Is the DA fishing for relevance?

Words are wondrous – especially in the mouths of politicians, who can make them completely different things in successive sentences. Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen is possibly correct when he claims he was “misquoted” in the Sunday Times, which suggested he and his party were open to considering a “coalition” with the ANC. The DA is taking the paper to the media ombudsman because it claims Steenhuisen’s views were “misrepresented”.

But yesterday, Steenhuisen, speaking during a broadcast of the DA’s The Inside Track show, was just as woolly with his words as he must have been in the newspaper interview for the paper to assume he was hinting at a coalition.

He said he would consider working with the ANC if it was different to the way it is currently constructed. But working with them, he added, “does not necessarily mean a coalition”.

Using the phrase “not necessarily” does leave the speculation door open, though.

What makes this whole incident much more than just a debate about words is the fact that the DA considers itself relevant enough to be considered as a coalition partner by the ANC. We would suggest that the ANC is not nearly desperate enough to consider an alliance with the DA.

The DA seems to have proved, after acrimonious spats with its black leaders like Mmusi Maimane and Herman Mashaba, that it’s not exactly going to be flavour of the month in African townships.

It doesn’t have the common enemy of Jacob Zuma any more with which to attract disgruntled urban black voters, who prefer Cyril Ramaphosa to Steenhuisen’s contradictory attitudes and promises.

Is this another ploy by the DA to remain relevant in our politics?