JAMIL F. KHAN | GNU era exposes that corruption has no race and no party boundaries

South Africa is nearly halfway through the second year of the Government of National Unity (GNU). Political leadership has long been one of the most contentious and controversial aspects of our social organisation.

Having governed the country with an outright majority for roughly 30 years, the ANC is no stranger to scrutiny and criticism from those disappointed by governance failures and corruption scandals.

A visible decline in the ANC’s leadership, marked by self-congratulatory arrogance, drew backlash from citizens who voiced their dissatisfaction at the polls.

As the leading party, the ANC and its senior officials have occupied a level of visibility that made corruption all the more stark. For better or worse, our democratic commitment to transparency has both upheld and unravelled the ANC’s historical dominance.

The GNU has now brought other parties under the same microscope of relevance and visibility, shattering the illusion that our governance problems stem solely from ANC misconduct.

Our “government in waiting,” the DA, has shown that corruption impunity and ethical failure are not unique to the ANC. Perhaps now that they hold some of the levers of power, they have absorbed their share of reputational damage, a necessary discomfort for a healthier GNU.

In truth, two scandals implicating DA Federal Leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen have exposed several myths about political leadership.

In October last year, Steenhuisen was accused of attempting to appoint unqualified DA members to his staff, a move resembling cadre deployment and undermining merit-based appointments, both issues the DA has long condemned.

Before year-end, Steenhuisen was embroiled in yet another scandal over the misuse of a DA party credit card for personal expenses.

These scandals offer a fact check to several problematic assumptions about leadership. Firstly, they illustrate that high visibility brings heightened scrutiny and demands for transparency.

While criticism of the ANC has been valid, part of their intense scrutiny stems fromhow visible they have been in our governance landscape. The DA’s supposed political hygiene was easier to maintain when the party was largely irrelevant on a national scale, insulated by its superiority complex in the limited areas it governed.

Now, they face the demands of leadership from people who do not idolise them. Being accountable to the entire country is a substantial shift and early on, the DA has stumbled.

A more insidious point revealed by these scandals is that corruption has no race. Despite its failures, the ANC’s leadership has long been racialised in ways that shore up old racist claims that Black people cannot lead ethically or effectively, and that only white leaders possess the expertise to govern.

Yet Steenhuisen’s political ascent was not rooted in expertise and now even the unspoken qualification of race has failed to shield him.

Corruption in South Africa was not invented by the ANC; it is inherited from a long history of corrupt governance that built an economy on the prosperity of a few and the suffering of the many. Was apartheid not the pinnacle of mismanagement and corruption?

This question remains relevant to the DA, which, despite its claim to non-racialism, continues to present a disproportionately white public image.

These optics reinforce a narrative that associates whiteness with ethical and competent governance, tropes that continue to influence voting patterns and require urgent dismantling.

While the GNU appears to have found its footing, the visibility each party now receives places them under broader and more diffused scrutiny. Each claims to be ready to lead alone, and they have been given the stage to audition. The results of these auditions will offer insights into how South Africa should be governed in the future.

If all political parties are ethically questionable, perhaps perpetual competition, combined with enforced cooperation, is the healthiest outcome. Politicians remain susceptible to corruption for as long as they enjoy uncontested power.

Political power, however, is a resource held by the people and should never be monopolised by any single group.

This expanded visibility invites us to etter understand the parties attempting to seduce power away from us. We must know what they advocate for and what their visions for South Africa truly are. Our hyperfocus on the ANC has distracted us from holding its rivals accountable. Sharing power gives us the basis to demand shared accountability.

Our politicians need a sustained, unrelenting humbling, a reminder that they are answerable to us first.

With all its flaws, the GNU has revealed that corruption in this country extends far beyond the ANC. Arrogance, incompetence and impunity have no race, and our approach to choosing leaders must be liberated from party loyalties.

After decades of disrespect, neglect, impunity and wilful disregard for the people, our political class is due for a prolonged period in purgatory, years of being compelled to work for the public good with no guaranteed reward. Let them witness the rise and fall of leaders within their own structures without ever tasting the comfort of a majority vote.

Let the job be stripped of entitlementand incentive, anchored instead in an ethos of service side by side with their opponents, all equally subject to the authority of the people.

Dr Jamil F. Khan is an award-winning author, doctoral critical diversity scholar, and research fellow at the Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study.