MAKHUDU SEFARA | For his own sake, don’t consider Steenhuisen for an ambassadorial post

With tears in his eyes, DA leader John Steenhuisen began his last address as leader of the blue party at its federal congress in Midrand on Saturday. It’s a pity, really, that it had to come to this. Or perhaps the show of emotion was just a desperate bid for sympathy.

From today, Steenhuisen is yesterday’s man. He is now a has-been leader. The highest point of his political career is now certainly in the past. Here is a man who had the chance to hammer a nail into the ANC’s coffin by facing it head-on. But poor John chose instead to contest the Freedom Front Plus, all the while presiding over the exodus of many eminent and prominent black leaders. The effect was to leave the DA stuck just above the 20% mark when it came to electoral performance. The best he can do now is read what the opinion polls say. The whole sorry situation really is a pity for him.

As the DA change of guard got under way this weekend, some leaders said they would recommend that the DA submit his name to President Cyril Ramaphosa to consider him for an ambassadorial post.

They argued that it would be awkward to have the new DA leader, Geordin Hill-Lewis, running the party from his elected vantage point, the Cape Town city council, assisted by a new parliamentary leader who surely can’t be Steenhuisen. This parliamentary leader could even be a DA team leader in the cabinet.

Steenhuisen has become that leader the new, younger cohort must work around. He’s like those inconvenient types in the ANC. Perhaps, they think, an ambassadorship might do him and the blue party a lot of good. Is this ANC thinking rubbing off on the DA, or is it simply a case of birds of a feather doing what comes naturally?

The US and other countries do the same. The US ambassador to France and Monaco, Charles Kushner, for example, was appointed in 2025 despite his having served time in a federal prison for tax evasion and witness tampering — crimes for which he was pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2020.

We must avoid using ambassadorial posts as dumping grounds for those who are politically inconvenient

So if criminals can represent even the land of the free, why should we deny Steenhuisen the chance? But no, please don’t do it, Mr Ramaphosa. That’s my plea, for what it’s worth.

If Steenhuisen is any good — and he possibly believes he is the best the DA has ever had (no jokes) — please keep him in his current cabinet post. Agriculture is a portfolio he chose for himself and one in which, sadly, he has not excelled.

It would be unfair to deny him the opportunity to finish what he has started. The impact of his mess is largely on the DA’s core constituency, so he’s not short on motivation to get the situation right. If he fails, it will be because, despite the motivation to serve the DA constituency, it’s just not in him to succeed. Then we would know that even making him an ambassador would be setting him up for failure.

Further, if the DA asks Ramaphosa to drop him from the cabinet, it would send the unfortunate message that the guy is not good enough to run the party or be a cabinet minister. Quite tear-jerking.

But the main reason Ramaphosa must not consider Steenhuisen for an ambassadorship is because we must avoid using ambassadorial posts as dumping grounds for those who are politically inconvenient. However, there are, of course, former political office-bearers who could still serve our country well abroad.

Initially, I thought it might do our country, if not Steenhuisen himself, a lot of good to send him specifically to the US as ambassador. As someone who was in the room when the madman Trump cried “Dim the lights!”, Steenhuisen would have a clear understanding of the issues. Given the race agenda in Trump’s administration, Steenhuisen would be a shoo-in for the position. The Afrikaners who lied about genocide in our country might be comfortable with him. And the Washington-based imperial, bloodthirsty chickenhawks may well be prepared to welcome him.

And since we aim to please (why else would Leo Brent Bozel III be at home in Tshwane as a US ambassador), Steenhuisen might well be the right fit for the job. And wouldn’t it be better for Americans to hear from Steenhuisen rather than a has-been ANC politician that there is, in fact, no genocide in South Africa? That he couldn’t say so clearly during the cinematic dim-the-lights rendezvous is beside the point. Even matric students get to go to so-called finishing schools when they’ve messed up.

In the end, in the US, Steenhuisen would be like a child in a sweet shop — Uber Eats everywhere and a McDonald’s on every corner. Such a state of affairs could make him not just the happiest man in the US but also very motivated to prove genocide isn’t taking place in our country. This would amount to a confluence of perceived personal interest and national duty — a kind of win-win situation, I thought.

But what then after this assignment? The idea of a man who failed significantly to grow the DA when the ANC was at its weakest and made a mess of handling foot-and-mouth disease being given, in return for all his blunders, even more responsibilities in Washington just wouldn’t do.

Also, his success in convincing Trump there is no genocide presupposes Trump believes his own lies.

While it might help the DA to have Steenhuisen out in the wilderness, it is not in the country’s best interest. Only those who excel here at home should go forth to represent us elsewhere. We must not “park” our problems in embassies around the world.

Removing tearful Steenhuisen from the cabinet prematurely denies him the last opportunity to show he is not an all-out failure. Yet assigning him an ambassadorial responsibility would be unfair on the country, and perhaps on him too. For his sake, Steenhuisen must stay put.