coalition and across the aisle, at the onset of this term. Though agreeing to a partnership, relations among coalition partners were competitive from the beginning. This is unavoidable in politics, for voters elect parties largely on the basis of their performance, or even perceptions. Visibility of parties — and the appearance of influence — is critical in swaying voters’ assessment.
Besides seeking to shape voters’ perceptions, others, of course, are strictly seeking patronage. That is why coalition formation takes an inordinate period of time to conclude. And, the ultimate composition of a coalition is a result of parties’ individual calculations over what they reckon will enable them to achieve, or maintain, a competitive edge over their partners.
What is happening in Johannesburg, therefore, is that the calculations made by some of the coalition partners have not panned out the way they had hoped. This is what explains why the coalition partners — the Congress of the People (Cope), African Transformation Movement (ATM) and United Independent Movement (UIM) — turned against their leading partner, the Democratic Alliance (DA). They voted for the motion of no confidence in the DA, citing unhappiness over the party controlling three key positions in council — mayor, speaker and chief whip.
But, the DA’s control of the three council positions is not new. It was part of the coalition agreement they all signed last year. They must have thought that being in government was sufficient to realise their party’s and individual ambitions. Once inside, and in the ensuing period, they then realised that their positions are not enabling their wishes. It may also be that individual councillors developed new ambitions. The perks that come with power have that effect. They create an appetite for even more power.
In insisting on controlling the three positions, the DA had capitalised on the desperation of small parties to occupy positions of authority in the council. The three parties have one seat each in the council. They were unlikely to assume any position of authority and were elated at the DA’s invitation to join the coalition.
Controlling the three positions gave the DA sufficient grip on government and authority to direct council proceedings towards meeting its own priorities. And, most importantly, it gave the party visibility that was to enable it to claim credit for whatever improvements happen in the metro. It’s possible that the DA also rubbed this dominant control into the face of its partners, comfortable in the thought that the small parties were just too desperate to remain in the coalition.
Rather than remain unhappy in the DA-led coalition, the small parties decided to take advantage of the presence of an alternative power bloc made up predominantly of the ANC and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). Just as in the case of the DA’s erstwhile partners, the existence of this power bloc, which is eager to replace the governing coalition, shows the permanence of the fluidity of interests.
Last year the EFF swore it would not collaborate with the ANC, and voted for the DA-led coalition instead. And, that vote merely served to deliver a snub to the ANC, for the EFF got nothing in return. The EFF’s reason for existence is to prove, at every possible turn, how valuable (or how much of a pain) it is to the ANC. Julius Malema realises that, on its own, his party will never amount to anything significant. It can only do so on the back of the ANC. The wish, therefore, is that the repeated snubs will make the ANC realise how much it needs the EFF — desperation that would, in turn, place the EFF in a position to make any demands on the ANC.
Unlike the EFF, ActionSA doesn’t have the freedom to flip-flop like the EFF. Being the charismatic leader that he is, Malema’s supporters are forgiving towards him. They adore him, more than they do his party. It is a patron-based party and so his supporters are prone to laugh away at his twists and turns.
Conversely, Herman Mashaba appeals to a different constituency. The appeal is based more on policy choices and leadership style, than affection for the leader. And, these voters, mostly suburban, expect him to “behave responsibly”. Saying something different every time you wake up is not rated highly in the suburbs. And, Mashaba knows this, which explains why he appears to be sticking to the agreement with the DA.
Besides the constant search for a competitive edge, the current ructions also highlight the importance of the party structure for stability. The problems in Johannesburg have not only been occasioned by the DA’s instinct for total control but also have to do with personal ambition. Cope leaders, for instance, were not unanimous on the initial vote against the DA speaker. The party’s provincial committee, with the support of national leaders, suspended Colleen Makhubele for voting against the DA.
Cope regional leaders, however, dismissed the suspension, saying that Makhubele voted according to the mandate of the party. They went further to dismiss the party’s provincial committee as “illegitimate and unconstitutional”, led by someone who was not even a member of Cope.
This is obviously an indication of the quarrels within the party. We have just been treated to a spectacle of national leaders suspending each other. Between Mosioua Lekota and Willie Madisha it’s not clear who leads the party now. And, the Johannesburg leaders have decided they’re not bound to heed whoever claims to be the leader. Cope has no centre, leaving its regional leaders to act as they chose, including against national agreements with other parties.
The disarray within Cope is evidence of the ascent of individual interests that have become commonplace in many parties. Three other councillors — two from the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and one from the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) — also disregarded the coalition agreement and voted to remove the DA’s Vasco da Gama. Unlike Cope, the ACDP and the IFP reacted differently. They have since expelled their dissident councillors. The two parties are clearly stable and determined to observe the coalition agreement they signed with the DA.
There were reports that the three councillors were paid to betray their parties. If the reports are true, that would not be the first incident. Three former DA councillors — Mxolisi Manyathi, Trevor Louw and Neville Higgins — are facing charges of money laundering, at Gqeberha, for benefiting from an irregular contract in exchange for votes. Back in 2018 they turned against their own party to enable the ANC to get into power. From an irregular tender the ANC had secured, it then allegedly paid the councillors R100 000 each.
Some councillors are obviously not committed to the goals of their own parties but are in it to make a quick buck. This is likely to remain a problem, especially if they think their positions in the party are precarious.
Small parties, with a bleak future, are vulnerable to internal fights. Unsure of whether the party will be returned in the next election, other party members, outside the council, are always tempted to topple their councillor colleagues so that they too can get a salary.
Some of the councillors, therefore, choose to cash-in before they’re removed. Hopefully, the current case at Gqeberha will illuminate attention on this mercenary behaviour. In future, any councillors that vote against their party should instantly attract attention for possible wrongdoing and investigation.
Although the DA has just seen yet another collapse of its coalition in Johannesburg, their colleagues in Nelson Mandela Bay may have some reason to be optimistic. There, they realised that hogging all key positions doesn’t make for a successful coalition. This new coalition is structured differently. The positions of speaker and chief whip, for instance, are occupied by coalition partners, namely the Northern Alliance and Freedom Front+, respectively.
This is a drastic change for the party even in Nelson Mandela Bay. Its initial discussions, soon after the 2021 election, collapsed over its refusal to have the Northern Alliance occupy the speaker post. That is what pushed the small parties there towards the ANC, which was more than eager to grant them their wish. Unfortunately, the DA in Johannesburg just could not adapt in time to avert collapse.
It’s a lesson learnt.
Mcebisi Ndletyana is professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.
[/membership]