The DA has learned to make several foxlike Machiavellian moves, gaining and retaining significant power. But their commitment to their voter base has taken a backseat.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), once a beacon of liberal values in South Africa, now seems to operate more like a Machiavellian political entity—strategic, opportunistic, and willing to compromise principles for power. While this approach may ensure survival in South Africa’s turbulent political landscape, it risks alienating the DA’s base and undermining the party’s claim to be a principled alternative to the ANC.
Machiavellianism in politics, named after Niccolò Machiavelli’s treatise The Prince, emphasizes pragmatism over morality, where the end justifies the means. He also distinguished between two kinds of ruler - one who gains and holds power by direct action and force (the lion), and one who gains and maintains power by manipulation and cunning.
For the DA, the end appears to have lost all defining characteristics except the gaining and holding of power, and its ideological commitments have become increasingly vague and optional. And they have very little of the lion in them, and only so much of the fox. This strategy might make short-term sense from the inside, especially since it has cost them few votes so far, and they havent the majoritarian appeal that would allow them to wade into politics with a sledgehammer.
But it comes with long-term consequences for both the party and its supporters.
A greasy pole, or a slippery slope?
The DA’s role in the Government of National Unity (GNU) epitomizes its foxlike turn. By entering into a coalition with the ANC—a party it has long criticized for corruption and incompetence—the DA has traded its values for influence. The move was framed as a way to prevent the rise of extremist forces like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), but it has forced the DA to adopt ANC policies that are fundamentally opposed to its own.
Deputy Finance Minister Ashor Sarupen’s statements defending the ANC’s fiscal irresponsibility as a “necessary reality” reveal the cost of this compromise. By embracing the ANC’s approach to governance, the DA has legitimized the very policies it once promised to reform. This shift may allow the DA to claim it is “getting things done,” but at the cost of its credibility as a voice for fiscal prudence and free-market principles.
One of the DA’s founding principles is federalism—the idea that provinces should have greater autonomy to govern themselves. This principle is especially important in the Western Cape, where the DA has a stronghold. Yet even here, the party has failed to stand firm. When Western Cape Education Minister David Maynier was criticized by ANC officials for using the title “Minister,” he quickly backed down, calling the debate “petty politicking.”
This concession may seem minor, but it speaks to a larger pattern of capitulation. The DA could have used this moment to assert the Western Cape’s constitutional autonomy and challenge the central government’s overreach. Instead, it chose to avoid conflict, undermining its claim as a champion of federalism.
A Machiavellian attitude might help the DA navigate immediate challenges, but it leaves voters wondering what the party truly stands for. Supporters who value the DA’s commitment to liberal principles—individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and decentralized governance—are increasingly disillusioned. The party’s willingness to compromise on these values makes it harder for voters to trust its promises.
This approach also creates confusion. Voters are left playing a guessing game: Will the DA defend its liberal ideals, or will it adopt ANC-style policies under the guise of pragmatism? This unpredictability erodes the DA’s identity, leaving both loyal supporters and potential new voters questioning its direction.
Missing the Bigger Picture
Martin van Staden has argued that the DA already has a solid base of around 20% of the electorate—a remarkable feat for a liberal party in a developing country. Instead of focusing on leveraging this support to influence national debates and providing a sound opposition, the DA has become obsessed with growth. This pursuit of broader appeal has led to inconsistent messaging and compromises that alienate the party’s core supporters.
Meanwhile, the DA’s opponents, like the EFF, have used their smaller voter base to shape the national conversation. Despite holding less than 10% of the vote, the EFF has driven major debates, from land expropriation to corruption. The DA, by contrast, has failed to use its platform effectively, allowing its message to be drowned out by opponents’ narratives, cowering when the left-leaning press take aim at them.
The DA’s reluctance to engage in the political “games” played by its opponents is another sign of its strategic missteps. While the ANC and EFF manipulate media narratives to discredit the DA, the party clings to the idea of “staying above the fray.” This may seem honorable to some, but it is politically naive.
During the GNU negotiations, for example, the ANC and EFF weaponized old videos to portray the DA as a racist party. Instead of countering this narrative with its own—highlighting the ANC’s corruption or the EFF’s inflammatory rhetoric—the DA remained silent. This allowed its opponents to dominate the conversation and left voters with the impression that the DA had something to hide.
What the DA Must Do
To reclaim its relevance, the DA must strike a balance between principle and strategy. It cannot afford to abandon its liberal ideals, but it also needs to be more assertive in defending its position. This means standing firm on issues like fiscal responsibility and federalism, even when it’s politically inconvenient. It also means adopting smarter tactics to counter its opponents’ narratives.
To regain its footing, the DA must do more than stick to its principles—it must actively fight for them. This means leveraging its existing support base to influence national debates and challenging its opponents’ narratives head-on. The DA should invest in building its own platforms to amplify its voice, counter misinformation, and promote its vision. Rather than chasing elusive voter growth through compromise, the DA needs to engage the millions of South Africans who already share its values but feel disconnected from its messaging. By demonstrating conviction and clarity, the DA can reignite faith in its leadership without sacrificing its identity.
Yet, the DA’s inability to fully embrace these strategies may stem from deeper internal and strategic issues. Leadership divisions often pit those who prioritize ideological purity against those favoring pragmatism, creating paralysis and diluting focus. At the same time, the party’s relentless pursuit of voter growth has led to compromises that alienate core supporters without significantly expanding its base, reflecting a misplaced belief that broader appeal requires abandoning core principles.
Additionally, risk aversion within the party has fostered a culture of timidity. Leaders may fear that bold moves—like aggressively countering opponents or embracing a stronger narrative—could provoke backlash, both from the public and an often-hostile media. Combined with a complacency stemming from its stable voter base, these factors leave the DA stuck in a cycle of mediocrity, unable to rise to the challenges of South Africa’s political landscape.
The DA’s Machiavellian tactics may help it navigate South Africa’s complex political landscape in the short term, but they come at a steep price. By compromising its values, the party risks losing its identity and alienating its supporters. South Africa doesn’t need another ANC clone; it needs a party that offers a real alternative. If the DA continues down its current path, it risks becoming just another power-hungry player in a broken system. The question is whether the DA has the courage to prioritize its principles over its ambitions—or if it will remain trapped in the game, and trapping us with them.
