Politics.za

Farrel, the thing about coalitions is that they tend to survive despite apparent internal contraditions. There are good reasons for that.

The political pressure on any participating party to deliver its mandate is extremely strong. This propels parties to stick to the arrangements and promises they make; particularly party leaders, who need to justify themselves not only to the electorate but to their party-political supporters. I’d call this the coalition’s ‘political mandate’.

This by no means reduces the importance of the ‘principle mandate’ that each party must defend. For the AMP, this seems to include the idea that homosexuality is sinful. The response that develops in the coalition derives from the parties’ shared political mandate, and from their understanding of one anothers’ principle mandate.

I’d imagine that the AMP will refuse to endorse projects promoting pink tourism in Cape Town. Well, that may be the cost of allowing this government to survive. However, the DA will certainly not support any erosion of existing gay rights in Cape Town. This is a concession we may expect to make, but we will only go so far.

On the other hand, we expect concessions in return: we shall persuade our colleagues of other policies we have in mind, to do with rationalisation of rates and services, fire protection, power services and so on. You can, after all, run a city pretty well without having a dispute about gay rights.

The most important vote in the coalition has already passed: the vote to create it in the first place. That vote endorsed not only the mayor, but also signed the parties into a working arrangement. This is the fundamental difference between a democratic coalition and the ANC’s tri-partite alliance. A split in the city coalition merely means the end of the government, and the parties can then pick up the pieces afterwards. A split in the ANC’s alliance functionally means the end of the party; much more catastrophic; hence the safe conclusion is that a coalition government is fundamentally more democratic than the ANC’s alliance government.

In the article in your update: Helen’s very good at symbols. The photo-within-the-photo is a message, sent by Helen to the ANC. ‘I plan to run the city with your cooperation. I fully acknowledge your role as national and provincial government. It’s your job to acknowledge my role as city mayor.’

And I tell you what else: you’re never going to get that kind of governance agreement out of any party on its own, particularly not the ANC. Coalitions are a GOOD THING. Get used to them, Farrel, there are only going to be more of them in the future.

I’ve got nothig wrong against coalitions, I just don’t want to see local government plunged into another leadership crisis should the alliance fall apart. And with the slim margins present the possibility of that happening is very real, either due to parties exiting the agreement voluntarily or through floorcrossing.

The DA alliance with the NNP left a bitter taste in a number of DA supporters mouths and here we have the DA in alliance with parties who might even be more right wing (FF+/ACDP/AMP). Sure their number are much less than the DA, so it could be said that they are allying with the DA rather than vice versa.

The article states

Where, however, a party had a serious moral or principled objection to any matter, or where it was impossible to reach consensus, the party retained the right to disagree or criticise the majority viewpoint, within the council and outside it, “while still retaining the governance agreement”.

I’m not sure that would allow members of the alliance to vote contrary to the alliance’s decision while still keeping the allowance going. Perhaps you could clarify?

Heh, the sour taste in the mouths of the DP supporters in 1999/2000 largely had to do with it being the Nats. There’s an enormous difference between promoting some economically conservative policies or working with seriously religious people, and getting into bed with the architects of apartheid.

There are Christians in the DA who completely understand how the ACDP think. Similarly, our Muslim supporters will be pleased that we feel we can work with Muslims in government. Does this make us right-wing? No more than it would the ANC and ID, whose members are often Christian or Muslim, had they pulled off their coup with the AMP yesterday.

Here, somewhere, is the ancient debate in the DA between the social democrats and the free marketers. I think that’s a debate for another time, so I’ll stop talking about that.

Yes, it’s what the agreement doesn’t define that allows the possibility of a fracture. I don’t know how the other parties will understand the right to disagree or criticise the majority viewpoint. Will they still be required to vote for the measure, despite disagreeing with it? I suspect the agreement will be tested quite a bit if it gets to that point in practice.

Apropos the no-confidence vote: Premier Ebrahim Rasool, while addressing members of the French, German and Italian chambers of commerce and industry on Thursday, referred to the elections, in which “voting on racial lines” had returned the DA to power in Cape Town with a slender margin, with the support of small parties. Rasool said there was no fear of instability; no floor-crossing or vote of no confidence, which might lead to another change in control of the city, would be allowed before September 2007. In the meantime there would be co-operation for the good of the community.