Dion George’s resignation interview from the DA did not resemble a disgruntled former insider seeking revenge.
It sounded like a calculated intervention in South Africa’s coalition politics — one designed to reshape how the public understands DA leader John Steenhuisen. Not as a tactical operator in the government of national unity (GNU), but as a leader weakened by private vulnerability and internal party discipline.
George’s claim revolves around a straightforward realpolitik argument: a financially exposed politician also faces political exposure. In George’s telling, Steenhuisen’s alleged personal financial pressures did not merely create an embarrassing internal party matter — they created a leverage point.
Became easier to manage
The insinuation is not that Steenhuisen was bought, but that he became easier to manage. He became easier to contain, and harder to imagine as a leader who could credibly threaten to walk away from an uncomfortable coalition arrangement.
That distinction matters. Because in coalition politics, the threat that counts most is the exit option. The ability to withdraw, collapse a deal, and force renegotiation.
George is effectively arguing that Steenhuisen’s leadership is structurally constrained. And that the DA, under his watch, is therefore constrained too. In that framing, the GNU becomes less a partnership of equals and more a trap. A space where the DA can be neutralised, not through policy defeat, but through leadership containment.
George’s most politically potent move is that he does not attack Steenhuisen with ideology. He attacks him with credibility. The implication is that the DA’s strongest currency — moral contrast with the ANC — becomes fragile if senior leaders are considered to be protected by internal processes, shielded from consequences, or surrounded by a culture of silence when it matters most.
Threat to the DA brand
This is why the dispute about internal accountability mechanisms becomes more than party gossip. George’s intervention suggests that the DA may be at risk of reproducing the same behaviours it campaigns against: closing ranks around leadership, controlling internal dissent, and managing scandals through technical procedures rather than political accountability. Even without a court finding or a formal charge, the perception alone can be corrosive. Because the DA’s brand is built on being different.
But the resignation is also about power inside the DA, not just the GNU. George positions himself as someone who tried to enforce discipline and was punished for it. An implied morality tale of a party that claims to value clean governance but allegedly punishes those who apply it too strictly when it hits the inner circle.
That story has political utility because it flips the usual logic. It is no longer the DA prosecuting others for misconduct; it is the DA being accused of protecting its own.
The deeper subtext is factional: George speaks as a man who believes the DA’s leadership has become too cautious, too compromised, and too eager to remain inside government even if that means muted politics. He is arguing that the DA has lost its sharpness. That the party’s historic identity as an opposition machine has been blunted by the demands of coalition stability and the comforts of proximity to power.
This shifts the focus from Steenhuisen as an individual to the strategic essence of the DA. Should it behave like a hard-edged party capable of pulling out of the GNU to protect its identity? Or should it accept the trade-off: less noise, more influence, and the slow grind of governing?
Pawn in the GNU
George’s answer is clear: he is warning that the trade-off may not be worth it. Because the DA risks becoming a junior partner with reduced bargaining power and an increasingly confused brand. In his framing, the party is not using the GNU; the GNU is using the party.
This reasoning is also why George’s portrayal of Steenhuisen is carefully chosen. The “real Steenhuisen”, according to him, is not simply a leader making strategic compromises. He is a leader trapped by circumstance. One who cannot credibly escalate, cannot effectively threaten, and cannot convincingly stand apart from the coalition’s gravitational pull.
The political purpose almost overshadows the ultimate corroboration of George’s claims. In realpolitik terms, the objective is to seed doubt. To make voters, donors and internal DA structures question whether Steenhuisen is leading the party into power or leading it into containment.
In that sense, George’s resignation is best taken as a controlled disruption. It seeks to weaken Steenhuisen’s authority. To fracture confidence in the DA’s GNU posture. And to reposition George as a figure of principle who refused to be absorbed into the compromises of coalition governance.
George’s idea of Steenhuisen is based on his vulnerability and limitations. As well as a leadership that can be managed by allies, opponents, and the logic of staying in government at all costs.
If the DA’s future is to be built on relevance and independence, George’s message is a warning shot. Without leaders who can say “no” convincingly — and survive the consequences — the party’s identity may become the first casualty of coalition politics.
