Punished for Refusing to Play Political Games

South African politics has developed a dangerous habit – every time a political party refuses to bow to public pressure, or opportunistic coalition politics, it is immediately labelled as an arrogant party that focuses on self-interest. Currently, that party is ActionSA, and the man at the center of media vitriol is Herman Mashaba.

The criticism is relentless. Social media commentators across various platforms point a finger at Mashaba for being difficult. All this emanates from the simple fact that he refuses to compromise his standards, and compensate certain individuals for sponsored favourable public opinions.

Some analysts accuse ActionSA of political immaturity. They have a dim view of our coalition decisions, appointments, and strategic alliances such as the one in the City of Tshwane. Yet very few of our naysayers care to ask us about the complexities of negotiating coalition governments. Most importantly, none of them have asked a critical question: “what were ActionSA’s considerations in coalition talks, that best fit our intended outcomes, without compromising the party’s non-negotiables.”

For years, South Africans have complained about politicians who make promises before elections and disappear on the electorate after voting day. We complain about parties that abandon their voters for positions, tenders, blue-light convoys, and executive seats. We complain about corruption being normalised through coalition deals disguised as “political stability.” But the moment a party attempts to hold a firm line on governance and accountability, accusations emerge from people who are clearly more intent on undermining the growth of the Green Umbrella. ActionSA is being attacked for doing precisely what voters have begged politicians to do stand for something.

One of the biggest criticisms levelled against Mashaba is that he is “too stubborn” in coalition negotiations. What critics refer to as stubbornness should be understood as ideological clarity and consistency. There is a difference between being difficult and refusing to compromise your values for short-term political convenience. Understand Mashaba from that vantage point.

When ActionSA rejected attempts to draw it into a failing ANC-led administration in Ekurhuleni, many people mocked the party. Yet Mashaba was clear that ActionSA did not want to legitimise governance failures and dysfunction through opportunistic participation. Of course such a principled position may frustrate those who are more concerned with political arithmetic and instant gratification.

A look at municipalities will show a governance collapse full of motions of no confidence, unstable coalitions, backroom negotiations, and incompetent leadership. In many municipalities, political parties negotiate positions first and governance later. This is the culture that ActionSA’s is resisting.

One of the reasons Mashaba continues to attract both support and hostility is because he operates outside the traditional political script. Unlike career politicians who rose through the rank by wheeling and dealing in party structures, Mashaba built himself in business before entering government. That outsider mentality shapes how he approaches governance – results first, excuses later.

Supporters, however, see something different. They see a politician who speaks bluntly about crime, illegal immigration, lawlessness, hijacked buildings, corruption, and service delivery collapse without the embellishment of political language.

Does that make him controversial? Certainly. Does it make him wrong? Not necessarily. In fact, it’s an opportunity to engage and consider the alternative to what is currently at the service of residents.

South African politics suffers the misfortune of misunderstanding honesty with populism. Whenever a politician speaks directly about issues citizens experience daily, elites immediately panic about tone rather than substance. Yet ordinary residents in Johannesburg, Tshwane, Ekurhuleni, and elsewhere are living through infrastructure collapse, crime, illegal occupation of buildings, unemployment, and failing municipal systems.

Mashaba’s political brand emerged precisely because there South Africans have lost confidence in traditional parties who sanitise reality, instead of confronting it.

Another criticism frequently thrown at ActionSA is that the party appears politically inconsistent in coalition arrangements. Critics point to periods where ActionSA worked with the DA, the EFF, or negotiated with other parties, then later distanced itself from them.

Coalitions are not marriages. They are governance arrangements negotiated in fragmented political environments. Every party participating in coalition politics has had to make compromises, reassess alliances, and adjust strategies as circumstances evolve. The DA has done it. The ANC has done it. The EFF has done it. Yet when ActionSA does it, the outrage becomes disproportionate.

What many people deliberately chose to acknowledge is that ActionSA is a relatively young political party establishing itself. The party does this in one of the most volatile political periods that is always evolving. Unlike older parties with decades of entrenched structures, ActionSA is simultaneously building organisational capacity, contesting elections, negotiating coalitions, and defining ideological positioning in real time.

This is a remarkable feat. However, mistakes are inevitable. These mistakes are not simply failures, they are lessons we glean from.

South Africa desperately needs political diversity beyond the overdone binaries that have dominated public discourse for years. Democracy benefits when new parties challenge existing political culture instead of simply becoming smaller copies of older parties.

ActionSA’s existence has shifted political conversations around coalition accountability, immigration policy, local government performance, and urban governance.

Whether one agrees with Mashaba or not, it is impossible to deny that he has spurred difficult national conversations that many politicians avoided for years.

The truth is that ActionSA is engaging a complex voter, whose decisions aren’t static. Voters demand principled politics, but reward political theatrics that don’t serve service delivery. Voters complain about corruption but often celebrate political opportunism when it benefits whichever faction that results in personal favours.

ActionSA is currently caught inside this evolving complexity and contradiction. The party has positioned itself as principled but pragmatic, anti-corruption but coalition-capable, governance-focused but politically competitive. That balancing act is extraordinarily difficult in a political culture where outrage travels faster than nuance. As the saying goes, “the bus is always moving.”

Mashaba has admitted to political miscalculations in the past, including underestimating political opponents and certain coalition dynamics. But leaders admitting mistakes should not automatically be interpreted as weakness. In fact, South African politics suffers precisely because too many leaders refuse accountability altogether.

Ultimately, the question South Africans must ask themselves is simple: do we want political parties that stand for clear principles, even when inconvenient, or do we simply want parties willing to say anything to remain politically relevant? Because if every party becomes obsessed with pleasing everybody, then no party will stand for anything meaningful.

ActionSA and Herman Mashaba are not above criticism. No political party should be. But much of the criticism directed at them lately feels less like calls for accountability and more like frustration with a party that refuses to bend to the culture of establishment politics.

In my view, this discomfort and disruption is exactly why they still matter in South African politics.

ActionSA Herman Mashaba (President) Before politics, he founded Black Like Me in 1985, a household hair-care brand in South Africa. Served as the Executive Mayor of Johannesburg (2016–2019) under a DA-led coalition. Resigned from both the Mayoralty and the DA in 2019, citing a lack of support for pro-poor service delivery and policy differences, leading directly to the birth of ActionSA.