EDITORIAL | A fine line between holding a country to ransom and pursuing a hard bargain

As the second week ends without an agreement on the government of national unity (GNU), questions must be asked about whether the leaders have approached the task with the requisite seriousness it deserves.

At a general level, the country has been plunged into leadership paralysis after the dissolution of national and provincial cabinets.

While most of the negotiations happen behind closed doors, the population has depended on leaks to the media which include letters exchanged between party leaders, the latest of which caused a stir.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has told the DA it has been negotiating in bad faith, has “moved the goalposts” and made requests that were “legally incompetent” because they violated the constitution.

Ramaphosa, in his latest letter to the DA, identifies DA federal chair Hellen Zille as a stumbling block to progress in finalising the GNU deal: “I also informed you that we found the letter from your federal chairperson (Zille) offensive, condescending, and inconsistent with the Constitution. I also prefer not to deal further with the legally incompetent proposals to unilaterally redetermine contractual arrangements of directors general and other contracts. I did inform you that I felt we should not dwell on the misguided propositions contained in that letter, as paying attention to the contents of that letter would divert us from the task at hand of constituting a government of national unity.”

What is plain is that the DA is trying its utmost to extract as many positions as possible

Zille had suggested new directors general (DGs) be appointed to portfolios allocated to the DA in the GNU. Ramaphosa had to remind the DA that DGs have legally binding contracts.

It boggles the mind that the party that does not believe in “cadre deployment” wants to deploy its own cadres to its allocated departments. What this request further does is muddy the waters for incumbent DGs because should the DA raise genuine concerns about the DGs it finds in its allocated departments, it would be difficult to argue that such concerns are not trumped up to facilitate the departures of the DGs they wanted gone even before meeting them. It boggles the mind how the DA would want to violate the law in so obvious a manner.

While the DA leadership appears to be power drunk, Ramaphosa, through his letter, also shows us the party keeps moving goalposts after agreements, almost as if it would rather have the country in the current state of paralysis if its new demands are not met.

Ramaphosa noted he initially believed parties were closer to clinching a deal, but was “truly taken aback by how you now want two more portfolios to bring the DA’s portfolio to eight”, a move that “jeopardised the foundation of setting up a government of national unity by moving the goalposts in your letter of June 24 2024 to me”.

Ramaphosa expresses his concern at DA leader John Steenhuisen's approach, noting: “I regard your approach in moving the goalposts as a continuation of what was articulated in your federal chair’s letter of June 22 2024 on issues such as ‘sealed mandates’ of ministries, through which the DA seemed to want to set up a parallel government that would operate outside the framework and parameters of the constitution-based method and protocols of running the government of the Republic of South Africa.”

What is plain is that the DA is trying its utmost to extract as many positions as possible. This is despite the fact that parties had said they would not be focused on positions but on issues faced by South Africans.

It is a pity Ramaphosa had to diplomatically threaten to constitute the GNU without the DA if it did not make up its mind quickly.

“As the ANC is leading the process of these negotiations, we have had to consider the proposals from other parties and therefore what we discussed yesterday stands to be reconsidered as you made clear to me ‘you would not be able to get less than the number of portfolios the DA desired over the line with your Fedex’. I must advise that we are continuing to hold discussions with other parties over the portfolios they could occupy as we seek to finalise the agreement on the GNU,” he said.

On the surface, the DA is coming across as a greedy, portfolio-focused party that is holding back the nation’s progress. It is possible that it is merely playing hardball in the negotiations, but the question is why is it the only one focused on the hard ball.

As the paralysis in government continues, it is the weak and the poor who suffer. It is those waiting for clean water and services whose dignity is put on hold while the DA is moving goalposts and making unconstitutional demands.