In a pointed response to critics, Steenhuisen asserted that President Ramaphosa held “zero authority” over the DA’s position.
Democratic Alliance (DA) leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen on Wednesday sparked controversy by publicly distancing his party from Russia and President Vladimir Putin, drawing sharp criticism from political figures and academics.
The conflict emerged after President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent engagement with Putin, where he described Russia as “a valuable ally and friend”.
Steenhuisen quickly rejected these sentiments, declaring that the DA “does not consider Russia or Vladimir Putin, to be an ally of our nation”.
In his response to The Citizen on balancing party interests with collective governance, Steenhuisen stated: “The shoe also fits the other foot – the president doesn’t have the right to undermine my authority as a leader of a party in the GNU[government of national unity] by committing us to a position without consulting,” he said.
In a pointed response to critics, Steenhuisen asserted that President Ramaphosa held “zero authority” over the DA’s positions.
“I have a right as a party of the GNU to expect consultation before statements that are made on behalf of the GNU that have excluded any debate within the GNU,” Steenhuisen stated.
“This is not a one-party show, there are ten parties to the GNU and if something is said on behalf of a government the DA, [which] is part of it, should have been canvassed.”
‘SA’s trade with Russia is minuscule’ – Steenhuisen
Addressing concerns about potential damage to trade relations, Steenhuisen dismissed the criticism as “laughable,” stating that “South Africa’s trade with Russia is minuscule and in no way justifies pandering to Putin’s war.”
The DA leader emphasised that Russia’s actions in Ukraine contradict international law, and he viewed the African National Congress’s (ANC) support as a deviation from South Africa’s non-alignment policy.
“The ANC is a 40% party that represents the interests of a minority in South Africa,” Steenhuisen argued.
“No one party has the right to bind the entire GNU to a position without a discussion beforehand.”
ALSO READ: Steenhuisen accused of micromanagement as he calls Putin no ally of SA
Critics voice concerns over diplomatic protocol
Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie criticised Steenhuisen’s approach, suggesting that he would’ve had a different reaction if the president had included him in the Brics Summit.
“You are not speaking on behalf of government, the President does, go back to work now Minister,” McKenzie stated.
The President made a huge mistake by leaving you behind, he should have taken you with and you would have smiled and laughed with President Putin just like you did with President Xi. You are not speaking on behalf of government, the President does, go back to work now Minister. https://t.co/CAZhnGNHdi
— Gayton McKenzie (@GaytonMcK) October 23, 2024
Economic Freedom Fighters’ (EFF) Sinawo Thambo vehemently condemned Steenhuisen’s statement, describing it as a violation of “all forms of diplomatic etiquette”.
Thambo said the ANC had this coming, while he called Steenhuisen “pathetic, petulant and classless”.
“The ANC deserves this for making an under-educated moron a minister.
“He has spat in Cyril’s face and on all our Brics allies,” he added.
ALSO READ: Brics: DA’s criticism of Ramaphosa on Russia being an ally ‘won’t affect GNU’ [VIDEO]
Academic perspective on constitutional protocol
Former University of Cape Town (UCT) vice-chancellor Rosina Mamokgethi Phakeng offered a measured critique of Steenhuisen’s position.
“Objectively, you may have grounds to argue that Putin is not our ally John, and you are entitled to voice that view,” she noted.
However, she warned that publicly challenging the President’s mandate could have serious implications.
“It is both inappropriate and irresponsible to claim that the Head of State, whom you (along with other MPs) mandated to represent SA in all official capacities (including foreign policy) is not acting on behalf of the nation. In fact, your statement implies that YOU are the voice of SAns on this matter, which is factually incorrect & misleading,” Phakeng added.
The professor also said that if Steenhuisen wished to challenge Ramaphosa, then he should do so privately.
“When you publicly challenge him in such a manner, especially on foreign policy, you undermine his authority AND weaken SA’s position internationally… If he appears weak, we all appear weak as a nation and become the laughing stock of the world because he’s our face.”
NOW READ: Brics summit ‘not anti-US’
