EXPROPRIATION ACT: A POLITICAL GAME? COALITION IDEATES…

The ANC’s ability to exert pressure on the party at pivotal moments is demonstrated by the DA’s decision to announce a “dispute” in the national coalition government over the Expropriation Act.

The Expropriation Act was a purposeful political act signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Even while the ANC might be in a stronger position to negotiate a coalition, it is important to remember that the ANC would fail if it were to govern alongside Jacob Zuma’s MK party, therefore the DA is necessary.

Ramaphosa just signed the Act into law last week, despite it being been approved by Parliament in March of last year.

It is unbelievable that a panel of attorneys in the Presidency waited so long to decide if the Act could be signed, despite the fact that it is complicated and raises constitutional questions about when someone can legally be dispossessed of their property.

This implies that Ramaphosa’s signing was timed carefully.

It’s possible that Ramaphosa intended to undermine the DA because he signed the Act on the Thursday before the Cabinet lekgotla, which included ministers from every party in the national alliance, began.

The DA may be Ramaphosa’s greatest non-ANC challenger in Cabinet due to its massive base and the largest group of non-ANC ministers in the Cabinet.

But it’s possible that National Health Insurance (NHI) was the true aim.

Existential danger
Ramaphosa is aware that the DA and its supporters face an existential threat as a result of this problem. The DA must be perceived as defending private healthcare and its medical assistance payment schemes.

It now has to fight expropriation difficulties even though it cannot afford to lose sight of NHI.

This is in line with a pattern where Ramaphosa has enacted laws that were passed by the previous legislature. This is controversial in and of itself since it means that laws made by a previous Parliament that were approved in 2019 are now becoming law, even though the present Parliament may not have agreed with them.

In other words, this Act is a result of the 2019 election rather than the 2024 one.

The ANC and the DA will utilize this issue to inflame their supporters in spite of the Expropriation Act’s facts and language.

Bulelwa Mabasa, the head of Land Reform at Werksmans Attorneys, stated last week on The Money Show that there is absolutely no likelihood of land being expropriated with “nil” compensation if it is occupied and productive.

The government has always had the authority to expropriate, any decision made by the government during this process can be challenged in court, and if “nil” compensation is paid, it will only be in extremely rare circumstances—likely involving abandoned land—so this act by Ramaphosa doesn’t really change anything on the ground.

Unfortunately, there are justifications for both the ANC and the DA to deny the facts and make the opposite assertion.

While the DA wants to convey to its supporters that it is battling to save their property, the ANC may want to remind them that it is working to address SA’s land ownership issues.

It’s possible that Ramaphosa signed the Act for other reasons.

Ramaphosa is facing pressure from the ANC and the Tripartite Alliance in general for collaborating with the DA, as BusinessLIVE’s Natasha Marrian has indicated.

He might recoup some internal support by signing the Expropriation Act into law, which would also serve as evidence that the ANC is still fighting for the return of land that was taken during the colonial era and apartheid.

Brinkmanship game
This apparently purposeful game of brinkmanship with threats on all sides is probably going to be one of the coalition’s characteristics for as long as it exists. This is not surprising given the diversity of the constituencies represented in the alliance.

However, Ramaphosa is carefully applying pressure on the DA in this situation.

The NHI Act was first signed into law prior to the election, followed by the Bela Act and the Expropriation Act.

All of these are highly opposed by the DA, which has stated in public that it will never be able to support them.

Ramaphosa probably understands he can keep the DA under pressure and get more out of it, even though he might want to find out what the DA’s breaking point is.

The DA is forced to choose its battles because it might not be able to reject expropriation and the NHI at the same conference.

The DA must figure out how to react to this pressure and attempt to take advantage of the circumstances. Its decision to publicly announce a formal dispute over the weekend may have been influenced by this; it may have been a tactic to make sure the DA would not be held accountable in the event that the coalition collapses.

John Steenhuisen, the head of the DA, must emphasize that he is free to leave the coalition.

This may serve as a reminder to Ramaphosa that the ANC is also limited in its options.

The ANC would have to form a coalition with another sizable party if the DA were to quit the government (unless it attempted to govern as a minority administration, going from parliamentary vote to parliamentary vote). In terms of the numbers, MK would be the only feasible choice.

Politically unfeasible
For another two years, this would be politically impossible, even though it would look probable. This is because Ramaphosa’s resignation would be required because to MK’s ongoing instability.

The ANC cannot agree to this since it is far from prepared to elect a new leader or name someone else president (not to mention the more basic fact that no party in any democracy can permit another party to override its choice of leader).

For the ANC, collaborating with MK may be lethal. The ANC would lose even more votes in subsequent elections as a result of sending the message to voters that it had reverted to its previous identity as the ANC of State Capture.

The DA then has leverage to work with as a result.

Even if the ANC and the DA have serious disagreements on NHI, it will take some time to advance significantly due to a number of legal issues.

Instead, in an effort to prove to their constituents that they are working for them, the ANC and the DA will likely continue to quarrel over it for the next two years.

Be the first to reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *