Recent media reports have portrayed the Democratic Alliance (DA) as paralysed by internal division over the Dion George matter. That framing is misdirection.

A statement on the matter from the party’s Federal Council showed the DA wished to pursue a structured, procedural response to the matter, rooted in party governance, not factional warfare.

It is worth quoting from that statement: “It is unfortunate that Dr George has resigned before answering a pending disciplinary before the DA’s Federal Legal Commission (FLC). These include: 1. Allegations that staff appointments to his ministerial office were done in a way that unjustifiably raised their salaries, at public expense; 2. Allegations that staff in his ministry sought departmental information to pursue internal party-political matters; 3. Bringing the party into disrepute through the media. It would have been preferable for Dr George to go through the FLC process to test the veracity of these allegations.”

The statement is measured. It does not declare guilt. It explicitly notes that it would have been preferable for the FLC process to run its course so that the veracity of various allegations could be tested. That is the language of due process, not internal warfare or political chaos.

Dr George’s resignation has foreclosed that process. He may yet defend his actions in the public sphere as a private citizen, but within the party he has left unanswered questions behind.

It is overlooked, too, that President Cyril Ramaphosa signed off on George’s removal from the Cabinet. That fact is often omitted in narratives, but is essential to address the suggestion, implicit in some commentary, that concerns about George’s conduct were merely internal DA factional politics and that his performance in government was stellar.

On the contrary, there were serious questions about whether actions taken within his department, especially with regards to the wildlife industry, posed risks to the rural economy. Dr George was plainly an opponent of the hunting industry, as is his right as a private citizen.

But as a Cabinet minister, to whatever extent he forced those views into government policy, that posed a risk to the rural economy. And in a country with South Africa’s levels of rural poverty and unemployment, as both Mr Ramaphosa and Mr Steenhuisen well understood, those concerns could not simply be waved away.