DA leader insists small parties will split vote
● DA leader John Steenhuisen is adamant that smaller parties contesting his party in the Western Cape will split the vote and open the door for an ANC-EFF coalition in the province.
His remarks follow a spat that broke out the week after Steenhuisen labelled opposition parties campaigning in the Western Cape as “political mercenaries” targeting the province because it was the last place left to loot.
A backlash followed his comments, with many accusing Steenhuisen of being undemocratic and trying to bully the smaller parties. Rise Mzansi leader Songezo Zibi hit back and accused the DA leader of using swart gevaar tactics and fearmongering in his campaign.
On Friday, Steenhuisen dug in his heels, saying he was only being honest with voters about the risks they faced in this election, where voting for small parties would only open the door for what he called a “coalition of corruption” to come in, as had happened in municipalities such as Knysna, Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni.
“I didn’t tell people they shouldn’t campaign in the Western Cape. They can campaign wherever they like, but I think I am entitled to question the strategic logic of focusing so [many] resources on the one province that is already out of the ANC’s hands instead of [combining] resources to unseat the ANC in the other eight provinces where people are living under the disastrous consequences of ANC government,” he said. “That was the point I made.”
He claimed Rise Mzansi had not only taken the bait, but proved he was right as they’d spent the past week being “an opposition to the opposition”.
“Just like the ANC, the moment they got touched on their studio, about their support for expropriation without compensation, they reacted by using the race card and play[ing] the race card.
“If that’s not ANC-lite, I don’t know what is.”
Steenhuisen said Zibi and his team had been campaigning in the Western Cape for the past two months, accusing the DA of racism and attacking its record in government.
“I think we have a right to defend it and to put forward the fact that it is the only province where jobs have been created.
“I think we are entitled to defend our turf when it gets attacked, and that’s precisely what I did.”
Steenhuisen claimed Rise Mzansi was not serious about getting rid of the ANC and was instead interested in getting votes off the DA.
He said the party had given up fighting the ANC because its polling showed it was not
making inroads into the ANC’s votes, and that it was below the margin of error in polls.
“That’s why none of the serious polls have given them even above 1%, because they’re not making the inroads. So, in desperation now, they’re turning to try to be an opposition to the opposition, and that is what you see taking place here.”
Steenhuisen said if taking on the ANC was Rise Mzansi’s approach, the party would be sitting at 5% at least in the polls.
Two insiders, one in Rise Mzansi and the other in the DA, claimed that, according to polls, Rise Mzansi was “stealing” some of the DA’s white English-speaking voters in Gauteng and the Western Cape — and that’s what had rattled the official opposition.
Steenhuisen said these were the only voters Rise Mzansi was going after “and that is why I think it’s important that voters know who this party really is”.
“This is a party that on social media promotes socialism, a party that believes in expropriation without compensation.
“It has filled in a premier candidate in the Western Cape [Axolile Notywala] who was not only actively involved in land grabs, but has also actively promoted land grabs on his Twitter profile.”
Notywala denied ever leading a land occupation. He said that in the course of his work with the Social Justice Coalition [a Cape Town-based community organisation] and other activists, he had defended people who had been illegally evicted by the City of Cape Town. The DA and city leaders had interpreted this to mean he had led those occupations.
Notywala said Rise Mzansi didn’t support land expropriation without compensation, as claimed by Steenhuisen. Its manifesto said expropriation was provided for by the constitution, and that it could take place with or without compensation with that issue decided by a court.
“It is the court that decides what is fair and rational in terms of compensation it’s not up to anyone else.”