Steenhuisen's withdrawal: Did pressure from party donors force his hand?

Outgoing DA leader John Steenhuisen's decision not to contest for re-election as party leader has been attributed to pressure brought by donors who had lost confidence in his leadership.

Some party members alleged that donors had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, but others said Steenhuisen would never be pressured to quit.

The members had previously stated that Steenhuisen's path to victory was already very narrow, as he did not have the support of Gauteng and the Western Cape heading into the party’s elective congress this year.

The DA pushed back against any claims that the donors had played a role in Steenhuisen’s departure, stating that anyone among its ranks claiming that must produce proof.

Steenhuisen confirmed during a press briefing held in Durban yesterday that he would not be contesting for leadership, stating that he wanted to focus on his role as the Minister of Agriculture.

A senior member of the party said a difficult path to re-election for Steenhuisen was sealed shut by donors.

“This was not his choice to leave; the donors of the party wanted him gone because they had lost confidence in him,” said the source.

“His handling of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis was seen as the final nail in the coffin. It is important to note that some of the funders have family members impacted by the disease. They demanded to be allowed to purchase the vaccine themselves, while he insisted that the government should buy the vaccine. The funders are concerned that his position displayed more ANC tendencies than that of the DA,” said the member.

A member added that another issue arising from this situation is that the funders support the party because it represents their interests. In areas like the Midlands, where there are many farmers, the concern is that because of this issue, the Freedom Front Plus is now taking over the narrative, and the DA could find itself upstaged by other parties.

“The donors have access to the entire leadership; they could have reached out to other party leaders or directly to him to express their loss of confidence in his abilities,” said the member.

Another leader said it was a combination of issues.

“It was a confluence of wanting to focus all of his efforts on being the first minister in the history of South Africa to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease and understanding that the DA must embrace a new era of growth as it approaches the local government elections. John has done what no leader before him did, and that’s taken us into national government. I am extremely proud of him for that. “There’s absolutely no credibility to the claim of donors playing any role in his decision. John has only ever acted in the best interests of the party and the country.”

DA leader in KwaZulu-Natal, Francois Rodgers, when pressed (during a television interview) on whether Steenhuisen had been pushed out by leadership, said there had been no such discussion at the federal level. He added that it would be speculation to suggest that Helen Zille, the federal leader, had engineered Steenhuisen’s ouster.

DA spokesperson Karabo Khakhau also pushed back against claims that Steenhuisen had been pressured out of the job, stating, “John, in his address, indicated that he has completed his mission and will focus on agriculture.”

Speaking on his success as a leader, Steenhuisen said under his leadership, part of his ambition was to put the DA in a position where it could contribute to the growth of the country.

“Far too many people were comfortable with the DA being a perpetual opposition, smirking and pointing fingers while South Africa declined. Once we got the DA back on track following my election as Federal Leader in 2019, we set out to achieve exactly this in the 2024 general election: to enter national government for the first time,” he said.

He acknowledged that although decisions like the formation of the Moonshot Pact and entering the GNU were proven correct, “we must not gloss over the fact that some people opposed these bold moves at the time.”

For more stories from The Mercury, click the link THE MERCURY