The recent debate during South Africa's State of the Nation Address (SONA) has once again exposed the deep fissures within the country's political landscape, particularly the strained relationship between the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA).
In what can only be described as a verbal brawl, ANC MPs lashed out at the DA for being "pale." At the same time, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi mocked DA's George Michalakis, suggesting that he consult a psychologist about concerns about the National Health Insurance (NHI). At the same time, a senior ANC figure, Cameron Dugmore, accused the DA of lying about the BELA Act (Basic Education Laws Amendment), which the DA claimed was an attack on the Afrikaans language.
What was supposed to be a showcase of national unity revealed the pretentious nature of that unity, leaving many to question who is misleading whom in this complex political equation. The acrimonious exchanges in Parliament between the ANC and DA are emblematic of a larger, ongoing struggle for control of the country’s narrative. Both political parties have painted themselves as the guardians of South Africa’s future, but this public spat undermines any notion of collaboration or genuine dialogue.
The debate laid bare the failure of the so-called "Government of National Unity" (GNU) promised South Africans years ago. The GNU heralded as a way to unite the country’s fractured political scene, has often been little more than a mirage—disguising the country's political leaders' deep divisions and personal ambitions. Let’s start with the National Health Insurance (NHI), one of the government's flagship projects. For years, the ANC has touted NHI as a transformative policy that will deliver universal health coverage and equitable healthcare for all South Africans.
However, to the DA, this proposal is seen as a disastrous move toward socialism, with George Michalakis openly challenging the plan’s feasibility. Motsoaledi’s response to Michalakis was particularly telling. Instead of engaging in a constructive debate, the Health Minister dismissed the concerns, suggesting that Michalakis should see a psychologist, implying that NHI was a given and that any objection to it was a product of mental instability.
Motsoaledi’s comment is more than just a dismissive jab—it indicates the ANC’s tendency to shut down criticism instead of addressing the legitimate concerns of the opposition. This kind of response is not just poor leadership but an attempt to silence dissent under the guise of national progress. By labelling Michalakis as mentally unfit for questioning NHI, Motsoaledi diminishes the significance of genuine democratic debate, something the ANC used to champion in the struggle against apartheid.
Ironically, the ruling party in South Africa has forgotten the importance of differing opinions and healthy political discourse. Meanwhile, the DA’s stance against the ANC’s NHI proposal does not come without its flaws. While the party continues to champion the idea of a market-driven healthcare system, which may offer immediate short-term solutions for wealthier South Africans, it fails to address the systemic inequality that permeates the healthcare sector. The DA continues to paint the NHI as a socialist "boondoggle" yet fails to provide a viable alternative to tackle the deeply entrenched inequalities in the system. Their stance often appears more ideologically motivated than practically grounded in the realities of the South African healthcare crisis.
On the other hand, Cameron Dugmore's accusations about the BELA Act being "anti-Afrikaans" add another layer to the tension between the ANC and DA. According to Dugmore, the DA’s claims are false and intentionally distorts facts. The BELA Act, designed to reform South Africa's education system, particularly language policy, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over using Afrikaans in schools. The DA has argued that the act is part of a broader ANC agenda to marginalize Afrikaans and has even accused the ruling party of eroding cultural rights. In response, Dugmore, speaking for the ANC, dismissed the DA’s claims, calling them nothing more than a political ploy designed to stir up racial and linguistic divisions.
The irony here is palpable: The DA, known for advocating individual rights and freedoms, seems to ignore the real impact a dual language policy in schools can have on the nation’s cohesion. Simultaneously, the ANC’s dismissive attitude toward these concerns undermines its narrative of inclusivity and national unity. What’s most concerning is that, in their desire to score political points, both parties seem willing to fuel division rather than foster the unity they claim to champion.
Ultimately, the catfight between the ANC and DA is more than just a verbal spat in Parliament - it reflects the larger political drama in South Africa. Both parties are guilty of misleading the public, using divisive tactics to further their agendas while undermining national unity. The Government of National Unity, once seen as a hopeful vision for bridging South Africa’s deep divides, has been reduced to a hollow promise, exposed for what it truly is: a veneer that hides the ongoing disunity at the heart of the country’s political landscape.
As the political drama continues to unfold, it is clear that South Africa’s future will depend on whether these political titans can move beyond petty squabbles and work towards genuine cooperation. Until then, the country is left with the uncomfortable reality of a fractured political system, where unity is little more than a mirage, and disunity is the only truth we can count on.
* Mayalo is an independent writer, analyst, and commentator
**