Politics of the motley ‘moonshot’ crew don’t align with that of the majority of South Africans

Over the past few months much has been said about the “moonshot pact”, seemingly led by DA leader John Steenhuisen, through which a group of opposition parties want to unseat the ANC and enter into a coalition government after next year’s elections.

The parties now involved are the DA, IFP, Freedom Front Plus, ActionSA, United Independent Movement (UIM), Spectrum National Party (SNP) and the Independent South African National Civic Organisation.

What’s interesting about this motley crew is that they hardly represent the majority of South Africans. Collectively, they hold 27.8% of the vote from the 2019 election, and two – the SNP and UIM – were only launched in 2020.

By now it is clear to most people that the ANC is doing an abysmal job of both running the country and safeguarding South Africans’ rights, guaranteed in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is looking rather battered and bruised at the moment from challenges to its ethos and the trampling of the rights it enshrines.

Read more in Daily Maverick: The real moonshot would be DA inviting Maimane, Phalatse and others back as party leaders

But let’s get back to the curious case of the moonshot pact, which is being modelled on the Codesa negotiations of 1991 that eventually birthed our democracy. The convention to establish the pact this week was even held where the Codesa talks took place – the former World Trade Centre in Kempton Park.

The stark difference is that the seminal Codesa negotiations were led by political giants such as Nelson Mandela, Chris Hani and Helen Suzman, and the parties and organisations that gathered represented the majority of South Africans. Then Chief Justice Michael Corbett, described by Mandela as “independent, courageous and uncompromising”, chaired the proceedings, along with fellow judges Ismail Mahomed and Piet Schabort.

Looking at the composition of the parties in the pact, it occurs to me that they represent narrow, conservative and single-issue mandates. Their “pact” seems like nothing more than a power play, using the very real issue of a failed ANC government that has our people on their knees.

Nothing in these parties’ track record shows a commitment to the betterment of all South Africans’ lives and not only to that of their constituents. If these parties have not managed to garner the support and trust of the people in all this time, what makes them think voters will suddenly trust them now?

If the rightful ousting of Jacob Zuma taught us anything, it’s that it is dangerous to coalesce around a single cause without a plan of what comes next and who is to be entrusted with that “next”. Perhaps I am being too hasty in dismissing this rather uninspiring crew, but their politics have yet to align with mine or that of the majority of South Africans. The attempts at coalition governance even at local level among some of them have failed.

Steenhuisen has said that “this pact is not for politicians” but “must be owned by the people of South Africa”. If this is true, at the centre of their discussions should be the achievement of social cohesion and the institution of stringent measures for leadership to be accountable to all the people of South Africa.

It cannot only be about luring power away from one or the other political party. Instead, it should be about using that power to be responsive to our country’s needs. DM

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R29.