The Democratic Alliance (DA) is heading into a leadership contest that is already tearing at its seams, with senior figures warning that the outcome may further divide a party struggling to reconcile its internal battles, its role in government, and its claim to moral high ground.

Far from unifying the DA, the looming election of new leadership has amplified long-simmering tensions over power, accountability and direction — tensions now laid bare by its participation in the Government of National Unity (GNU).

Many within the DA did not want the DA to join the GNU.

At the centre of the storm is the enduring influence of DA federal council chairperson Helen Zille, whose public interventions and behind-the-scenes clout continue to shape who rises and who falls within the DA.

While Zille insisted she is acting in the party’s best interests, critics argue her dominance undermined renewal and reinforced a culture intolerant of dissent.

The latest flashpoint is the acrimonious fallout involving former DA MP Dion George, who resigned from the party after accusing its leadership of lacking transparency and honesty.

George said internal processes were opaque and that raising concerns came at a personal cost.

His departure has reignited debate about whether the DA practices internally the values it preaches nationally.

Zille responded sharply, accusing George of bringing the party into disrepute and rejecting claims of secrecy or exclusion. But the damage was done.

“It is unfortunate that Dr. George has resigned before answering a pending disciplinary matter before the DA’s Federal Legal Commission,” Zille said.

“Allegations that staff appointments to his ministerial office were done in a way that unjustifiably raised their salaries, at public expense; allegations that staff in his ministry sought departmental information to pursue internal party political matters, and bringing the party into disrepute through the media.”

His resignation has emboldened others to speak, mostly anonymously, about a climate of fear inside the party.

Sources within the DA told IOL that it had become “extremely difficult” to raise principled objections without being labelled disloyal or sidelined.

Several insiders said the problem was particularly acute for black leaders, who often found themselves under disproportionate scrutiny.

“For some, doors are always open,” one source said. “For others, especially black leaders, you’re constantly having to prove your loyalty before you’re heard.”

These internal strains are playing out against the backdrop of growing friction between party leader John Steenhuisen and George before his exit, with disagreements over strategy, communication and the DA’s posture in the GNU.

George accused Steenhuisen of abusing a party-issued credit card for personal expenses, including fancy hotel stays, car rentals, and household items like Uber Eats.

He claimed to have confiscated the card in March 2025 due to “serious financial irregularities” that could not be reconciled.

While Steenhuisen has championed participation in the unity government as pragmatic and responsible, critics within the party see it as a betrayal of the DA’s role as a distinct opposition force.

That divide has hardened. One faction argues the DA must remain in the GNU to influence policy and stabilise governance.

Another believes continued participation exposes glaring double standards, forcing the party to defend compromises it would once have condemned — from cabinet appointments to policy trade-offs.

Political analysts say the leadership contest is less about personalities than about identity.

They warned that unless the DA confronts its internal contradictions, between power and principle, unity and control, the party risked alienating both its base and potential supporters.

Speaking to IOL, political analyst Prof. Ntsikelelo Breakfast said, “I think what is happening in the DA is a political competition over political power.”

“I don’t think that it’s an ideological battle. Steenhuisen is not a person who is ideologically grounded or a person who speaks in-depth about the ideological framework of the DA, which is neoliberalism”.

Breakfast described Zille as a “seasoned politician” but doubted that her influence could help Steenhuisen return.

On party division, he added that the conference is going to change the entire political landscape of the DA. “The party will never be solid again”.

Political economy analyst, Zamikhaya Maseti, said the DA governance has been far from equal or transformative, commending them for service delivery.

However, he said “Its most enduring weakness lies in its structural alienation of black people, which reveals a deeper contradiction: a party capable of administration yet unwilling to confront the material foundations of inequality inherited from colonialism and apartheid.”

Analysts also caution that Zille’s outsized role, however influential, may complicate efforts to present the DA as a modern, inclusive alternative.

The DA is expected to hold its elective conference in April, where a new leader will emerge.

Steenhuisen is said to be going head-to-head with Cape Town’s Geordin Hill-Lewis.

kamogelo.moichela@iol.co.za

IOL Politics

Source link