President Cyril Ramaphosa and DA leader John Steenhuisen. (GCIS)
President Cyril Ramaphosa and Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen met briefly on Wednesday to discuss mounting tension between the two biggest parties in the ruling coalition, the latest source of friction being the Expropriation Act, which was signed last week.
The pair were initially due to meet on Tuesday, but Ramaphosa asked to reschedule, given the crisis in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where Rwandan-backed M23 militia have seized control of Goma, the capital of North Kivu province, and 13 South African peacekeepers have been killed in the past week.
They then held a one-on-one on the sidelines of a two-day cabinet lekgotla, Steenhuisen’s office said.
Sources close to the president described the fact that he made time for the DA leader, despite the intense diplomacy around the situation in the DRC, as confirmation of his commitment to keeping the coalition steady.
The meeting came after Steenhuisen accused Ramaphosa of disrespecting the DA by signing the Expropriation Bill into law on Saturday, and suggested his party would rethink its place in the government of national unity (GNU), unless the ANC was prepared to reconsider policy and legislation to accommodate its objections.
The ANC’s take on this statement, the toughest ever to come from Steenhuisen on the future of the GNU, is that it is informed by his own insecurity about his future as the leader of the DA.
It is worth noting that Steenhuisen took care to qualify that the months-long battle around the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Act did not pose an existential threat to the coalition.
It is equally worth noting that, when he signalled that the standoff over the Expropriation Act — which Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson said he would not implement — did constitute such and imperilled the coalition, the rand tumbled on the foreign exchange market.
For eight months, Ramaphosa, his foreign minister Ronald Lamola and the diplomatic corps have been selling the coalition abroad as a stabilising force for South Africa and the president has not taken the effect Steenhuisen’s sabre-rattling had on the financial markets lightly.
Hence the invitation to meet and clear the air.
The readily extended invitation also speaks to the underlying understanding between the two leaders and their mutual commitment to the coalition pact — and the fact that their party constituencies may not share the same.
Well-placed DA sources say there was considerable tension within the party about Saturday’s statement and whether it was worth taking the battle down the wire.
Many in the DA accept that there is a limit to the extent to which the party can seek to overturn legislation that was passed by parliament before the results of May’s general election forced the two parties into coalition.
What rankles is the fact that Ramaphosa often does not take his main coalition partner into his confidence.
It was notable, DA sources said, that Macpherson — incidentally the manager of Steenhuisen’s campaign for re-election as party leader — had learned Ramaphosa had assented to the Expropriation Act via the media, well after the staff in his public works department had been informed.
The differences of view over whether Steenhuisen’s angry public statement was well judged reflects the tension within the party as to whether the coalition arrangement is still in its interests and, by extension, whether Steenhuisen is still ably managing the DA and the pact.
The party’s next leadership election is 15 months away. Until recently, word has been that Steenhuisen’s position was not in contention because the DA’s electoral support grew, if only marginally, in the May elections and the transition to be an alliance partner was managed well.
Recent media reports have suggested that DA federal chair Helen Zille has come to doubt this and is orchestrating a leadership bid by Cape Town mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis.
However, the situation is more complex than this.
First, it is unlike Zille to manoeuvre a strategic change more than a year in advance.
Second, Hill-Lewis is highly popular among the party’s core constituency in a major DA fiefdom, hence any early ambitions to replace Steenhuisen may read as a betrayal of his mandate.
This is not necessarily an impediment to him contesting the leadership — Zille served as both party leader and Cape Town mayor for years — but Hill-Lewis told the Mail & Guardian this week he had no intention of standing against Steenhuisen.
“That will never happen — it is an impossibility,” he said, while conceding he had been asked by some in the party to contest the position.
He also dismissed suggestions that there were warring factions within the DA, saying: “There’s no truth to your factions question.”
Some DA sources predicted last year that, should the party not do well in the elections, Steenhuisen’s head would be on the block, and he would be asked to resign, facing the same fate as his predecessor Mmusi Maimane.
But speaking to the M&G on Monday, Zille denied being part of a Cape Town faction in support of axing Steenhuisen. She said her job was to make sure rules were applied fairly and the party constitution was applied equitably to every member.
Those who were alleging otherwise had no understanding of her job, she insisted.
“I’m not a politician. I don’t want to be a political public representative and, in that sense, I’m not a politician. I do not have factions. I’m elected by the federal council to do a job that is fair to everyone and that is what I do,” she said.
Last week, Hill-Lewis told a press club meeting he was loyal to Steenhuisen, referring to him as a “dear friend”.
“The question doesn’t arise. He is in the position and I’m certainly not going to stand against him. There is no universe in which that is possible. That will not happen.”
Steenhuisen was not available to comment on the alleged challenge to his leadership, with his spokesperson Charity McCord saying he had been booked off sick.
McCord confirmed Steenhuisen had met Ramaphosa but declined to say what the outcome was, telling the M&G: “Ask the presidency.”
She refuted suggestions that Steenhuisen’s public statements after the signing of the Expropriation Bill reflected his insecurities about his tenure as DA leader.
“What does expropriation have to do with leadership contestations?”
She also denied that there was a DA faction wanting to oust Steenhuisen as leader.
“Factions? We don’t know about factions in the party — perhaps you [need to] reach out to those that told you about the existence of such,” McCord said.