GNU will go nowhere unless we reckon with our divisiveness

James Baldwin famously said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” Like much of Baldwin’s work, this statement is deeply political. It warns against the human tendency to escape the discomfort of difficult conditions by looking for quick fixes and superficial solutions. The government of national unity (GNU) is a real-life example of what Baldwin warned against. 

Presented as a political panacea for South Africa’s challenges, the GNU creates what the media often refers to as “euphoria” in our need for a messiah or miracle to deliver us from the ills of the past, diverting our collective gaze from the sad reality of a government and a nation divided along historical racial lines. This “euphoria”, similar to the hypnotised state during the time of the “Rainbow Nation” in 1994, when the first social experiment of a GNU took place, threatens to disintegrate if we do not constructively and courageously acknowledge and address the divisive issues.

The concept of a government of national unity is tantalising in theory, and South Africans are desperate for a political solution that will bring healing after almost 400 years of division and suffering. The market’s reaction to the GNU is another clear indicator of our craving for any feel-good story, especially one that suggests we are finally getting along. 

I now feel like the Grim Reaper. I expect to be attacked by trolls accusing me of playing the race card again. Worse, I prefer to remain a victim, refusing to, as one politician recently said in response to questions about the national anthem, “put the past behind me”. My concern is that in our haste we are complicit in covering up deep-seated problems in a divided nation that, if left unaddressed, can impede real progress. 

Unity in South Africa, as elsewhere, means the harmonious co-operation and integration of the country’s diverse populations towards common goals and shared prosperity. It means fostering a sense of belonging and a common identity among people from different racial, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. True unity goes beyond mere coexistence; it embodies a collective commitment to understand, respect and appreciate each other’s differences while working together to address common problems and aspirations.

I challenge anyone reading this definition who has even a rudimentary understanding of South Africa’s political history, which includes colonialism and apartheid, to assert with any degree of confidence that we have a government of national unity. Indeed, if we limit our understanding to the last years of apartheid, it is inconceivable to believe that there is now suddenly, after an election result, unity. In an unpublished book, I have written extensively about the extensive body of legislation that enforced apartheid. While this legislation operationalised the apartheid ideology, it also had an additional, possibly unintended function: it created enmity between groups. To quote Nelson Mandela: “It taught us to hate.” If this truth feels too harsh you must at least accept that apartheid’s legacy has created such vastly different life experiences between those deemed black, even non-human by apartheid’s logic, and those regarded as not black, that true unity remains a distant goal.

Therefore I argue that the decision to co-operate and form a GNU is a union of convenience and not of choice. The decision to unite was forced upon the ruling party, which was not only punished at the polls, but for the first time offered voters alternatives to the parties that had long dominated the political scene with a series of newly formed parties.The claim by any political leader that the election results represent a mandate from the South African people calling for a GNU, a coalition between the various parties, is disingenuous. Rather, the GNU represents a government of national convergence, as opposed to unity, and is a creative solution to an undesirable outcome, a way of manoeuvring the pawns on a chessboard to organise the arrangement with the long-term goal of gaining a strategic advantage.

One obvious reason we should care is that as enlightened people we need to learn from history to avoid obvious pitfalls. In post-apartheid South Africa, for example, a GNU was founded to reunite a nation divided by decades of racial segregation. While important milestones were achieved, the profound challenges associated with trying to unite a diverse population with very different interests and historical grievances also became apparent.

With little evidence that the context of the current GNU is significantly different from that of 1994 —. that the nation remains fundamentally divided — some believe that it is only a matter of time before the deep-rooted issues come to light. Indeed, there are already signs of power shifts as smaller political parties trade previously held principles for political power. This should worry us all. The shifting alliances are not based on the idea of stabilising the framework and strategic goal of forming a coalition that supports the idea of a government of national unity.

It is worrying that as long as the government overlooks the deep divisions between political parties and even within parties, it is complicit in presenting a false picture of reality to the nation. And because we are eager for a positive narrative, it is easy for us to buy into the notion that the GNU is meant to bring together the different political factions to govern together, ensure broad representation and promote unity. This hope makes us vulnerable to complicity. That is, until the cracks begin to show and the GNU, in which we have placed all our hopes for a better life for all, fails. 

Despite the articulated noble intentions of a GNU, South Africa remains deeply divided along racial, economic and political lines. The legacy of apartheid has left deep scars on the nation’s psyche and created lasting physical and psychological barriers. Economic inequalities continue to grow, with black South Africans disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment.

The political dynamic has exacerbated this division. Until recently, when job security was not an issue, political parties have often exploited racial and economic tensions to their advantage, resulting in a fragmented political landscape that has hindered coherent governance. Given that political parties with historically opposing agendas that have catered to different racially based constituencies are now forced to work together, it must be difficult for the GNU to function effectively as underlying mistrust and competition overshadow collaborative efforts.

The current GNU faces major challenges. These include ideological differences and conflicting political priorities between the coalition partners.

Political conflicts: The ANC and the Democratic Alliance (DA), for example, have fundamentally different economic philosophies. The ANC tends towards state intervention and redistribution, while the DA favours market economy principles. This has already led to differences of opinion on important economic policy issues, including land reform and state-owned enterprises.

Internal party dynamics: Within the ANC there are factions that disagree on the political direction, which makes the governance of the GNU even more complex. 

The inclusion of smaller parties with their own agendas further complicates decision-making processes.

The GNU, like any other leadership, is responsible for setting the tone or culture. The power and influence of leadership should not be underestimated; it is the crucible that holds the key to success and, of course, failure. Because the GNU was a creative response to a political context that brought no one to power, the ongoing politics has created common spaces for almost everyone, including those with diametrically opposed ideologies. Everyone now has a seat at the proverbial table. But not everyone came out of the apartheid era with the same worldview, the same experiences, the same positioning and the same goals as those with whom they are supposedly united. How could they? And while the GNU spends time making agreements on inconvenient inclusions, the real work that the country needs must necessarily wait.

The concealment of the obvious disagreements by the leadership is not only a sign of delay but also of what is expected of the nation. As long as the GNU is presented as letting go of the past, as a positive and desirable goal, and as forward movement, this position powerfully silences any perceived dissent. It is a question of being for or against change. This catastrophic view leaves little to no room for restructuring and coming to terms with deeply embedded, internalised experiences.

This means that legitimate questions — for example about the symbolic representation of apartheid — which continues to trigger traumatic reactions in many people, cannot be put on the table. To be clear, I am not suggesting that these representations be removed. What I am saying is that once we portray progress in a certain way, we naturally exclude other voices, especially those for whom little has changed since the dark days of apartheid, and who are not being heard. This takes us away from the ideal that the GNU claims to represent, which is unity.

The GNU, with all its challenges, represents a unique opportunity for South Africa. This time the GNU is relatively free from the precarious position it was in towards the end of apartheid. As I was not privy to the negotiations at the time, I can only imagine that the focus was on agreeing outcomes that would secure the end of apartheid. I concede that this view is subjective and self-serving as it reflects my understanding as a person of colour as to why the issue of compensation on a large scale, including land ownership, was not conclusively resolved. But I digress.

This time the GNU can be bold and envision a different future for South Africa. Last time, the future as expressed in the Constitution was a reaction to apartheid. This time, for the progressives among the elites, it means that while apartheid is in the back of our minds, it does not determine our goals. Rather, the GNU has the opportunity to rally the nation behind a common goal, a goal that we can all agree on. If you ask me, I would say we should set ourselves the strategic goal of making South Africa a country where everyone feels safe and happy.

To overcome these challenges and mobilise the nation, the GNU must take deliberate steps to address the underlying issues of division. Here are the key strategies:

1. Recognising differences: Acknowledging and understanding the different perspectives in the country by creating platforms for inclusive dialogue and policy-making.
2. Promoting dialogue: Promoting open and honest dialogue on controversial issues by creating safe spaces and supporting community mediation programmes.
3. South Africa’s strategic reorientation: Reorienting the national focus on common goals such as security and happiness and implementing integrated programmes that address the interlinked underlying problems of inequality such as education, unemployment, poverty and psychological well-being.
4. Create an effective state: Improving public sector efficiency and accountability through comprehensive reforms and capacity building initiatives.

By confronting these uncomfortable truths, promoting genuine dialogue, rallying the nation behind truly desirable strategic goals and implementing policies aimed at healing, the GNU can become a real force for positive change. Dr Sorayah Nair is a clinical psychologist, founder of Business Health Solutions and an advocate for social justice and mental health. She specialises in leadership development and diversity, equity and inclusion strategies and her work contributes to the conversations about healing and change in post-apartheid South Africa.