History is not an open canvas for those in power to repaint at will. It is a record of events that, when examined truthfully, reveals the motives and actions of those involved.
Helen Zille’s latest attempt at historical revisionism regarding my departure from the DA is an exercise in political amnesia, aimed at reshaping the narrative to absolve the party of its failure to embrace true diversity and become a party that all South Africans could call home.
I have written extensively in my book, Dare to Believe, about my departure from the DA. The reality is that the party has a well-documented modus operandi that fosters a toxic leadership environment — one that I experienced first-hand.
The process began subtly but strategically. First, there were tweets designed to project an intolerant public image of the party, pushing away black South Africans who had began to see the DA as a viable alternative.
Then came the behind-the-scenes lobbying of DA donors to withhold funding from my leadership, ensuring that I lacked the resources to effectively run the party. At one point, Zille herself requested that the party cover her legal fees post-election, demonstrating a focus on personal benefit over collective progress.
As time went on, the attacks became more direct. Public discord was amplified by co-ordinated leaks to media houses and journalists aligned with a particular faction within the party. These leaks distorted internal discussions, painting a false picture of my leadership and fuelling internal divisions.
The final blow came with the so-called “review commission”, which I had originally set up to evaluate the DA’s future direction. Instead of being used as a tool for growth, it was mobilised against me. Its findings were repurposed to pressure me into resignation, with donors being used to enforce this decision.
This pattern is not unique to the DA — it mirrors corporate strategies used to publicly destroy reputations, create financial hardships, and ultimately force resignations. It is a ruthless playbook that sacrifices individuals for the benefit of a select few, at the expense of broader progress.
For anyone who still harbours aspirations of leading the DA, let my experience serve as a warning: eventually, you will be forced out. The party prioritises personal interests over national vision and purpose. Leadership is tolerated only to the extent that it aligns with the entrenched power structures.
Within the DA, there was always an unspoken dictum: consolidate the “traditional base” — a euphemism for white voters — and use it as leverage in coalition negotiations. This approach meant that, after my departure, the DA would exist primarily to serve minority interests, acting as a political equivalent of AfriForum.
I agonised over whether to write this piece but have chosen to focus on the greater purpose. Our nation needs a credible alternative
It has abandoned the idea of being a broad-based alternative to the ANC and instead settled into the role of a party that bargains for influence rather than leading with vision.
The narrative that those who leave the DA are simply playing the victim is a predictable response from a party unwilling to confront its own toxicity. If that were true, then Herman Mashaba — who many in the DA sought to remove and labelled an “EFF mayor” — Patricia de Lille, Lindiwe Mazibuko, Athol Trollip and countless others would all be guilty of the same.
The truth is far simpler: the DA is structured in a way that forces out those who challenge its entrenched interests. And it is not only limited to black South Africans. Trollip’s decision to resign on the same day as I illustrates the regression that begun with Zille’s re-emergence was a fundamental clash of vision for the party and the country. I applaud his decision.
Zille’s election as federal council chair in 2019 was not a neutral event; it was a calculated move to pull the DA back to its old, familiar base — one that was resistant to the change I represented. She was elected on an implicit but well-understood anti-Maimane ticket.
The consequences were immediate. The day after Zille’s election, Mashaba resigned as mayor of Johannesburg. His departure was not an isolated incident; it was a direct result of the DA’s internal shift — a rejection of the values he and I championed.
In the days that followed, I wrestled with my own decision. My wife Natalie and I had countless discussions about what resigning would mean — not just for our personal lives, but for the vision I had fought so hard to realise.
But ultimately I came to the painful realisation that remaining in the DA would mean endorsing a direction I fundamentally opposed. The internal battles over the party’s identity were irreconcilable. Staying would have made me complicit in a retreat from transformation, and I could not, in good conscience, allow that to happen.
I agonised over whether to write this piece but have chosen to focus on the greater purpose. Our nation needs a credible alternative. The GNU may have its role, but the DA has quickly abandoned its principles in exchange for blue lights, perks and proximity to power. It has sacrificed its founding ideals for personal benefit, betraying the very people it once claimed to represent.
My challenge is not to Zille and her acolytes but to all South Africans: what is the purpose of politics? What is the grand vision? If it is merely to serve as a defensive force against an ANC-MK-EFF coalition, then the DA has already limited itself.
I had hoped for a party with a broader ambition — to govern the country, to build a nonracial alternative, and to contest for a different economic framework. Instead, I fear it will remain a personal project for a handful of individuals, sustained by patronage and dedicated to preserving the status quo.
When I stood before the nation in 2019 and announced my resignation, I said: “And in the end, we have come to the conclusion that despite my best efforts, the DA is not the vehicle best suited to take forward the vision of building one South Africa for all.”
Five years later, that assessment has been vindicated. Under Zille’s influence, the DA has regressed, content with its limited electoral footprint and comfortable in its role as a junior partner in government. It has abandoned the fight for transformation, settling instead for using its 20% of the vote share for its own narrow gain.
Zille can attempt to rewrite history, but the facts remain unchanged. My departure was not about personal ambition — it was about principle. It was about refusing to endorse a retreat from diversity and inclusion. It was about ensuring that the fight for a truly inclusive South Africa continues in a space where it can thrive.
That fight is far from over. If anything, it has only just begun.
• Maimane is the leader of Build One South Africa (Bosa)
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.