As the ANC approaches both the local government elections and its national conference, it is not unusual for heightened speculation to emerge regarding internal processes and leadership succession debates.
This period, often characterised by conjecture rather than fact, requires a measured and grounded response. The recent Sunday Times opinion piece titled “Is Mashatile’s campaign dead in the water?” (April 19) raises questions about Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s visibility and political posture. However, it fundamentally misreads both his role and priorities at this moment in South Africa, where the focus is on governance and accelerating service delivery, particularly in local government municipalities.
The deputy president is not absent from politics; he is deeply immersed in governance, where the real work of political leadership is exercised. If the question is what the deputy president stands for, the answer is clear: accelerating execution and restoring the capacity of the state to deliver.
South Africa’s challenge is not a shortage of policy but an implementation deficit. His work is therefore deliberately focused on ensuring that the government delivers tangible outcomes where it matters most — at a local level.
Over the past two years, this has translated into a sustained and structured programme of work, from co-ordinated interventions in distressed municipalities such as Mangaung and Matjhabeng, to the institutionalisation of service delivery oversight through quarterly outreach visits.
At a national level, his responsibilities as leader of government business and chair of key inter-ministerial structures place him at the centre of executive co-ordination and accountability.
To suggest that this body of work reflects political absence is to misunderstand the nature of leadership required at this stage of South Africa’s development.
The deputy president has been consistent: the responsibility at hand is to serve and not to campaign for leadership roles — yet.
— Itumeleng Mafatshe, acting head of communications in the office of the deputy president
SA’s policy on Iran is based on principles
Peter Bruce’s latest critique regarding South Africa’s diplomatic posture towards the Islamic Republic of Iran overlooks the fundamental pillar of our post-apartheid identity: progressive internationalism.
To suggest that South Africa’s engagement is born of “inexplicable affection” is to misunderstand a foreign policy that is, in reality, firmly anchored in non-alignment, multilateralism, and a proper application of international law.
As a sovereign nation, South Africa conducts its foreign affairs based on principles, not instructions from other capitals. Our relationship with Iran is part of a broader commitment to engage with all nations, including our fellow Brics members, while maintaining our constitutional values.
Our bilateral relations with Iran were formalised in 1994, with the Joint Commission for Co-operation (JCC) established in 1995. This is our longest-running structured bilateral mechanism in the Middle East. Far from being a “blank cheque” of support, this relationship includes a special dialogue forum on human rights, providing a dedicated platform for critical engagement on sensitive issues.
There is a persistent narrative that South Africa is somehow beholden to Tehran. However, the economic data tells a different story of pragmatic, albeit constrained, interaction.
Due to unilateral coercive measures (UCMs), bilateral trade has declined significantly. In 2024, total trade between South Africa and Iran amounted to approximately $26.6m (about R441m). For comparison, despite the rhetoric of total isolation, the US trade representative reported total US-Iran trade at $838.4m in 2024.
South Africa’s engagement is modest and transparent, focused on maintaining diplomatic channels rather than sphere-of-influence politics.
Critics often point to South Africa’s abstention from UN resolutions regarding Iran’s internal security as a moral failing. On the contrary, this is a cautious and principled approach.
In our national statement to the Human Rights Council on January 23 this year, South Africa explicitly called on Iranian authorities to ensure all actions accord with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality; expressed deep concern regarding violations against protesters; and supported the call for an independent inquiry to ascertain the breaches of human rights by all.
The resolution in question failed to provide the totality of the context, including external threats against Iranian sovereignty. Our vote was a refusal to support a one-sided narrative that could pave the way for further regional destabilisation — a concern which in time has catastrophically materialised.
Our foreign policy is not about picking “favourites” among regimes; it is about upholding a global order where sovereignty is respected and conflict is resolved through dialogue, not coercion.
— Nelia Barnard and Nthabiseng Malefane, department of international relations & co-operation
ANC did not call for more babies
It is not uncommon for South Africans to invent bogus “facts” to support their political standpoints. The misinformation campaign of the anti-BEE lobby has recently been exposed and is now well documented.
The latest to use this ploy is Jan Buurman in his letter titled “The population horse has bolted” (April 19). He claims that leaders of the then banned ANC encouraged people to have many children. This is a blatant untruth. There is no record of a single ANC leader having encouraged people to have many children.
Besides, how could this “encouragement” happen? The ANC and its leaders were banned and could therefore not be quoted in any South African media. Perhaps Buurman is too young to know that there were no cellphones and no social media to circumvent the ban.
— Gaur Serobe, Johannesburg
Understanding Roelf Meyer
Too often, our public debate flattens national complexity into simplistic narratives, avoiding the discipline required to engage with the full arc of our evolving history.
To understand Roelf Meyer is to reject that laziness. History is not neat. It does not move in straight lines, and it does not produce figures who fit comfortably into the convenient categories of hero and villain.
This is precisely why it matters now — South Africa is no longer facing a crisis of policy, but a crisis of culture. We must break our addiction to a culture where the loudest voices are mistaken for the most important.
Nations are not made by those who shout the loudest. They are made in quiet rooms in conversations that stretch late into the night, where the future of millions hangs on the willingness of a few to listen, to bend and — at the most critical moment — not walk away.
This is where we find Meyer.
South Africa today is saturated with what can only be described as political noise. A tweet — often a short video clip — is put into circulation. A complex life is reduced to a label like “apartheid minister”, and that label is treated as if it fully explains the person.
There is an African saying that a tortoise carries its house wherever it goes — a symbol of unshakeable character, guided by an internal compass that does not bend with shifting winds.
Meyer’s career reflects that rare consistency: a disciplined commitment to dialogue, stability and the long-term survival of the country. This is not posture. It is deep patriotism.
To reduce Meyer to a static moment in history is not analysis — it is propaganda. South Africa does not need more noise — it needs maturity. In the end, nations are not destroyed by their enemies as often as they are weakened by their own refusal to grow up.
— Chris Kanyane, Pretoria
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.