On Friday, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the much-debated Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill into law—but left two controversial clauses unsigned. His decision to temporarily suspend implementing these provisions has reignited discussions about South Africa’s political landscape and the dynamics of its Government of National Unity (GNU).
By holding off on Clauses 4 and 5—both concerning school admissions and language policy—Ramaphosa has granted a three-month window for negotiation. This move raises questions: is it an attempt to build consensus or a shrewd power play to assert his leadership?
What are clauses 4 and 5 about?
At the heart of Clauses 4 and 5 is the issue of control over school language and admission policies. Currently, school governing bodies (SGBs) have the final say on these matters, allowing schools to decide their own language policies. The new provisions in the BELA Bill would shift that power to provincial education heads, meaning that the government would determine which languages schools must offer and who gets admitted.
Supporters of the bill, including the ANC, argue that these changes are necessary to dismantle the barriers to education that still exist for many historically disadvantaged learners. “We have seen cases of learners being denied admissions to schools because of their language policies,” said Ramaphosa. For the ANC, the bill is about levelling the playing field and ensuring equitable access for all learners.
While these provisions are intended to improve access for historically disadvantaged learners, they have ignited fierce opposition from the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Afrikaner rights groups, like AfriForum, who argue that they undermine the constitutional right to mother-tongue education, particularly in Afrikaans.
DA party leader John Steenhuisen argues that forcing Afrikaans-medium schools to adopt dual or English-medium instruction “in no way contributes to the crisis in education, and [changing language policies] will not help improve the quality of education for South Africa’s learners.”
The politics behind the delay
By suspending Clauses 4 and 5 for three months, Ramaphosa has given opposing voices—mainly the DA and its allies—time to propose alternatives and find a compromise. But was this a strategic attempt to build consensus or a savvy political move to assert his leadership within the government of national unity (GNU)?
The delay could be seen as a concession to the DA, whose political base includes a significant number of Afrikaans-speaking voters. In a coalition government with 10 parties, maintaining unity is critical, and the DA’s staunch opposition to the bill threatened to create a rift.
The DA had initially warned that signing the BELA Bill could lead to their withdrawal from the coalition. However, Steenhuisen has since backtracked, acknowledging that policy disagreements are part and parcel of coalition governance. “This is not an existential threat to the government of national unity,” Steenhuisen said, trying to downplay the potential fallout.
“The GNU is more than the BELA Act. It is a very important symbolic component now. There are many other aspects about governing together in the government of national unity, which goes beyond the BELA Act,” said Professor Dirk Kotze from the University of South Africa, in an interview with Jacaranda FM.
Ramaphosa’s move effectively buys time, allowing the parties to come to the table for discussions. “We cannot guarantee that the parties that have requested timeout to engage will reach agreement on every difficult issue. But we need to make every effort to find common ground,” said Ramaphosa.
However, this delay could also be viewed as a tactical play by Ramaphosa. By putting the ball in the DA’s court, he has shifted the responsibility of finding a solution onto his detractors. If the DA and its allies fail to propose viable alternatives during the negotiation period, the clauses will likely be implemented as they stand. This could paint Ramaphosa as a leader who gave his opponents a chance, only for them to fall short.
For the DA, this presents a tricky situation. While they’ve agreed to participate in talks, Steenhuisen has made it clear that they will not back down from their legal challenge if mother-tongue education isn’t adequately protected. “If this is just a delaying tactic to defuse opposition before implementing the clauses at a later point, then we will continue to fight this bill with everything we’ve got,” he said.
The decision to delay implementation may have temporarily quelled tensions, but it also exposed cracks in the GNU. For Ramaphosa, this moment could either solidify his standing as a leader capable of building consensus or backfire if the three-month negotiation period only delays an inevitable political clash.
Ramaphosa’s decision to delay the most contentious parts of the BELA Bill has given him a temporary win. He appears as a leader willing to engage in dialogue and build consensus, exactly the intention of the GNU.
“I don’t think it’s either a make-or-break situation. It will definitely place a lot of pressure on the coalition, and it will undermine the sense of trust that exists amongst political parties and that they have a common purpose in what they are doing,” said Professor Kotze.
As the clock ticks on this three-month pause, South Africa will be watching closely to see if Ramaphosa’s efforts will bring parties closer to an agreement—or if it’s just a calm before the inevitable political storm.