Why does SA’s political left continue to fragment, and what does that mean for its chances of offering a credible alternative government?
This question sits at the heart of the country’s democratic crisis.
Each time a left-leaning party splits, hopes of building a united, progressive bloc capable of delivering structural transformation grow more distant.
Less discussed, but no less important, is who benefits from this fragmentation?
The answer is uncomfortable: the right wing, entrenched economic interests and a system that has long failed the previously disadvantaged.
By “left,” reference is made to parties whose central commitments include redistribution, economic justice and stronger state intervention in addressing inequality.
These include the ANC in its liberation tradition, the PAC, COPE, EFF and the newly formed MK party.
All have presented themselves, through their manifestos and public platforms, as champions of the poor, the unemployed, the landless and the economically marginalised.
Yet, instead of consolidating into a formidable bloc, they splinter, fracturing the very constituency they claim to represent.
Fragmentation does not simply weaken the left, it stabilises an unequal status quo by ensuring no cohesive force emerges to seriously challenge it.
As electoral history shows, the pattern is clear and almost always tied to election cycles.
In the run-up to the 1999 elections, the PAC positioned itself as an alternative to the ANC but failed to build beyond marginal influence.
Just before the 2009 elections, COPE was born out of disillusionment with the ANC, only to collapse under internal strife.
Ahead of 2014, Julius Malema and others broke away to form the EFF, which successfully captured disaffected voters and forced the ANC leftward in rhetoric.
By 2019, new formations such as the ATM and other splinters again chipped away at the progressive space, further fragmenting the vote.
The cycle continued in 2024 with the MK party, which gained nearly 15% of the vote, cutting deep into both ANC and EFF bases.
Floyd Shivambu’s decision to leave both the EFF and the MKP to form Mayibuye Afrika ahead of the 2026 local elections, and later aiming for 2029, shows the pattern repeating itself: when a left party seems poised to strengthen, destabilisation often comes from within.
The electoral cost of this fragmentation is measurable.
According to official results from the Electoral Commission, the ANC, once dominant with 62.65% in 1994, increased its vote share to 66.4% in 1999 and to almost 70% in 2004.
Since then, it has been in a decline: 65.9% in 2009, 62.15% in 2014, 57.5% in 2019, and finally below 50% for the first time in 2024.
The EFF, despite high visibility and agenda-setting power, has not broken past 10–11%.
Meanwhile, splinter parties surge briefly but fail to consolidate a broader progressive bloc.
The overall result is not a mass shift towards the right, but a steady erosion of confidence in the left’s ability to unite and govern.
Voters respond by staying home — reflected in declining turnout or scattering their votes across multiple small parties that lack governing power.
This fragmentation has a political economy dimension that cannot be ignored.
Political parties do not operate in a vacuum; they require funding to contest elections, run campaigns and maintain visibility.
In SA, much of this funding comes from wealthy individuals and corporate interests embedded in the capitalist economy.
These funders, by definition, seek stability and policy environments that protect their accumulation of wealth.
A fragmented left, locked in internal battles, is far less threatening to capital than a unified progressive front capable of pushing through redistributive reforms, land reform or stronger regulation of markets.
Whether by design or consequence, left-wing fragmentation aligns neatly with the interests of those who benefit from the current economic order.
This is why trust is being lost. It is not that voters are flocking to right-wing formations; it is that they increasingly see left-wing parties as consumed by internal feuds and leadership ambitions, unable to prioritise governance over factionalism.
What could change this picture?
One possible answer lies in the government of national unity (GNU).
For the left, it could be more than crisis management. It could serve as a testing ground for unity in practice.
Real unity requires a coalition culture, shared programmes and internal mechanisms for resolving conflict without resorting to schism
If progressive parties within or alongside the GNU collaborate on land reform, the reduction of inequality and economic justice, they can begin to rebuild credibility by demonstrating that collective governance is possible.
This raises a deeper strategic question: should the left pursue temporary agreements not to split votes or work towards building durable coalitions that extend beyond elections and into governance itself?
The history of election-year breakaways suggests pacts alone are insufficient.
Real unity requires a coalition culture, shared programmes and internal mechanisms for resolving conflict without resorting to schism.
SA’s challenges are urgent: unemployment, inequality, failing infrastructure and declining investor confidence.
These cannot be addressed by splintered voices competing for headlines and donor attention.
They demand co-ordination, discipline and a willingness to subordinate individual ambition to collective outcomes.
The choice is stark.
Either the left continues its cycle of election-time fragmentation, risking the inadvertent entrenchment of right-wing and capital interests while eroding public trust, or it uses platforms like the GNU to prove unity is possible, it can govern collectively, and it can consolidate into a real alternative government.
Until then, each new breakaway will not only erode votes but also squander another chance at delivering the SA the left has long promised.
Sbusiso Gwala is a student at the University of Johannesburg
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.