The real power in the GNU might belong to the smallest parties
The significant yet often overlooked influence of smaller political parties in South Africa's Government of National Unity are under the spotlight, as they navigate challenges and shape policy agendas.
Image: IOL Graphics
As South Africa marks the first anniversary of the Government of National Unity (GNU), questions linger about the influence of the country's smaller political parties.
Though often described as minor players, these parties - particularly the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), GOOD, and the United Democratic Movement (UDM) - prove that size isn't everything in parliamentary politics.
Their role in shaping policy and steering the nation's direction raises essential discussions about the power dynamics within South Africa's proportional representation system.
In a political landscape dominated by the ANC, DA, and EFF, MK parties, smaller parties like the IFP and GOOD have punched above their weight by leveraging their positions within the GNU to push specific agendas.
IFP leader Velenkosi Hlabisa asserts that his party continues to serve as a 'unifying force' within the government, highlighting their impact across portfolios such as Cooperative Governance, Transport, and Environmental Affairs.
Hlabisa highlighted key achievements, including the launch of the White Paper on Local Government Reforms, which aimed to improve service delivery, reintroduce stable train services, and combat corruption within public service.
'Our contributions are impactful and transformative,' he said, underscoring their commitment to social cohesion, rural development, and environmental sustainability.
Similarly, Patricia de Lille, leader of the GOOD party, reflected on their strategic role in the GNU.
Since its inception last year, GOOD has actively influenced the government's priorities by advocating for spatial transformation, social security, and justice.
'We ensured that issues like spatial inequalities and social grants were integrated into the GNU's core agenda,' de Lille explained.
Despite being the smallest party, she stated that GOOD's substantive arguments helped shape the GNU's 'Statement of Intent' and the 'Minimum Programme of Priorities,' demonstrating that influence is measured less by size and more by engagement quality.
Brett Herron, Secretary-General of the GOOD Party, emphasised that the proportional representation system allows smaller parties to wield significant influence.
'The strength lies not in the size but in the persuasive substance of our arguments,' he said.
He pointed to the GNU's negotiations, where GOOD's insistence on spatial and social issues led to tangible policy commitments.
Hlabisa echoed this sentiment, noting that their role extends beyond mere participation.
'We are widely regarded as a voice of reason, fostering cooperation across diverse identities,' he said.
At the provincial level in KwaZulu-Natal, where the IFP leads the Government of Provincial Unity, the party claims to be actively transforming the province-addressing crime, promoting economic growth, and improving service delivery.
While these small parties celebrate their influence, critics argue that the GNU faces systemic challenges.
Political analyst Joe Mhlanga warns that the government's effectiveness remains questionable.
'Unemployment and inequality are still unresolved,' he said, pointing to internal disagreements and policy inconsistencies that threaten stability.
Mhlanga also noted recent controversies surrounding South Africa's foreign policy, such as some GNU members' visits to Israel, which conflict with the country's traditional neutrality stance.
'This reflects a broader issue: is the GNU working for all of us, or only for certain factions?' he questioned.
Moreover, the UDM's leader, General Bantu Holomisa, did not respond to multiple inquiries, leaving questions about the party's ongoing role in the coalition.
Reflecting on the past year, some analysts suggest that small parties can punch above their weight - if they seize the opportunity.
Despite being the smallest in parliament, Herron pointed out that GOOD was crucial in resolving the BELA Act dispute and influencing the GNU's priorities.
However, independent political analyst Joe Mhlanga remains cautious.
'The GNU is struggling with internal conflicts and policy inconsistencies,' he said.
'Small parties need to work harder to maintain relevance and influence, especially as larger parties try to dominate the narrative.'
According to Edward Polsue from the Institute of Race Relations, on Tuesday, The Roundtable published an article stating that ANC voters are leaving the party, while the DA is establishing itself as a strong opposition to ANC policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
14 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
One-year-old GNU brings stability, but fails on other metrics
No goal: ActionSA, which chose to remain outside the government of national unity, gave a damning evaluation of the GNU. Photo: @Presidency/ZA/X Observers say the government of national unity has kept parties such as the EFF and MK in check, but jobs, growth and reform remain elusive This content is restricted to subscribers only . Join the M&G Community Our commitment at the Mail & Guardian is to ensure every reader enjoys the finest experience. Join the M&G community and support us in delivering in-depth news to you consistently. Subscription enables: - M&G community membership - independent journalism - access to all premium articles & features - a digital version of the weekly newspaper - invites to subscriber-only events - the opportunity to test new online features first Already a subscriber?
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
A stagnant economy: The driving force behind South Africa's unemployment crisis
The writer says that we cannot keep placing our economic hopes in the hands of a state that has repeatedly failed to deliver. Image: File THERE'S no denying that a misalignment between our education system and the demands of the economy is a driver of our unemployment crisis; it's been said often, and it holds up. We produce far too many graduates with qualifications that don't match what the market is looking for. Humanities graduates, in particular, tend to be cited as an example – and there's truth to this. However, to suggest that merely closing the skills gap will resolve unemployment is to oversimplify a much deeper crisis. This line of thinking implies that jobs are readily available, and that the only thing standing in the way is a lack of relevant skills. As appealing – and partly valid – as it may be, it doesn't capture the full picture. To be clear, aligning the education system more closely with the economy is undoubtedly important. It will improve the prospects of many graduates and create pockets of new employment. Nevertheless, the positive outcomes of such reform (in the broader picture) will likely be modest, and they won't come close to addressing the massive scale of unemployment that we're facing. Reframing the underlying issue The bigger problem – which we skirt around sometimes – is that our country just doesn't have enough jobs. Regardless of the skills they bring to the table, we have an economy that isn't creating nearly enough employment to absorb millions of people. As it stands, the most affected are those with little or no education, and those with qualifications that are oversupplied and out of sync with demand. But we would be making a mistake to assume that this crisis is limited to them. We're beginning to see signs that even those with in-demand skills are not as secure as many might think. The growing number of unemployed medical doctors, for instance, is not just an anomaly, but a warning. While this trend hasn't reached crisis proportions, it clearly indicates that no one is fully insulated from an economy that isn't growing at the level it should. All this points us to key questions that we should keep are: why is our economy failing to produce the jobs we so desperately need? What are the structural issues holding us back? And more importantly, how do we build an economy that can create employment for millions of South Africans and not just those with the 'right' skills? The answer to the first question is widely understood and requires no overstating. The ANC-led Government of National Unity (GNU) remains committed to an archaic and globally discredited economic orthodoxy that simply does not confront the structural roots of our unemployment crisis. To begin addressing this, we need to look at a few key areas that aren't silver bullets, but necessary foundations for any serious structural reform. Educational policy Political analyst Prince Mashele has consistently and correctly argued that fixing our education system must be a top priority. The dysfunction in basic education is well documented, but the deeper issue is that our entire system, from primary school through to college or university, is still poorly aligned with the practical and technical demands of our modern economy. We need to move away from an overly abstract approach to learning and focus more on what equips people to participate meaningfully in the economy. This shift needs to begin at the foundational level and not when learners are preparing to exit the system. Rethinking our growth formula The idea that the state must be central to any meaningful development or job creation strategy is taken as gospel in many circles. But ironically, it is this very gospel that has failed and lies at the heart of many of our economic problems. As Senior Associate of the Free Market Foundation (FMF) Nicholas Woode-Smith has often argued, it is the market, and not the state, that has the capacity to drive growth, innovation, and employment, provided the environment allows it. This environment must obviously be created by the state, but it must understand that its role is to facilitate growth and not dominate the economy. A bloated and inefficient public sector cannot absorb labour at scale through unsustainable programs or endless grants. It also cannot micromanage growth into existence. What we need is a more open market that isn't shackled by red tape and labour laws that protect incumbency at the cost of flexibility. The notion of "exploitation" that is often used to undermine this credible argument isn't only a subjective judgment, but also a distraction from the fact that real job creation demands dynamism. Even the People's Republic of China (PRC), which is often misrepresented as a successful model of state-led growth, actually built its economic miracle on the back of aggressive liberalisation and global market integration. We would do well to take note of this. Attracting foreign investment If investment is the oxygen of a growing economy, then ours has been gasping for breath for years. As political economist Phumlani Majozi has long warned, our country is not an attractive destination for substantial investment. Some of the reasons for this are not obscure. They include rampant crime, a financially repressive policy framework in Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE), infrastructure deficits, and ongoing energy insecurity. Taken together, these factors largely explain why foreign investment has not been flowing in. Naturally, the aforementioned challenges are only part of a much larger picture. There are other vital pillars of structural reform that receive far less attention than they should. Through its Liberty First policy initiative, the FMF, in line with core research findings of the annual Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) report, has identified five of them. Three of them – sound money, free trade, and secure private property rights – are especially worth highlighting here. Liberty first A stable currency is crucial for long-term investment and planning. Without it, both individuals and businesses struggle to make meaningful decisions about saving and investing. Free trade creates access to new markets, lowers costs, and increases consumer choice. Yet unfortunately, our country continues to lean more towards projectionist measures that do more harm than good. The third pillar, and arguably the most urgent, is the protection of private property rights. The recent signing of the Expropriation Act into law is deeply concerning and constitutes a direct attack on the very property rights of all South Africans. As FMF Head of Policy Martin Van Staden has recently posited, "nil compensation" is nothing but a formal and euphemistic way of saying zero. Worse still, the Act opens the door to abuse by allowing expropriation under the vague and sweeping label of "public interest". This creates legal ambiguity and deters much-needed investment. Without secure private property rights, our economy will remain stagnant and start to regress as productive activity slows and whatever little capital we have left flees. Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation. Image: Free Market Foundation
The Citizen
a day ago
- The Citizen
Banned again: Malema's presence not ‘conducive to the public good', say UK authorities
Malema says he will not change his political views despite being pressured to do so. The EFF has confirmed that Julius Malema was denied entry into the United Kingdom (UK) due to his political views. On Thursday, EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said the party received a letter from the British government indicating that Malema was denied a visa because of his views on the Israeli war in Gaza and his controversial race-centred political views. 'In a correspondence from the UK Home Office Secretary, the country has confirmed that it has effectively banned the president of the EFF due to his position in relation to the genocide of Palestinian people, and his expressed support for the resistance movement fighting against the genocidal Israeli regime. As well as his position and that of the EFF on racial inequality in South Africa,' he said. Thambo said the letter states that Malema's presence in the UK would not be desirable under the current circumstances. In May this year, Malema was invited to Cambridge University to speak to students. However, he was told his visa was not approved due to administrative reasons. 'The UK has declared the Commander in Chief and President of the EFF an 'extremist' whose presence in the UK would not be conducive for the public good. 'This country, which has a long history of imperialism, and still has the blood of Africans dripping from its hands as its wealth was built on the back of African people, has suggested that all further applications by our president are likely to be denied unless he changes his posture on the issues which characterise him as a revolutionary,' he said. 'A bully that seeks to impose its views' Thambo said banning Malema from the UK is undemocratic and shows intolerance of differing views. 'This is not only cowardice by the UK but also stifling of democratic debate and a pathetic expression of intolerance for those who hold different views from the UK administration, including its monarchy. ALSO READ: Is EFF trying to sneak into GNU as tension builds over ANC's VAT proposal? 'For a nation that preaches its commitment to democracy, the UK has revealed itself as an intolerant bully that seeks to impose its beliefs on the world without challenge, while denying democratically elected leaders of other nations the opportunity to express themselves in their country,' he said. Where else has Malema been banned? In 2011, Malema was banned from Botswana for proposing regime change in that country. The ban was only lifted last year. He was also banned in Zambia for allegedly interfering in the country's internal affairs. This ban has also been lifted. Recently, US President Donald Trump called for his arrest for allegedly fuelling racial tension in the country. Videos of the leader of the Red Berets chanting kill the boer in front of large crowds were played in front of international media at the White House during a meeting to reset relations between South Africa and the US. In February, EFF leader Julius Malema said he was 'happy to be an international criminal.' He was responding to tech billionaire Elon Musk, who had called for Malema to be declared an 'international criminal' for his views. However, Malema said nothing would deter him from his political work. 'I am so happy to be an international criminal. Do you know why? Because Nelson Mandela was an international criminal – that's what they declared him for fighting for the rights of our people,' said Malema at the time. 'If it means I'm joining the ranks of Nelson Mandela by being declared an international criminal for fighting for the rights of my people, I'm a proud international criminal.' NOW READ: WATCH: 'Even Donald Trump is scared of the EFF' – Malema
