The DA won’t like its dilemma

THE DA moved this week to defuse a particularly divisive impasse involving its former youth leader Mbali Ntuli. She had to face a disciplinary hearing for “liking” a Facebook post calling Western Cape Premier Helen Zille a racist.

This is an intriguing evolution in the intersection between an individual’s freedom of expression and the right of an institution to maintain its corporate dignity, especially from within.

It’s even more tendentious when you consider that this was not an utterance as such but a “like”, a silent affirmation of an opinion that even of itself was neither that egregious nor as actionable given its target: Zille.

But what of the broader consequences within that selfsame context?

Zille faces charges for bringing the DA into disrepute for a series of tweets she posted on Twitter, purportedly extolling the virtues of colonialism.

These were not “likes” or “retweets”; these were original utterances and as such, far more blameworthy than Ntuli’s action.

Had the DA gone all the way and prosecuted Ntuli internally, this would have had a major impact on how it conducted the far bigger elephant in the room – Zille’s conduct. Precedents would have been set, one way or the other, severely circumscribing any latitude the disciplinary committee might have had.

By effectively taking Ntuli’s case off the table and opting instead for an alternative mediation process, the DA has deftly sidestepped a potential minefield and legal nightmare regarding its former leader.

Cynics will point to a party determined to avoid more public relations nightmares, while still being able to avoid imposing the ultimate sanction on a leader who has done so much to get the party to where it is today, but has very quickly become a liability.

The party has to be very careful how it manoeuvres in both cases, acting with utmost integrity and transparency, fully conscious of whatever route it chooses will have ramifications far beyond internal feuds and factionalism.