Allowing John Steenhuisen and Leon Schreiber to remain in their influential roles would only invite further attempts to overthrow the ANC’s role in government and lead South Africa deeper into austerity and dystopia.
By Gillian Schutte
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has brazenly thrown down the gauntlet, openly challenging the sovereignty of South Africa and the authority of its Head of State. In the wake of the 16th BRICS Summit, Leon Schreiber, a DA minister responsible for oversight of the Department of Home Affairs, unilaterally signed and publicly announced visa-free access for Ukrainian diplomatic, official, and service passport holders. He did this without consulting the Department of International Relations and Cooperation or the Office of the President. This flagrant disregard for governmental protocols is a direct affront to our nation’s foreign policy stance.
Adding to this defiance, John Steenhuisen, Minister of Agriculture and leader of the DA, failed to attend the recent BRICS summit in Russia—a vital forum for cooperation on food security, agriculture, and sustainable development. His absence is unprecedented, particularly given that the summit focused on issues directly tied to his portfolio. Equally alarming is his public criticism of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, openly undermining the President’s authority and South Africa’s commitment to BRICS. This blatant dissent is a calculated attempt by Steenhuisen to steer the nation away from its strategic alliances, align with Western narratives, and uphold unipolarity.
What, besides white arrogance, emboldens Schreiber, Steenhuisen, and the DA to flout established rules and advance their own agendas over national interests? Their errant actions reflect a disturbing alignment with foreign interests aiming to shift South Africa’s geopolitical trajectory from its historical non-aligned stance towards Western spheres of influence. Far from just overreach, this signals an ongoing attempt to destroy what is left of the African National Congress (ANC) and destabilise South Africa’s role within BRICS.
The DA’s opposition to the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill was, in retrospect, a warning shot. When Minister of Basic Education Siviwe Gwarube boycotted its signing ceremony in September this year, the party’s defiance of government reforms was laid bare. The BELA Bill aims to centralise school policies, regulate home schooling, lower the starting school age, and ban corporal punishment, promoting inclusivity. Gwarube's absence was a clear stand against the bill’s intent to centralise certain powers within the Department of Basic Education and promote inclusivity. Framing the bill as an infringement on provincial rights, the DA positioned itself as a defender of decentralised authority. This boycott marked the DA's strategic effort to challenge the ANC-led government’s authority, positioning itself with conservative interests and setting a tone of resistance to transformative policies.
All of this signals the continuation of a soft coup, the genesis of which was established in April 2017 via the donor-funded Zuma Must Fall SOS campaign. This movement, under the banner of accountability, was strategically crafted to unseat President Jacob Zuma, whose leadership, however flawed, promoted a developmental state model aimed at uplifting the socio-economic conditions of South Africa’s Black majority. Zuma’s focus on land reform, economic transformation, and BRICS alignment posed a challenge to entrenched corporate interests and neoliberal agendas favouring Western influence.
The campaign to oust Zuma was, in essence, a manoeuvre to dismantle any efforts at economic sovereignty and replace him with Cyril Ramaphosa—a leader whose corporate affiliations and Western-friendly stance aligned closely with the interests of global capital. Ramaphosa’s ascent marked a shift from a vision of African self-reliance to an even more market-driven austerity approach that positioned South Africa as a compliant player in the Western-dominated global order, sacrificing genuine developmental objectives in favour of policies that privilege elite economic interests.
President Ramaphosa is, therefore, not a blameless player in the Ukraine visa debacle. Firstly, he chose a coalition with the DA, realigning with neoliberal market forces instead of progressive African ideals. His own wavering ideology—caught between Western interests and BRICS commitments—has facilitated this internal revolt. His close ties with powerful economic elites—the Stellenbosch-based white billionaire club—cast doubt on his ability to enforce discipline and act decisively. Added to this is his reliance on DA support to shield him from the legal consequences of the Phala Phala scandal, allowing figures like Steenhuisen and Schreiber to act with impunity, their positions fortified by the President’s vulnerability and ideological ambiguity.
African-centric parties like uMkhonto weSizwe will have to remain vigilant against these destabilising forces to realign the country with authentic African Nationalism. This vigilance is essential to counter political actors who advance foreign agendas. It is imperative to resist the creeping influence of US geopolitical interests. These destabilising forces at play go beyond political opposition; they represent a broader neoliberal push that undermines self-determination in favour of economic policies dictated by Western powers. In this context, the fight for sovereignty transcends party politics; it involves reclaiming control over resources, economic policies, and cultural identity in a landscape increasingly shaped by external pressures. Strong, independent leadership—resistant to the influence of Western capital—is critical to ensuring South Africa’s future remains rooted in African interests.
In the meantime, Ramaphosa must act decisively to address this insubordination. Steenhuisen and Schreiber cannot be allowed to operate unchecked. Their actions warrant immediate removal to safeguard South Africa’s sovereignty and restore the integrity of its foreign policy. Failing to act would set a dangerous precedent, signalling an alarming tolerance for defiance that could further weaken governmental cohesion and diminish the country’s standing on the global stage.
The DA’s actions are not just a challenge to the ANC but a direct threat to the fabric of South African democracy. Their attempts to realign the country’s foreign policy in favour of Western interests undermine the will of the majority. Ramaphosa’s ideological wavering has opened the door for the DA’s subversive actions, jeopardising the nation’s role in the multipolar world. Allowing Steenhuisen and Schreiber to remain in these influential roles would only invite further attempts to overthrow the ANC's role in government and lead South Africa deeper into austerity and dystopia.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.