CHARLES MATSEKE | The DA’s leadership crisis

The latest developments from Democratic Alliance ranks as South Africa edges toward another election cycle should surprise no one.

These are not accidents of timing. They are symptoms of a deeper institutional malaise: a party locked in an unresolved struggle between identity, ideology and electoral survival.

For more than a decade, the DA has oscillated between two strategic impulses. On the one hand, it has sought to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional white, urban, middle-class base.

On the other, it has repeatedly retreated into ideological comfort when faced with internal resistance. Every election season exposes this contradiction. Leadership exits merely make it visible.

Big business, once among the DA’s most reliable constituencies has grown increasingly sceptical of John Steenhuisen’s stewardship. His handling of agriculture during successive livestock disease outbreaks, including foot-and-mouth disease and avian influenza, weakened confidence in his capacity to manage crisis-prone portfolios.

ALSO READ: Macpherson dismisses claims Steenhuisen was pushed out of DA leadership race

Steenhuisen sets sights on municipal growth as he prepares to step down

This matters politically: agriculture remains central to Afrikaner economic interests and rural electoral sentiment. Steenhuisen’s failure to project authority in this space eroded credibility precisely where the party could least afford it.

Equally revealing is the DA’s sustained avoidance of Orania. The settlement represents a symbolic challenge to South Africa’s constitutional commitment to diversity and integration, yet the party treats it as politically untouchable.

This silence reflects a broader pattern: when confronted with difficult questions about race, belonging and national cohesion, the DA defaults to ambiguity prioritising base retention over principled engagement.

These dynamics mirror wider trends in South African politics, where personality-driven leadership, identity mobilisation and populist shortcuts increasingly displace long-term institutional thinking. The erosion of the National Democratic Revolution as a shared horizon has left parties scrambling for coherence, often substituting strategy with symbolism.

Steenhuisen’s announcement that he harbours no further electoral ambitions compounds this uncertainty. Leaders without political futures rarely drive structural reform. Instead, they manage decline, placate factions and avoid confrontation particularly with right-wing elements within their own organisations.

The DA’s transformation deficit is most visible in Johannesburg. Helen Zille’s migration from Cape Town to Gauteng, well into her seventies, sent an unmistakable signal about the party’s succession failure.

It stood in stark contrast to figures such as Mpho Phalatse, whose technocratic competence and governance record marked her as one of Johannesburg’s most credible mayors in recent years. Her sidelining exposed a party that continues to privilege institutional loyalty over renewal.

This is not isolated mismanagement; it reflects a leadership culture resistant to generational transition. Despite years of rhetoric about diversity, the DA has failed to build a robust pipeline of younger leaders across race, gender and class. Authority remains centralised, recycled and insulated.

The consequences are now electoral. MK has emerged as the ANC’s most disruptive challenger, while the Patriotic Alliance is beginning to threaten the DA even in the Western Cape.

Yet as the party approaches its elective conference, it has yet to answer its most basic strategic questions: Who is the DA for? What does transformation mean in practice? And how much ideological compromise is acceptable in pursuit of power?

These tensions were already evident during Phalatse’s mayoralty. Zille’s centralised influence weakened the functioning of the Government of National Unity in Gauteng, undermining coordination and service delivery.

The episode highlighted a deeper problem: the DA struggles to operate as a coalition partner because it remains structurally hierarchical, not institutionally collaborative.

This pattern predates Steenhuisen.

Mmusi Maimane’s exit in 2019 marked a critical inflection point. His leadership represented an attempt to reposition the DA as a genuinely national, multiracial party. That project collided with entrenched power networks, donor anxieties and ideological conservatives.

The resistance he faced was less about electoral performance than about transformation itself, visible in internal battles over race discourse, Helen Zille’s continued dominance and confused outreach to black voters.

Steenhuisen inherited these contradictions and added new ones. His tenure coincided with the DA’s most consequential strategic shift: participation in the post-2024 Government of National Unity.

While this brought proximity to power, it diluted the party’s oppositional identity. Internal divisions deepened between pragmatists who saw coalition politics as maturity and purists who viewed it as ideological surrender. Yet the electoral payoff never materialised.

Support stagnated, activists disengaged and policy clarity suffered.

What emerges is a party that repeatedly displaces structural failures onto individual leaders. Instead of resolving foundational questions about identity, transformation and power, the DA cycles through leadership changes.

The result is a recurring pattern: leaders become expendable once they embody contradictions the organisation itself refuses to confront.

Between historical loyalty and demographic reality.
Between liberal orthodoxy and social change.
Between opposition politics and coalition governance.

As South Africa approaches critical political milestones; the 2029 general elections, the 60th anniversary of the 1976 Soweto Uprising, and the 35th anniversary of our post-apartheid Constitution’ the country stands at a crossroads.

These anniversaries are not mere commemorations; they serve as powerful reminders of the unfinished project of liberation, the ongoing struggle for genuine equality, and the promise of constitutional democracy that continues to be tested.

Against this backdrop, the DA’s internal contradictions are more than just party politics; they reflect a wider national tension about identity, transformation, and governance.

The forthcoming DA elective conference will be a pivotal moment. It will reveal whether the party is capable of confronting its own structural dilemmas or whether it will once again settle for cosmetic leadership changes that paper over deeper fractures.

South Africa’s political landscape is on the cusp of a realignment that could redefine power relations for decades. New coalitions are emerging, old certainties are unraveling, and the electorate’s expectations are evolving rapidly, especially among the youth born after 1994 who demand more than symbolic representation or rhetorical commitments.

The DA must reckon honestly with whether it can meaningfully participate in this new era as a credible, transformative force or remain trapped in an identity crisis that limits its relevance.

The legacy of 1976 reminds us that political change is born from sustained struggle, bold leadership, and clarity of vision.

The Constitution enshrines a democratic ideal that requires more than procedural politics. It demands substantive inclusion and social justice. If the DA fails to embody these principles, it risks marginalisation not just at the ballot box, but in the country’s broader democratic project.

Charles Matseke (MPhil in Politics and International Relations) is a researcher and writer with a keen interest in contemporary political dynamics. His research focuses on electoral politics, foreign policy analysis, and international relations, with a particular emphasis on the Global South and Africa's role in global affairs.