Steenhuisen’s FMD Stance Puts DA Growth at Risk

South Africa’s foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) crisis has evolved into a political fault line inside the Democratic Alliance (DA), exposing a growing contradiction between the party’s decentralised, market-oriented instincts and the position now taken by its own leader in government.

Within DA ranks there is increasing concern that the dispute risks alienating core supporters, undermining local government election prospects, and repeating a pattern of political damage the party has struggled to repair.

At the centre of the storm is Agriculture Minister and DA leader John Steenhuisen, whose defence of strict state control over FMD vaccines and treatment protocols has placed him in direct confrontation with farming organisations that have historically formed part of the DA’s electoral base. Industry bodies including the Southern African Agri Initiative (SAAI), Sakeliga, and Free State Agriculture have launched a legal challenge calling for private sector participation in vaccine procurement and administration, arguing that the state monopoly has proven too slow and too rigid to contain the outbreak.

Steenhuisen’s response has been brutal. In an official statement, his department warned that “litigation, in the midst of a serious outbreak, now seeks to challenge the very legislative framework and obligations required by the State to protect the national herd”. The statement framed the legal action itself as a threat to disease control, cautioning that court proceedings could derail vaccine procurement, divert veterinary resources, and delay rollout while the matter moves through the courts.

The minister’s language hardened further when addressing decentralised vaccine access. The department stated that proposals for a “vaccine free-for-all” are “short-sighted and reckless” and warned that such approaches “fly in the face of established international and local precedence for disease control”.

Most politically sensitive was the tone directed at the organisations themselves. Steenhuisen urged farmers “to be wary of promises by lobby groups attempting to profit from the hardships farmers are currently enduring”, and warned that their actions “threaten a scientific framework designed to ensure the country wins the war against FMD once and for all”. He concluded by insisting that “now is not the time for distraction”, adding that litigation can come later, but that in the present moment the sector must move in a “unified manner” behind the state.

Inside the DA, this posture has triggered alarm. There are fears that attacking three influential farming organisations in this manner could drive a meaningful bloc of party voters, far beyond the farming community alone, toward the Freedom Front Plus, which has long positioned itself as the alternative political home for DA voters suspicious of the party’s deeper commitment to some of its traditional constituencies. There is particular anxiety that the dispute could weaken the DA’s standing ahead of the next local government elections, where margins are often narrow and organised constituencies can be decisive.

These fears are sharpened by memories of the Elana Barkhuizen episode in 2019, which many in the party view as a cautionary tale. Barkhuizen, a primary school teacher in Schweizer-Reneke in North West, was caught in a national firestorm after a classroom photograph was circulated and interpreted as showing pupils segregated by race. The DA’s early handling of the matter, including public signals that were read by many supporters as taking for granted that racism was at play, produced a backlash from parts of the party’s base and reversed a two-decade-old growth trend for the party in national elections. Even after Barkhuizen was later cleared, the episode remained lodged as an example of how rapidly trust can collapse when loyal supporters believe the party has turned on people they see as part of their community.

The FMD dispute carries similar warning signs. Once again, a DA leader is publicly rebuking organisations closely aligned with the party’s traditional constituency. Once again, the defence rests on procedural and institutional arguments that resonate weakly with voters who expect the DA to champion decentralisation, private initiative, and pragmatic problem solving rather than state monopoly.

The contradiction is not lost on party insiders. The DA has built its growth strategy on positioning itself as the alternative to centralised control and bureaucratic overreach. Yet in this crisis, its most senior figure in government is defending precisely the kind of state-first approach the party has spent years criticising. The risk is not only immediate backlash, but longer-term confusion about what the DA represents when it exercises executive authority.

Steenhuisen now faces a choice that extends beyond the technical management of FMD. He can continue to defend a rigid centralised framework and accept the political fallout among farming constituencies, or he can use his authority to pursue a more flexible model that allows controlled private sector participation while maintaining scientific oversight. If he does not resolve this tension, there is growing fear within his own party that the cost will be paid not only in goodwill, but in votes, councils, and credibility.