The public standing of the Government of National Unity (GNU) does not appear to depend thus far on political statements or actions, but mainly on functionality, keeping the wheels of government operating smoothly without the multiple crises that beset ANC-led governments in recent years and continue at provincial and local levels, with one or other combination of minority forces. There are very few attempts at replicating the national GNU at provincial or local levels.

We need to define the space occupied by the GNU and the way it may be inhabited, given the various constraints and opportunities. In some ways the establishment of a GNU was one of few options in the period of crisis (that may also have been an emerging opportunity). This was in the period following the elections where the ANC lost its majority and the DA was nearly 20% behind the ANC’s 40% tally, with 21.81% and 40.18% of the votes respectively (https://results.elections.org.za/home/).

Alternatives to GNU?

For parties to exist as elected representatives, without any party holding a majority, there were few possible ways of addressing the situation.  Some of these forms of minority government have been tried in South Africa and still do lead to ignominious disasters at a local level, (as with continuing instability in Gauteng and Nelson Mandela Bay metros). 

The examples from other states - mainly in Western Europe - do not seem viable in our case, where every party has a limited support base and where deep animosities divide parties from one another.

We then need to ask: what type of politics is possible for the chosen option, for the GNU to function efficiently and effectively?  My sense is that in the present case there need to be very limited conflictual statements - between parties - in the combination that was adopted for the GNU to survive as a viable political arrangement.

Depoliticised

The way we observe the GNU is through assessing what the members do as public figures performing tasks, that is more depoliticised than is usually the case, at least in the relationship between the leading parties, the ANC and DA. But we need to look at what they do, whether or not it contributes - technocratically and socially to the resolution of the multiple crises that beset South Africa.

What Dr Leon Schreiber has achieved in Home Affairs clearing backlogs and engaging afresh on programmes he inherited, especially digitisation, is through efficient performing of tasks that may, nevertheless, be controversial and open to different interpretations. 

The notion of Home affairs @home - that there will be no need to visit a Home Affairs office - cannot be a reality for most South Africans who do not have internet accessibility or capabilities. They remain reliant on Home Affairs offices that generally remain understaffed and unable to address document assessment or delivery swiftly.

It is receiving attention and Schreiber is aware that his Home affairs @home option will require a lot or work to get off the ground and make it accessible and reliable. There are other ministries that may be studied, but the object of this article is a broader assessment of the changing challenges of the GNU.

Professionalism

The professionalism manifested in Dr Schreiber’s actions and statements of his methodology is an important issue. We have not had a professional public service and that may be more likely to be remedied by politicians who may now be relating more professionally and technocratically than politically.

In this sense we need to be clear that the professionalism that politicians may develop ought not to infringe on the territory of the civil service, who need to be able to perform their tasks by making and implementing decisions within their area of competence, without interference by their political heads in their core business as public servants (see: https://www.polity.org.za/article/remedying-our-crises-must-include-relative-autonomy-and-professionalisation-of-public-service-2022-06-06). 

Space for the political

But there has to be some space for the political. It is unclear where that is, except that de facto the GNU does not operate with much political debate. The ANC was already depoliticised compared with earlier times when there were many issues subjected to rigorous debates. Now there is little debate between the ANC and DA, except in crises.

Some of those in the GNU Cabinet are neither political thinkers - if they ever were - nor competent, as in being able to address and solve problems that ensure that state institutions function and perform their roles. This depoliticisation may be true of most or many of the other parties.

It may sound cynical, but it may well be true to say that many thank their lucky stars that they are Cabinet ministers and will try to sense how to remain there by not “rocking the boat”. It is not shocking to suggest they are lucky to be there because many have earned a minimal percentage of the vote and do not strike one as contributing to the direction of the GNU.

The GNU is depoliticised, but the professionalisation is also very limited - there are many passengers on the side of the ANC who have never contributed much to political life or the efficacy of state institutions.

Furthermore, the huge and very expensive Cabinet, its size supposedly to suggest representativity, serves no purpose. The rationale is vacuous insofar as most represent under 5%, sometimes one or less than 1%. Many of these have a minuscule political base and also no known expertise.

Conditions supposedly needed for coalitions to succeed

Much of the writing on the success of coalitions refers to the need for a common view on this, that and the other matter, or on basic principles. In our case, it is said, for a coalition to be successful, there must be a sharing of values, sharing of ideas, common perspectives on the way forward, and similar qualities.

In the case of the GNU, it would not be possible to sustain it if one were to demand  a common position between parties, especially the DA and the ANC regarding values and in regard to the way forward beyond the immediate, urgent issues, which are basically practical questions of provision of water, transport, addressing climate change and so forth, on which – even - with these it may not be possible to reach agreement.

The Statement of Intent as an opening towards a more emancipatory GNU process and liberatory goals

When I first wrote on the GNU I argued that it may be constituted in one or other way and the Statement of Intent and other GNU documents are not necessarily the last word on various topics. Popular forces, professionals and other sectors of society, especially from the “underclass” organisations with various strengths and weaknesses need to engage with these documents and argue for a meaning that is emancipatory. The same words can be invoked or they can be augmented in the spirit of the freedom that the Statement of Intent claims to advance. (See here)

The meaning of any word or phrase or sentence of a document is never finalised merely by being written down, and that is as true of the Statement of Intent and other documents. Those who are concerned about poverty or unemployment or wages need to advance these in the context of the Statement of Intent (as just one place of engagement, I appreciate).

Raymond Suttner is an Emeritus Professor at the University of South Africa and a Research Associate in the English Department at University of the Witwatersrand. He served lengthy periods as a political prisoner. His writings cover contemporary politics, history, and social questions. His X (twitter) handle is @raymondsuttner.