DA’S COMING STRUGGLE
If the party continues to grow with each election, it is likely that factions will begin to emerge to compete for positions. This is not just a challenge to be overcome but a chance to set a healthy precedent
The DA has made great strides since 1994. Back then, its forebear, the Democratic Party (DP), managed just 1.7% of the vote. In 2014, its percentage stood at 22.3%. It now governs a province, four metros and a range of local municipal governments. Come 2019, it will be aiming to breach the 30% barrier in the national elections.
Electoral growth is generally how the public measures the success of a political party. What they don’t see is how that growth is mirrored organisationally or the problems that typically accompany it.
There are the more obvious challenges. Running governments, for example — ensuring a coherent and consistent programme of action and delivering outcomes — necessitates much consultation. When a number of those governments rely on coalitions, the political maths involved becomes all the more complex.
Likewise, human resources need to be managed — an evergrowing and more diverse staff complement. In short, the hard infrastructure of any growing organisation becomes more complex to manage.
But in politics there is much else besides, a series of naturally occurring obstacles to cohesion.
For example, as a small party (in 1994 the DP had seven MPS), it is far easier to define, regulate and uphold your principles and values. The DA, which has put much emphasis on subsuming other parties as it grows and expands into new markets, has found it difficult to control its core ideological brand in the way it used to do. It has become somewhat diluted and amorphous as it not only accepts but seeks to appeal to all comers.
There are issues of party discipline. More public representatives mean it is harder to pull people together in a single meeting, at national or provincial level. The party develops management layers. Performance assessment becomes an immense task and individual attention is often sacrificed.
In turn, monitoring misconduct becomes all the more difficult. It usually follows that the bigger a party gets, the more it tightens its rules and regulations, as one comes to rely more on bureaucracy than leadership to control and regulate. The DA’S social-media policy, which addresses a chaotic arena no political party has yet mastered, speaks to that impulse towards authoritarianism.
Communication, internal and external, is directly affected by growth. Local and provincial issues, especially those emanating from government (which are notoriously difficult to control), compete with national messaging. It becomes harder not just to determine a line on any given issue but to disseminate it through party structures and to ensure it is inculcated into the rank and file.
The inherent contradiction between opposition and govern-