The public must not be deceived by politicians’ use of democratic language to obscure anti-democratic actions. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
When President Cyril Ramaphosa dismissed Andrew Whitfield, the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, the official explanation pointed to issues of “discipline” and “protocol”.
But this moment is not about one person, one party or a fragile coalition. It reveals a big problem in our politics — leaders from different parties are working more to protect each other than serve the public, slowly damaging South Africa’s democracy. Unless voters develop the political maturity to challenge this culture, the cycle of self-interest and manufactured outrage will persist.
What played out between the ANC and the DA reveals more than a disagreement over executive conduct. It is another episode in a long-standing drama where displays of outrage mask deeper consensus among elites to preserve power. Today, South African voters are caught in a cycle of manufactured division, where dramatic performances of principle often hide narrow, short-term power plays.
The DA claims Whitfield was fired for “fighting corruption”, specifically for exposing irregularities around the National Lottery Commission. The presidency insists it was insubordination, specifically, an unauthorised trip to Washington during a tense period in the coalition. Whatever the truth, the real scandal is not the protocol breach, it is the selective enforcement of standards and what it reveals about the priorities of those in power.
This is not new. The ANC has long protected its members from real consequences. Figures like David Mahlobo, Thembi Simelane, and Nobuhle Nkabane continue to hold positions of power despite serious allegations and misconduct. Nkabane, for example, falsely claimed that the sector education and training authorities chairperson list was approved by an independent panel, a blatant misrepresentation in parliament. Yet she remains untouched.
Likewise, Gayton McKenzie of the Patriotic Alliance (PA) has made openly prejudiced remarks with no formal reprimand. The pattern is clear — elite accountability is selectively enforced, depending on political convenience, rather than constitutional principle.
More concerning is that this culture has not only persisted but become more entrenched under the government of national unity (GNU). Watchdog organisations have reported that corruption and cadre deployment have intensified since the coalition’s formation. The GNU risks consolidating, rather than remedying, the dysfunction it was meant to fix. This is a damning indictment, not just of the ANC, but of the coalition as a whole.
The DA is hardly innocent. While the party frames Whitfield’s dismissal as political punishment, it continues to benefit from its insider role in a government it often discredits. Its indignation feels opportunistic, especially given that it was silent during other troubling appointments and when coalition negotiations yielded power-sharing privileges. The point is not which party is worse. Both have become fluent in using democratic language to obscure anti-democratic habits.
So, what are voters to make of all this? They should resist being drawn into a false binary, ANC vs DA, and instead start asking deeper questions.
- What are both parties really trying to protect?
- Who benefits from these political distractions?
- What does it cost South Africans when political theatre replaces meaningful reform?
The opportunity cost of elite-driven politics is steep. Every decision made to shield party loyalty, discipline disagreement or spin media narratives comes at the expense of public trust, policy continuity and meaningful accountability. The cost is not just poor service delivery; it is the erosion of public trust and democratic legitimacy itself.
Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others.” But even democracy depends on a vigilant and politically literate electorate that can see through the theatre. Changing presidents, reshuffling cabinets or reconfiguring coalitions will not fix anything if the underlying political culture remains one of elite preservation over public service.
South Africa needs a leadership change and a fundamental shift in civic expectations. It needs a public that demands transparency and interrogates motives, not just actions.
Let’s also not forget that, for centuries, “politician” had a second, more cynical, meaning: “a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or narrow, usually short-sighted, reasons”. This cynical definition thrives when voters disengage or accept slogans over substance. The burden of democracy, especially in a coalition government, is to call out this behaviour, even when it comes wrapped in the rhetoric of reform.
In the end, the Whitfield affair is not just a test of the GNU. It’s a test of us, the voters. If we fail to ask harder questions now, we risk being governed, not by public servants, but by elites brokering influence behind closed doors, while we pay the price. It’s time for voters to stop watching from the sidelines and start holding every politician in every party truly accountable.
Zimkhitha Manyana is an international relations lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand and recently obtained his PhD in Political Science from the University of Johannesburg.
Discussion about this post