Disagreement about economic policy has seen the communist party put distance between it and the ANC. (File photo/MG)
Since the formalisation of the tripartite alliance in 1992, a delicate balancing act between the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and labour federation Cosatu has defined South African politics.
While the partners were a powerful force in the anti-apartheid struggle, today the alliance is an arena of intense contestation. The economic policies that once united it have become a source of profound division, particularly as the ANC’s shift to a centre-right economic stance has alienated its traditional allies.
One of the most significant fractures in this relationship emerged with the introduction of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear) strategy in 1996, a key departure from the Reconstruction and Development Programme, which Cosatu had heavily influenced.
Gear marked the ANC’s move towards fiscal conservatism. The policy emphasised privatisation, deregulation and business-led economic growth — ideas that clashed directly with the interests of Cosatu, which argued that it served the interests of capital, not the working class.
The ANC’s insistence on adopting Gear without sufficient consultation with its alliance partners highlighted the increasing centralisation of power within the party and set the stage for long-standing tension over economic direction.
Cosatu and the SACP have staunchly opposed privatisation in the government’s macroeconomic policy development — particularly of essential services such as electricity, water, post, telecommunications and rail transport. They argue for public control of essential services but they are more open to privatisation in less essential sectors.
The ANC’s embrace of privatisation, especially in the early 2000s, was seen as a betrayal of the broader left-wing coalition. By pushing through privatisation policies in numerous ways, including public-private partnerships, commercialisation, invitation of private competitors and the sale of state assets, the ANC effectively aligned itself with capitalist interests, distancing itself from the socialist and worker-centric principles espoused by its allies.
Although the SACP played a role in the drafting of the National Development Plan, its concerns about the document’s neoliberal underpinnings were not fully addressed. However, the plan’s aims are not diametrically opposed to those of the SACP, with its significant emphasis on the role of the state in socio-economic development facilitated by the ministries of trade and industry and economic development in the pursuit of progressive policies to improve the condition of the working class through job-creation programmes.
The ideological divergence between the ANC and its allies culminated in May 2024 when the party, in the wake of its worst electoral performance since 1994, entered a national coalition government with parties from across the political spectrum, including the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) — legacies of the apartheid regime’s National Party.
For the SACP, this move was a clear signal that the ANC had fully embraced a neoliberal agenda, as the DA and FF+ are starkly opposed to progressive policies, employment equity, affirmative action, broad-based black economic empowerment, the national minimum wage, the National Health Insurance Act, the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill and state-led economic transformation.
The ANC’s decision to enter this coalition without consulting its alliance partners was seen as the final straw in the erosion of relations between the ANC and the SACP.
SACP general secretary Solly Mapaila described the decision as a “gross error”, saying the ANC would be “judged harshly by history”.
In the context of macroeconomic policy, the ANC’s alignment with the DA, at least on key economic issues, has become increasingly apparent. Both parties have supported privatisation and free-market policies, while the ANC’s rhetoric remains anchored in its historical commitment to a centre-left, pro-poor agenda.
The ANC’s insistence on pursuing these policies without genuine consultation with its leftist partners has created a chasm between rhetoric and action — one that cannot be ignored as the country moves toward the 2026 elections.
Looking ahead, the implications of this rift for South Africa’s political landscape are significant. The SACP’s decision to contest the 2026 local government elections independently, after years of tension with the ANC over economic policy, marks a decisive shift.
It signals a move towards reasserting the party’s identity and political independence, particularly as it seeks to present an alternative to what it perceives as the ANC’s neoliberal agenda. This could lead to a split in the vote, ultimately weakening both parties and further fragmenting the political landscape.
This decision also opens the door to new political alignments for the SACP, whether with other left-wing parties or trade unions which share its critique of the ANC’s economic direction. Such realignments could reshape South Africa’s political landscape, especially in the context of abject poverty, soaring unemployment and mounting inequality.
However, the two parties might renegotiate their alliance, addressing the SACP’s concerns and finding common ground. This could lead to a strengthened alliance but it is uncertain whether the SACP’s concerns can be fully addressed.
While the ANC still carries the banner of the liberation struggle, its actions suggest it is no longer the party that champions the economic concerns of the working class. Instead, it is increasingly aligned with business interests that have benefitted from apartheid’s racial capitalism.
The question now is whether the ANC can bridge the growing ideological divide within the alliance or whether the SACP will continue down its independent path, creating new dynamics in South Africa’s political sphere.
Mbasa Mvenene teaches political studies at Walter Sisulu University. He is a PhD candidate at Nelson Mandela University. He writes in his personal capacity.