RW Johnson: The DA in crisis

Key topics:Steenhuisen’s leadership credibility is collapsing amid scandals and mismanagementPersonal finance failures and poor appointments weaken his DA leadershipDA faces a leadership crisis; Hill-Lewis seen as a potential successor.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..By RW Johnson.The downfall of John Steenhuisen now seems virtually certain. The miracle is that it has taken so long. When he was first elected DA leader, friends of mine who were long-time veterans of the KwaZulu-Natal DA immediately told me that he was “not up to it” and that his election was “a bad mistake”. I remember my surprise that such people, who obviously knew Steenhuisen better than most, had clearly not been consulted by the DA’s leading figures. But the DA has not been very good at choosing leaders. I remember my own absolute incredulity at the attempt to hand the party leadership to Mamphela Ramphele – I warned Helen Zille that Mamphela wouldn’t last a week in that role. Helen still pressed ahead and sure enough Mamphela lasted less than two days, even refusing to join the DA at all. The choice of Mmusi Maimane was equally absurd: he had jumped up through the party ranks at such ridiculous speed that he completely lacked the necessary experience. And in any case, he made it clear that he had been completely happy with Thabo Mbeki’s leadership, his pro-Mugabe policy and Aids madness notwithstanding: only Zuma’s excesses had driven him from the ANC. As a DA leader he was just a disaster waiting to happen.All the same, Steenhuisen’s case was odd. It appears that his first “job” after leaving school was being a Durban city councillor. He served ten years in that role before getting elected to the provincial legislature in 2009, only to have to resign the next year amidst a lot of messy publicity over an extra-marital affair. He was then chosen as a DA parliamentary candidate and became an MP in 2011. That is to say, he is now 49 and the DA has already been his meal-ticket for 26 years. He holds no professional qualification and seems never to have held a regular job. .Read more: .John Matisonn: DA’s leadership test amid record support .In the old days in Durban one would often see adverts for skilled workers – electricians, plumbers, welders and so forth – with, at the bottom of the page, the stern injunction: NO CHANCERS. Because Durban, with its all-the-year-round warmth was a haven for chancers: if necessary they could sleep rough, and quite a few did. The local environment, with its manyana culture, seemed to produce plenty of these but Durban also attracted them from elsewhere. There was always a Jo’burg low-life contingent which would drift down to Durban in winter, commit a minor crime and thus be jailed for 3-4 months, providing them with food and shelter until it was warm enough to hitch back up to Jo’burg. But many who arrived from up country would stay on, trying their luck at trades in which they could only pretend to be qualified. These were the classic chancers and their ranks always included many so-called “electricians” who would always insist on re-wiring your entire house and producing utter chaos.I mention this because John Steenhuisen has always seemed to me to be a classic Durban chancer. Not too well educated, not qualified in any profession, merely an Opposition politician with a line in aggressive bombast and, as we now all know, a man unable to manage his personal finances even when earning a salary of R2.69 million (in fact three salaries – as MP, as Minister and as Leader of the Opposition). He has literally talked his way into every post he has held: the classic chancer route.There have been several clues along the way. Steenhuisen’s antagonistic behaviour towards journalists was his way of trying to prevent any critical coverage. No proper professional politician would have behaved like that. Then there was the incident when he referred to his ex-wife as “road kill” in a radio interview, an appalling lapse for a DA leader. The DA, after all, has been the home of many distinguished and feisty women and takes a very strong line against GBV and any other form of abuse against women. It was a classic piece of “chancer speak” which was actually supposed to be funny.Then came Steenhuisen’s decision to appoint Roman Cabanac as his chief of staff. Given Cabanac’s reputation as a right-wing “shock jock” this came as a tremendous jolt to the DA. Quite apart from the question of Cabanac’s merits, the chief of staff is the person on whom a leader most relies and with whom he shares most. The thought that it seemed natural to Steenhuisen to want someone like Cabanac in that role was completely at odds with the party’s image of what its leader ought to be. And despite overwhelming party pressure against the appointment, it took Steenhuisen nine months to decide he must part company with Cabanac. In fact the case goes on, with Cabanac demanding a R5 million pay-off. Meanwhile, it turned out that Steenhuisen’s other appointments to his office contravened various government guidelines, so they had to go. The only observable principle was that none of these appointees were better educated or smarter than Steenhuisen himself, a key give-away. Confident, capable leaders delight in appointing people of high ability: JFK was a classic example.Meanwhile, whenever discussions of the GNU’s future occurred with some always arguing that the DA should end the arrangement, one always heard that a key question was how Steenhuisen’s income could be maintained at a high level, for he apparently couldn’t easily face going back to an MP’s salary. Yet this was not an argument one had ever heard before about any previous Leader of the Opposition. Something was clearly amiss. We hear that, at age 49, Steenhuisen still has no assets of any kind so he’s clearly spent everything he ever earned. That’s what chancers do.Now, however, the game is surely up. Steenhuisen’s job requires him to say how the country’s finances and economic policy should be run and to critique the government’s performance. But how can someone unable to manage his own financial affairs have any credibility in such a role ? Or again, Steenhuisen frequently boasts of the DA’s reputation for good governance, but financial discipline and responsibility are key to good governance and these are qualities that Steenhuisen himself clearly lacks. Or again, a DA leader has to solicit financial contributions from business. But business leaders know very well that anyone working for their companies who, like Steenhuisen, had a judgement against him for failing to pay his debts would be forced to quit. They are bound to have considerable reservations about donating to such a person, even without the added complication of Steenhuisen being accused of using party funds for his own private purposes. Taken together these handicaps mean that it would now simply be preposterous for Steenhuisen to continue in his present role. His recent article on “good governance”, for example, was headlined “End the fat cat feeding frenzy !” – a title almost calling out for satirical attack given Steenhuisen’s now well advertised enthusiasm for Uber Eats...The notion that the party must retain Steenhuisen as Leader simply so that he may continue financially to live the life to which he would like to remain accustomed cannot be seriously entertained.Meanwhile, the row over Steenhuisen’s dismissal of Dion George from his post as Environment minister continues with the conservationist lobby in full cry against Steenhuisen’s choice of Willie Aucamp as George’s replacement. There are many oddities requiring explanation, starting, first, with the fact that Steenhuisen only made this move after George, as the DA’s federal finance chairman, had cancelled Steenhuisen’s party credit card. This in turn followed Steenhuisen being taken to court for failure to pay the R149,500 owing on his own private credit card (plus interest, plus legal costs). The implication, clearly, is that the loss of this private card led Steenhuisen to mis-use his party card for private purposes and that when that card in turn was withdrawn, to retaliate against George. The DA’s legal team will presumably report on the veracity or otherwise of this charge.Second, there is the oddity that Steenhuisen initially tried to get George to accept a demotion to deputy minister for trade and industry, which George refused. Later, Steenhuisen explained his dismissal of George as due to “under performance”, but if that was the case why try to appoint him to the DTI ?Third, there is the fact that at that point there was a burst of extremely damaging publicity about George in the media where he was accused of bullying, of being “a monster”, of sexual misconduct and so on. George is now suing the media for defamation but he apparently believes that Steenhuisen was the source of these reports and may sue him too. George’s defenders point to the fact that no such allegations have been made against George before during his 20 year career in the DA.Then there is the fact that George, while minister, hastened to carry out the full conservationist and environmentalist agenda, in line with DA policy. But Aucamp, with his mining and hunting connections, represents the polar opposite. This suggests that Steenhuisen, as party leader, has undergone a 180 degree turn in his views on conservation and the environment. In fact Steenhuisen himself apparently likes to hunt and has friends in the hunting community. In this and his choice of associates his profile is that of a natural conservative rather than that of a leader of a liberal party. It’s worth noting Dion George’s career. After a Wits BA he did a BA (Hons) in Industrial Psychology, then an MBA and later a PhD, plus Harvard certificates in Leadership Coaching and Negotiation.. His MBA research project won an Investec prize for the best research in the investment field and his career was in the financial services sector. After only two years as a Jo’burg city councillor he was quickly promoted to MP and, almost immediately, Shadow Minister of Finance. This is the most senior Opposition job and a clear sign that he was seen as a high flyer. At the same time he has served since 2010 as the DA’s federal finance chairman, with only a (self-chosen) four year break in 2015. This is a very strong CV and until now there had been no complaints voiced against him.The row comes at an awkward time for the DA. Helen Zille, who has been campaigning hard in Joburg, now finds herself pulled back into intense intra-party conflicts. Moreover, the DA has been doing well in recent polls and a major fight between its senior leaders is the last thing it needs. In fact it now seems likely that Steenhuisen’s leadership is over almost irrespective of what the DA’s legal team concludes. The damage to his credibility is already probably fatal and it is clear that even if the legal team were to find in his favour, there is now a large section of the DA who are opposed to his leadership. Moreover, given the damage done by the “road kill” remark, the Cabanac affair and now this latest crisis, many will feel that sticking with Steenhuisen simply means waiting for more trouble down the road. One cannot but wonder whether Steenhuisen’s financial troubles will continue. .Read more:. John Matisonn: Geordin Hill-Lewis looks a likely GNU minister.That said, if the DA is able to unveil an attractive new leader it could quickly take the sting out of these events. At present the notion is that Steenhuisen will face re-election at the DA’s April 2026 Congress. However, that may be too long to wait. If, as his detractors complain, he is found guilty of “bringing the party into disrepute”, he can hardly be allowed to hang on as Leader for another 4-5 months. But even if a lesser verdict is reached he is already damaged goods and lacking in credibility. Given the coming electoral tests can the party really soldier on with him ?The obvious successor is the Cape Town mayor, Geordin Hill-Lewis who has thus far declined to run for the leadership. However, the situation is no longer normal. The DA faces a major crisis and all its current prospects could be ruined if it fails to come up with an attractive new Leader. In that situation the party leaders may feel they have to approach Hill-Lewis and appeal to him to save the party in this crisis. If they do so, they decide they have first to dispose of Steenhuisen and he is unlikely to go easily. Even if it is made clear that he has lost the party’s confidence he is likely to demand a large pay-out, for if he leaves under a cloud he may well be unemployable. These are knotty problems, just as disposing of Ramphele, Maimane and Patricia de Lille was difficult, each providing their own cloud of unhelpful publicity. But problems like this will persist until the DA learns to improve its choice of leaders.

RW Johnson: The DA in crisis

Key topics:

Related Stories