The decision by the NFP national leadership to formally cut ties with the KwaZulu-Natal government of provincial unity (GPU) has been framed by some commentators as a political earthquake, one that threatens to immediately collapse the coalition government and plunge the province into instability. But that kind of assessment is overstated, alarmist and ignores both political reality and legal precedent. While it is true that the GPU’s majority in the provincial legislature hinges on the NFP’s single seat, the assumption that the coalition’s fate rests solely on the dictates of the party’s national leadership misunderstands how coalition politics, party discipline and South African law intersect.
In practice, the NFP’s withdrawal, at least for now, poses no immediate or meaningful threat to the GPU’s survival. At the centre of this political standoff is the NFP’s sole MPL and MEC for Social Development, Mbali Shinga. Despite the party’s national leadership instructing its representatives to withdraw support from the GPU, Shinga has chosen to remain part of the coalition.
That decision, rather than the pronouncements from the NFP’s headquarters, is what matters at the moment. As long as Shinga continues to support the GPU, the coalition retains its KZN Legislature majority and by extension, its ability to govern. The reality is that in legislative politics, votes, not press statements or resolutions, determine outcomes.
Read Full Article on The Witness
[paywall]
On that score, the GPU remains intact. KZN political history offers numerous examples that reinforce this point. The province has long been a laboratory for coalition governance, often marked by defiance from deployees whose political calculations differ from those of their leadership.
These episodes demonstrate that party instructions, while politically significant, are not automatically enforceable. A case in point is the IFP-led coalition in the uMhlathuze Municipality. Despite the EFF leadership taking a firm national decision to withdraw from the coalition, EFF councillors continued to support the IFP-led coalition.
This effectively neutralising the EFF national leadership’s decision. A similar scenario played out in the Zululand District Municipality, where NFP councillors continued to prop up an IFPled coalition despite a national resolution by the NFP not to work with the IFP. Whether at municipal or provincial level, councillors and MPLs enjoy significant legal protections once elected. In the case of proportional representation, parties may recall deployees under certain conditions, but the process is neither automatic nor immune to legal challenge.
[/paywall]
