100 days of GNU – a misleading dream or success-prone reality?

By: Stef Terblanche

With the Government of National Unity (GNU) being in existence just over 100 days, a number of important and relevant questions are being raised about it. Is the GNU what it purports to be? Is it succeeding? Will it survive the test of time? Does its current configuration not exclude a number or big, important parties that should be part of it, thus diluting its broad representativity? Does it contribute a relevant and constructive new dynamic to the South African democracy project? Or is it just a white elephant that will eventually be struck down, leaving us with a constitutional crisis?

Firstly, some commentators and academics are pedantically quibbling over the use of the name ‘government of national unity’ as well as over the semantics of the assumed impacts and implications of such a government by such a name. These arguments are largely academic and miss the point of the practical reality of the GNU. But one could nonetheless consider them to be important as they also speak to the very essence of this GNU.

It is argued by some that it is incorrect to use the term ‘GNU’ as it is actually a multiparty government (MPG) because not all political parties are represented in it. It has also been suggested that the use of ‘unity’ in the name is a misnomer as parties do not agree on everything and there are still differences, tensions, divisions and power struggles across the political spectrum. As already mentioned, in an academic analysis they may be right, but relating to the aims and context in practical reality, they are missing the point.

When trying to define the GNU its essence clearly is encapsulated in the word ‘unity’… or, differently put in the current applicable context, it is constructive cooperation with maximum consensus and minimum conflict representing a broad(est) range of constituencies and opinion to arrive at shared solutions in the best national interest. But even such a definition resides somewhat at an academic level as in practice there may be many other undercurrents at play, to which I will come. To satisfy the purists and nitpickers, perhaps naming the GNU a ‘government of maximum consensus’ would have been closer to the semantic mark, but going down that road would lead us to a confusing array of many more possible names without contributing anything to the required practical essence.

Of course there are still many differences among the participating parties, and no rational person ever thought or expected otherwise. So, the argument that the use of the name ‘GNU’ is misleading and deceptive, is not valid. Secondly, the term GNU is best used so as not to confuse people because it is commonly used by most people as well as by those politicians and parties who constitute this government, and because in essence it is correct.

The term ‘multi-party government’ would also be correct, however, but almost no-one uses it. The term ‘MPG’ may perhaps better be used as being interchangeable with ‘minority government’ in some instances, such as where a below-50% party forms a minority government and allocates token portfolios to one or a few other parties, as per the example of the ANC in Gauteng, which is supposed to represent a unity government but by no stretch of the imagination succeeds in doing this.

Using ‘GNU’ to describe the national government that does not include all political parties, is also correct in the sense that all parties were invited to join it; those who didn’t, did so of their own; and national unity is the bottom-line as the idea is to strive for maximum unity in government policy and decision-making for the national good among otherwise adversarial political parties, and they do so in terms of their commitment to achieving maximum consensus as in the Statement of Intent signed by all participating parties.

The name or structure of this GNU does not refer to some magical national blanket of total unity across all people, institutions and parties, which is impossible to achieve unless enforced in Soviet Union-style under an iron blanket of make-believe. The critics say a misleading impression is created by using the term GNU that power struggles and political strife have now largely subsided. That is another mischievous and incorrect assumption, and it is hardly likely that the public harbours any such misconception.

Previously differences, strife and power struggles between and among parties occurred in full view with mutually destructive intent and causing divisions to widen and tensions to increase without finding a compromise or middle ground. Remember for how many years the desired ‘social compact’ eluded Cyril Ramaphosa? And in that context, the dominant or ruling party – the ANC at the time – simply enforced its own policies and ideology on everybody else. However, now, with the GNU as the governing platform, we have the closest thing to a social compact in progress and the participating parties strive to iron out as much as possible of their differences to arrive at maximum consensus and a common position. This certainly moves us much closer to a position of national unity and consensus, and so it certainly is not misleading or creating false expectations or a false sense of political security.

Should policy and legislative decisions be taken in stark contradiction to the position of one or more GNU parties without any appeal to the principle of ‘maximum consensus’, the dissenting GNU parties are very likely to advertise their objections loud and clear and may in extreme cases even abandon the GNU, thus undermining its legitimacy and hastening its demise. That has not happened and is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future.

Even in Parliament, where the parties that are not participating in the GNU are grouped together in opposition, this principle at times applies, even if in a different configuration. There have been cases recently where the GNU’s ANC, for example, voted with the opposition MKP and EFF in opposition to some of the other GNU parties such as the DA. Even in this context, one could view this as seeking consensus while being a less destructive way of giving expression to political differences than before, and one in which even parties in government and in opposition can cooperate around specific issues. Overall, the letter and spirit of the GNU certainly enhances the quest for maximum national unity and the practice of full democracy.

So no, the current GNU was never contrived to lead us into a false sense of utopian agreement, security and prosperity as some commentators are suggesting; and it certainly is a damn sight better than what we had before May 29… as the positive reaction in markets and the increase in investment since then can attest to.

Overall, in its first 100 days in power the GNU had to overcome some glitches and tensions, particularly around the BELA Act, which it managed admirably to do, thanks in no small part to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s leadership. Basically, the GNU has been running smoothly and is stable while reaction to it remains largely positive in most quarters. By-election results have also been good for both the DA and the ANC since the formation of the GNU, which may be a sign of public approval.

Some important undercurrents

All of the above having been said, however, one should not be deceived into believing that the GNU came about because of the magnanimity and damascene conversion of the ANC; it came about because the ANC lost power but was still the biggest party and because Cyril Ramaphosa and most of the ANC leadership at national level shrewdly realised that a GNU would be their best option to remain in power as the dominant governing party among more parties.

Such an arrangement, they realised, would offer the least disruptive opposition to the ANC continuing in the lead governing role. In other words, after its support fell to 40%, partnering with various other parties was the only way in which the ANC would be able to continue running government. So don’t look for any charitable intentions there.

The GNU also offers President Ramaphosa the opportunity in his second and final presidential term to make up for his undecidedness and failure to deliver on his promised ‘New Dawn’, thus potentially leaving behind a more worthy legacy. And, if the GNU is successful and captures public approval, it could just offer the ANC a way back above the 50% mark to power. Two factors that would have been good motivation.

The ANC has not discarded its policies and power-centralisation ideology based on the National Democratic Revolution (NDR), but the ANC and Ramaphosa at the same time also realised that within a GNU they would most probably at times have to abandon or dilute hardline positions in this construct. They realised they would not get away with feigning national unity or consensus while in practice doing ANC business as usual – for that the rejection of the ANC by voters on 29 May was far too great and too painful.

It is the fear of the ANC diluting its own NDR-based policy positions and integrating them into a centrist, moderate or neoliberal consensus model that, just as happened in 2007 with regard to Thabo Mbeki’s ‘neoliberal’ administration, motivated the ideologically hardline SA Communist Party (SACP) – formal alliance partner of the ANC – to put pressure on the ANC and Ramaphosa to reject a GNU that includes the DA. But the SACP seems somewhat divided on this as some of its senior members who were appointed within Ramaphosa’s national executive, don’t share this view. Nonetheless, together with labour federation COSATU, the SACP favours a GNU that instead includes the radical leftist EFF, and possibly even the MKP. This is despite the many potentially disastrous consequences such a course may bring about. In 2007 the disastrous consequence was Jacob Zuma, state capture and large-scale corruption.

Another important undercurrent concerns an ANC faction largely grouped around Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi and his Gauteng ANC leadership, and the impact their activities at the local and provincial government levels may have. They have ignored instructions from the ANC national leadership to follow the GNU model inclusive of the DA when forming a provincial and metro governments.

Instead, in Gauteng the door was closed on the DA and a minority ANC government with token representation for two other parties was created. And at metro level they have pursued a strategy of using other small parties to help them oust DA governments. This has led to some tensions, with the DA’s John Steenhuisen threatening to end future cooperation with the ANC in a number of other local government councils.

In a sense this offers governing and political diversification and an outlet for political energy, as it allows for platforms where parties can carry out their own agendas divorced from and even in contradiction of the national-level GNU. So far this has not directly impacted relations among parties in the GNU – particularly the ANC and DA – but there is no guarantee that such actions won’t eventually do so.

There are also some hardliners in the ANC, some of whom serve in the GNU, who are resisting or don’t understand the cooperative, consensus spirit on which the GNU was founded.

GNU strengths, successes and challenges

So, what have been the GNU’s strengths and successes so far? The first ‘miracle’ of the GNU is that the former bitter adversaries, the DA and ANC, have found a way of coexisting together with 8 other parties without major clashes up to this point. The stability of the first 100 days of the GNU can to a large degree be ascribed to President Ramaphosa’s newfound leadership style of pro-active decisiveness, accommodating those with whom he may disagree, remaining at the helm and on course despite efforts by some in his own party and the Alliance to undermine him and/or the GNU. Coupled to this is Ramaphosa’s apparent willingness to move towards a reformist agenda within the spirit of cooperation and consensus.

Parties and party leaders are invested in and committed to working together for the success of the GNU for the national good, leaving criticism of each other and promotion of their parties’ policies and positions to their respective party functionaries outside the GNU, such as, for example, Helen Zille of the DA and Fikile Mbalula of the ANC. What we are seeing instead is political parties that quietly work together in the GNU as they seek the greatest level of cooperation and consensus without any destabilising noise, while outside the GNU the parties still retain their own character, ideologies and policies.

Another plus point is that the parties seem invested in the sustainability and success of the GNU and try to avoid destabilising conflicts, a good example being President Ramaphosa’s compromise handling of tensions around the BELA Act. Furthermore, the GNU now functions with greater transparency around decision-making and government programmes and plans than the previous ANC government did, which means the public get a better understanding and appreciation of the work being done.

Reaction to the formation of the GNU in important quarters locally and internationally, remains very positive, including in respect of investors and markets, with the rand also gaining. There has been a marked increase in investment (details can be Googled), while for the first time in over a decade, CEOs of major companies who recently met with President Ramaphosa regarding their partnership in tackling problems, are very positive about the future. They told the president that the economy could grow by 3% and more than 1 million new jobs could be created by next year if the partnership between business and government continued addressing crises in electricity and logistics, and crime and corruption. They are clearly more optimistic about the prospects following the creation of the GNU.

However, for now many challenges remain – dealing effectively with crime, unemployment, local government, low growth, water and power issues, illegal foreigners, among more – while serious differences could still arise in future that may take the GNU to the brink. At present the biggest threat to the continuation of the current GNU comes from those in the ANC and its Alliance who are opposed to the current GNU. Any possible future cooperation between the leftwing Alliance partners and the EFF and MKP to derail the GNU in its current form, could also be disastrous. To a lesser extent the GNU is perhaps also threatened by hardliners in the DA and the deteriorating relationship between the DA and some other parties. And ructions at local government level also pose a longer-term threat.

Those who denounce the current GNU because it includes the DA and FF Plus, do so not based on its performance to date, but do so from a radical leftist ideological perspective couched in loose and unsubstantiated claims that the DA and FF Plus are racist or apartheid parties. The latter exists only in the spin and not in practice, and these accusers will have a very hard time proving it. More important would be to judge the GNU on the positive contributions the DA and FF Plus have brought to national governance thus far.

Despite the full-spectrum diversity of parties in the GNU, the moderate centre with its predominantly liberal market policies, is strongly represented through the inclusion of the DA, IFP, FF Plus, GOOD, RiseMzansi, and to some extent the UDM. All the parties have signed up to make consensus decisions, which means for the first time in almost two decades the voice of moderate centrist parties will carry more weight on behalf of their constituents. This will influence the policy direction of the GNU and act as a brake on the socialist and populist tendencies of the more left-leaning parties.

Stef Terblanche is an independent Cape Town-based political analyst and journalist.