Since Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana’s February budget speech failed to take off, the ANC and the DA have been engaged in a high-stakes battle to shape the government of national unity (GNU), each leveraging distinct strategies to control the narrative, advance their agendas, and manage public perception.
The approaches of both parties reveal ideological fault lines, tactical gambits, and critical blind spots that could determine the GNU’s survival.
The DA has positioned itself as the guardian of fiscal responsibility and job-centric growth, framing its participation in the GNU as a selfless commitment to rescue South Africa’s economy.
By stomping on “pro-growth reforms” and “shared governance”, the DA seeks to portray the ANC as obstructionist and ideologically rigid.
Threat to withdraw from GNU
The blue party’s focus on technocratic solutions (e.g., opposing value-added tax (VAT) hikes and advocating deregulation) appeals to middle-class and business constituencies while distancing itself from the ANC’s redistributive policies.
The DA’s threat to withdraw from the GNU unless power-sharing is honoured underscores its strategy to extract concessions by leveraging its supposed kingmaker role.
In the adjacent corner, the ANC has cast itself as the custodian of transformative justice, accusing the DA of “bad faith” for opposing flagship policies like the National Health Insurance (NHI), the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act, and land reform.
By labelling the DA as anti-transformation and elitist, the ANC reinforces its historical identity as the party of liberation.
The ANC’s emphasis on “revolutionary discipline” and “consensus-building” seeks to reclaim moral authority, portraying the GNU as a necessary but fragile coalition requiring ANC stewardship.
The ANC seeks to dilute the DA’s influence and project cross-societal legitimacy by engaging other stakeholders in the political and civil space, like ActionSA and the South African Council of Churches.
ANC’s liberation legacy rhetoric
The DA’s laser focus on growth alienates voters who prioritise redress and equity. Its opposition to NHI and land reform reinforces perceptions of indifference to racial and class disparities.
The DA assumes its economic agenda is indispensable, but the ANC’s outreach to smaller parties, like they did with ActionSA, Mmusi Maimane’s Build One South Africa, and Songezo Zibi’s Rise Mzansi, marginalises the party and reduces its bargaining power.
Furthermore, the DA’s centrist pragmatism clashes with its more conservative base, risking defections if compromises with the ANC intensify.
But the ANC’s reliance on “liberation legacy” rhetoric similarly rings hollow amid corruption scandals and service-delivery failures. Voters may reject its moral posturing without tangible results.
Insisting on policies like NHI without addressing implementation capacity or fiscal realities undermines credibility. The ANC risks appearing dogmatic rather than solutions-oriented.
Yet, prolonged GNU infighting could exhaust public patience, eroding support for both the ANC and the coalition model itself.
A precarious truce is likely, with incremental compromises on fiscal policy (e.g., modified VAT proposals AND conditional NHI funding).
Under President Cyril Ramaphosa, the ANC may concede limited DA influence in economic portfolios to secure stability.
GNU collapse appears probable
Tensions would escalate as the 2026 local elections approached. The DA could exit the GNU if the ANC sidelines its reforms, triggering a realignment with smaller parties or early elections.
In the final analysis, the GNU’s collapse appears probable unless both parties redefine their priorities.
The ANC’s ability to court alternative partners like Julius Malema’s EFF or former President Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe Party or the DA’s success in rallying anti-ANC voters will shape South Africa’s political trajectory.
In the meantime, both parties are locked in a battle for the soul of the GNU — the former clings to transformative ideals, the latter championing market-driven pragmatism.
Their mutual distrust and competing narratives risk paralysing governance.
The likeliest path is a volatile, transactional coexistence, with both parties prioritising survival over systemic reform — until external pressures, like voter backlash, force a reckoning.
