The government of national unity (GNU) is expected to adopt a set of rules for its clearing house, introducing general consensus as the guiding principle for decision-making and dispute resolution among participating political parties.
This marks a move away from the idea of sufficient consensus, which was previously stated as the core principle to break deadlocks in the initial GNU statement of intent.
This was often used by the DA to challenge decisions made by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
According to the statement of intent, which was signed by political parties just moments before Ramaphosa was voted in as the president in the National Assembly in 2024, sufficient consensus is possible when parties to the GNU representing 60% of seats in the National Assembly agree.
This would mean that such an instance would only occur if the DA and ANC agree.
This weakens the powers of the ANC as the majority party in the coalition arrangement and curtails the voice of smaller parties.
The ANC seems to have managed to dribble past the DA once again by turning the tables, that is if the new GNU clearing house terms of reference are anything to go by.
Under the new framework, which Sunday World has seen, the DA’s sufficient consensus has been replaced with “general consensus”. This general consensus is achieved when every party is guaranteed the chance to speak through its appointed representative, and when no
formal objection is raised.
The terms of reference provide clear procedures for resolving disagreements.
If general consensus cannot be achieved, the chairperson of the clearing house, Deputy President Paul Mashatile, may call for a further meeting within seven days.
He is also permitted to refer the matter to an ad hoc committee, table a formal resolution for consideration, or refer the issue to the Political Leaders Forum for further discussion.
If the clearing house remains unable to resolve the matter, it must submit a full report to the Political Leaders Forum detailing the steps taken to find common ground. The forum then takes up the issue in pursuit of a final resolution.
When all reasonable efforts fail, the clearing house may adopt a resolution to “agree to disagree”.
This provision allows the body to formally record the nature of the disagreement and identify which parties dissent. A report of this outcome is then submitted to the Political Leaders Forum for further consideration.
The terms of reference describe the clearing house framework as a living document that can be revised or amended when necessary.
This flexibility ensures the mechanism remains responsive to the realities of a multi-party government.
The new approach seeks to protect the spirit of cooperation at the heart of the GNU, ensuring that shared governance remains inclusive and functional.
The DA has used the GNU statement of intent’s Clause 19.3 on sufficient consensus to oppose the Expropriation Act.
