Vox Populi Vox Dei
High Tory
SHOULD the DA agree to a coalition with the EFF in order to form a government in metros such as Tshwane and Johannesburg, possibly other places too?
Put another way, should a social democratic party committed to the free market team up with a revolutionary movement that advocates radical socialism? And vice versa? It’s a complex problem.
For the DA the potential prize is easy to identify: power, and with it the chance to enhance its brand as a party of excellent service delivery. In turn, through a metro government or two in Gauteng, a chance to ensure a long-term foothold in the province ahead of the 2019 national elections and beyond.
Likewise, the potential downside is easy enough to identify: a compromised government undermined by the EFF’s own agenda, along with a thousand other political landmines inherent to such an agreement. Damage to the DA’s brand as a party of excellent service delivery could have dire consequences for the 2019 elections and beyond.
Any potential upside is more difficult to see for the EFF. It is hard to imagine any universe in which a coalition with the DA — its mortal ideological enemy — would have any long-term benefit for the party or its brand.
As the majority party, the DA and its support base could perhaps stomach an EFF coalition; safe in the knowledge that the party controls the fundamental levers of power — the money and the mayoralty.
ULTIMATELY, the EFF would be subservient to the DA’s grand agenda. But there is no scenario in which the EFF would be allowed to exercise that sort of primary control in a coalition, and so, one must ask, how could such an arrangement possibly benefit the EFF?
Power is only useful to a party from a political perspective if it can be used to promote and enhance its brand. But the EFF’s brand is enmeshed with revolution and radical socialism. It would be agreeing to a dispensation designed to deliver the very things it stands against.
You get the sense that for a coalition with the DA to work the EFF would effectively have to sacrifice itself; or, at least, to potentially sacrifice the ability to strengthen its brand and grow in any meaningful way ahead of 2019. Government would act as a constraint; the EFF could no longer behave like it does in, say Parliament, as disrupters and agitators. It would now be held to a different standard.
For example, in 2015, as part of a "national occupy land week" the EFF called on "all homeless people to identify open and unoccupied land wherever they choose and engage in the struggle to restore their land". You can’t advocate that kind of thing if you are actually in government.
That was a lesson the DA had to learn after it won Cape Town in 2006. Of course, its behaviour as an opposition was always more reasonable. Nevertheless, it could no longer promote any idea that it could not be held up to in its own governments. Its policy programme had to become more sophisticated and its role in the opposition carefully balanced against its role in government to harmonise the two. Were the EFF to do that, it would strip a great deal out of its political repertoire which largely relies, in all honesty, on its never having to actually account for anything it says and rarely for anything it does.
It was arguably a great relief to the EFF that it did not win control over any council. That buys it a certain amount of time to remain accountability-free. Once you are part of the system, it is much more difficult to oppose it. And that goes to the heart of the EFF’s dilemma.
Continue: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2016/08/10/the-great-da-eff-coalition-conundrum
