The DA foreign policy row with the ANC has flared up again after President Cyril Ramaphosa’s quiet weekend trip to Zimbabwe, with the opposition accusing the governing party of cosying up to authoritarian leaders while ordinary South Africans continue to feel the pressure of migration and regional instability.
The latest spat centres on Ramaphosa’s reported meeting with Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa, a visit that was not publicly announced by the South African Presidency. According to Zimbabwean media reports, the encounter took place at Mnangagwa’s farm and was attended by two controversial Zimbabwean businessmen, adding another layer of intrigue to an already sensitive diplomatic moment.
For the DA foreign policy team, the issue is not just about where the President went, but about what the visit appears to represent. The party’s International Relations spokesperson Ryan Smith has accused the ANC of repeatedly choosing political convenience over principle, saying the ruling party is willing to shield leaders it views as dictators if it helps preserve influence in the region.
Smith’s comments cut to the heart of a long-running argument in South African politics: should Pretoria take a harder public line on democratic decline in neighbouring countries, or continue the quieter, behind-the-scenes diplomatic approach that has often defined its foreign relations? In the DA’s view, the answer is clear. It believes South Africa has been far too forgiving of the Zimbabwean leadership for too long.
The criticism is especially pointed because Mnangagwa is reportedly pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow him to extend his time in office. That has fuelled concerns among critics who say Zimbabwe’s political environment is becoming increasingly closed, with questions again being raised about the treatment of opposition figures and the state of democratic institutions.
What has made this latest controversy more explosive is the fact that the presidency did not formally announce Ramaphosa’s visit. In diplomatic terms, unofficial or low-key engagements are not unusual, but in this case the silence has given opposition parties room to ask what exactly was discussed, who was in the room, and why South Africans were not told upfront.
As we reported earlier, the DA foreign policy position is that South Africa cannot continue to preach democracy at home while appearing to tolerate repression in the region. Smith argued that the ANC’s stance has effectively helped entrench bad governance in Zimbabwe and left South Africa to absorb the fallout, especially through migration pressures and the broader asylum system.
He said the ANC’s conduct in the Government of National Unity (GNU) should not be confused with moral compromise, adding that South Africa should not “fraternise” with leaders accused of abuses while ignoring the lived reality of victims and political refugees. It is a familiar DA message, but one that lands with extra force when tied to Ramaphosa’s quiet cross-border meeting.
The party also linked the diplomatic row to South Africa’s immigration challenges, saying the country’s system is under strain partly because successive ANC administrations have failed to confront democratic backsliding in Zimbabwe. That argument has been a recurring one in local political debates, particularly in towns and cities where public services are already under pressure and migration is often used as a lightning rod for public anger.
Why the DA foreign policy clash matters for South Africa
The DA foreign policy dispute goes beyond party politics and speaks to how South Africa sees itself in the region. Under the ANC, Pretoria has often preferred quiet diplomacy and solidarity with liberation movements, even when those same movements have faced accusations of abuse, corruption, or election manipulation.
The DA says that approach has outlived its usefulness. In its view, South Africa should be clearer and more consistent about defending democratic norms, especially when neighbouring states drift towards executive overreach. The party believes Ramaphosa’s private engagement with Mnangagwa sends the wrong message at a time when Zimbabwe’s governance is under fresh scrutiny.
There is also a domestic political angle. The ANC and DA are now governing together in the GNU, but that arrangement has not ended their differences on foreign affairs, immigration, and regional diplomacy. In many ways, this row shows just how fragile the political balance remains, even inside a national partnership that was sold to voters as a practical solution to South Africa’s crisis politics.
For the ANC, the challenge is that it cannot afford to be seen as weak on democratic principle while also trying to manage regional relationships that matter for trade, border security, and political stability. Zimbabwe remains one of South Africa’s most important neighbours, and any breakdown in relations would have consequences far beyond party talking points.
Still, the secrecy around the visit will likely fuel more speculation. When a President travels without formal notice, especially to meet another head of state whose own political future is under debate, questions are inevitable. Was this about diplomacy, regional mediation, party solidarity, or something else entirely? At this stage, there are no clear answers from Pretoria.
What is clear is that the DA foreign policy fight has landed at a politically charged moment. South Africans are watching border management, asylum decisions, and regional politics more closely than ever, and any suggestion that government is too close to contested leaders will be seized on quickly.
Our sense is that this row will not disappear soon. If anything, it adds to the growing pressure on the GNU to show that it can disagree sharply without collapsing into chaos. For now, the DA has chosen its target, the ANC has some explaining to do, and Ramaphosa’s quiet Zimbabwe trip has opened a fresh front in South Africa’s ongoing debate about power, principle, and diplomacy on the continent.