Nation-building or nation-breaking? The GNU needs an identity reset

Ferial Haffajee: Is there a difference between a coalition government and a government of national unity?

Daryl Swanepoel: To my mind there are important differences.

Whereas a coalition government is about securing a working majority to form a government, a GNU is about securing the participation of a broader sector of society, which may, or may not, require multiparty cooperation to secure a majority. For example, in the 1994 GNU arrangement, the ANC had an outright majority, but now they don’t. A GNU is about dealing with the national interest, reconciliation and nation-building.

In a coalition, a comprehensive coalition policy platform would have been agreed (as we see in Germany for example), but in a GNU, it is about agreeing on a broader set of principles, not necessarily detailed policy. In a coalition, a party’s diversion from agreed coalition policy would normally lead to the collapse of the coalition. In a GNU arrangement, it is about agreeing to a broader set of principles but leaving detailed policy open to dialogue between the parties in the GNU.

Parties in a GNU would be allowed to agree to disagree, and decisions are made on the basis of sufficient consensus. Because parties are allowed to differ, the GNU need not collapse.

Q: Which is better for sustained progress? I ask because the GNU in South Africa is well regarded but so tense that progress appears to be on the backburner?

A: Undoubtedly the GNU, especially in a fractured and diverse society such as South Africa. The more people who feel they have a voice in government, the better for social cohesion and stability. It also allows for a wider pool of talent to be considered for inclusion in government, and opens the door for compromise, which, in turn, ensures that more people in society feel that their views are being accommodated.

Read more: The fragility of the Government of National Unity — the risk is palpable

Q: The ANC is pushing for much more political coherence and less public difference. This seems fair.

A: More political coherence and less public difference is, of course, better. Continued squabbles confuse society. But here is the point: political coherence requires real dialogue and compromise. Parties in the GNU must really be committed to finding one another. It cannot be about pushing through your policy unchanged. It requires a high level of political maturity, compromise and the desire to put the country first (as opposed to narrow party interests uber alles).

Q: While there is a difference, you can’t have parties screaming at each other publicly as it confuses the public and makes good constructive relationships difficult.

A: Agreed, and this very point I have already alluded to. A GNU requires a very different narrative to, say, the Westminster system (which is more combative and gladiatorial).  It needs to be a more nuanced, reasoned, explanatory tone.

If there is a real desire to find a compromise, agreement will outweigh disagreement. And while there will always be matters on which agreement cannot be found, these can be managed against the backdrop of other successes and understanding the notion of agreeing to disagree, especially if properly communicated to the public and in a tone that is reasoned and explanatory. The government needs to up its public diplomacy and communications skills. So long as it is about party-political gamesmanship (the Westminster style), the GNU will be undermined.

Q: How do you deal with internal political competition in a GNU? For example: I witness an ongoing social media fight between the ANC and DA on who should take credit for many things from infrastructure plans to Home Affairs offices to the reduction of visa backlogs. It goes on and on.

A: I have answered this question.

Q: The DA says that its MPs hold a mandate to hold the executive to account and that Parliament is not a rubber stamp — thus, it sees no problem between two identities: opposition and government. How can this be sensibly squared?

A: Parliament must certainly never be a rubber stamp. But opposing need not equate to attacking. It is about doing so constructively and in the spirit of building the nation, not driving wedges between communities for party-political point-scoring purposes. It is the way in which one opposes that makes the difference.

Q: The ANC, on the other hand, says you can’t have your governing partners voting against the Budget, for example, or going off to court whenever a piece of legislation is passed that they do not approve of. There seems merit in this argument. How do you see it?

A: What is true is that a GNU minister cannot vote against their own departmental budget — if so, the minister should resign. But this does not apply when voting against another minister’s departmental vote, or tax proposals, or the Budget as a whole. I suspect, however, that should the principles I have spoken about be followed, buy-in of all GNU parties can be achieved. This is from a GNU perspective; from a coalition perspective, the ANC has a point.

Read more: The VAT hike and the teetering GNU — a lose-lose situation for South Africans

Q: What should happen now to keep things on track?

A: The parties to the GNU should convene to:

• Decide what they are: a coalition or a GNU. If they suggest a GNU, there needs to be a clear understanding that one party is not more important than another – maybe bigger, but not more important.


• Agree and commit to the rules of the game.