Why Kingmakers Rarely Become Kings
Parliamentary games may win headlines, but only the ballot box delivers a verdict that matters. Voters will decide whether the promise of new politics was ever real—or just another performance.
For over thirty years, the African National Congress (ANC) ruled South Africa with uninterrupted dominance from the benches of the National Assembly to the highest levels of Cabinet. What the ANC wanted became law; what it resisted rarely came to pass. But 2024 brought an unprecedented shift. Voters, fatigued by broken promises and deepening inequality, delivered a fragmented Parliament. A political jigsaw puzzle that ushered in the era of coalition politics. Suddenly, smaller parties found themselves with leverage. The kingmakers had arrived.
In the lead-up to the elections, we were inundated with new political formations promising fresh leadership, ethical governance, and a break from the cynical politics of the past. Yet, less than a year into this new political order, many of these so-called disruptors have fallen into familiar habits. In the corridors of Parliament, they are not breaking the mould; they are fitting themselves neatly into it.
The budget impasse this year offered a clear, if disheartening, example. Amid widespread criticism of the proposed VAT increase, nearly every opposition party, including those who condemned it publicly, voted to approve the fiscal framework. ActionSA, Build One South Africa (BOSA), and Rise Mzansi explained their votes with procedural justifications. But politics is about choices, and the choices made here speak volumes.
Their decision was not rooted in principle or policy coherence. It was strategically aimed at weakening the Democratic Alliance (DA) and currying favour with the ANC. These parties are not playing to lead the country; they are manoeuvring for proximity to power within the Government of National Unity (GNU). They are betting on a scenario in which, should the DA walk away, they can slide into Cabinet positions under the guise of “stability” and “maturity.” But let’s be honest: this is not new politics; it is the same old game, just with newer players.
It is easy to criticise the establishment from the outside. Many of us have done it. It is easy to claim the moral high ground and speak of doing things differently. But once seated in Parliament, surrounded by the weight of donors, internal party expectations, and the ever-present pressure to secure influence, many lose their nerve. The rhetoric fades. The politics of compromise, deal-making, and short-term survival take over.
These parties campaigned on a promise to do politics differently. But when the test came, they played the same game. Electoral politics and governance are not the same. The former is about performance, slogans, and spectacle. The latter demands difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions rooted in the public good. This distinction matters because South Africans cannot afford another generation of political theatre. While the GNU drama may make for compelling Twitter content and clever soundbites, it does little for those who wake up at 5 a.m. to catch overcrowded taxis to work. It does little for unemployed graduates with no prospect of owning a home or building a life. And it does even less for the millions who have long given up hope that politics can deliver real change.
Yes, politics is a contact sport. And yes, idealism can feel naïve in the cutthroat world of power. But at its core, politics must be about purpose. It must be about service. The scramble to secure influence in the GNU has blinded many parties to the moral clarity they once claimed to hold. The very parties that promised to disrupt the status quo now find themselves upholding it, voting in favour of the very policies they campaigned against and aligning themselves with the same establishment they once denounced.
It is no easy task to build political legitimacy from the margins of Parliament, where smaller parties hold limited influence and must work harder to prove their relevance. But proximity to power is not, in itself, a substitute for a clear political vision. Casting oneself as a kingmaker in this moment may offer short-term visibility, but it is no guarantee of long-term credibility. To promise a new age of leadership while entrenching old patterns of political expediency is not only contradictory, it is self-defeating. And when the time comes to account to the electorate, these parties will need more than soundbites and strategic positioning; they will need to answer for the compromises that eroded the very principles on which they campaigned.
With local government elections on the horizon, the true test will not be in how cleverly they navigated parliamentary politics, because in the end, the only answer that matters is the one voters give at the ballot box.