Are political donors unfairly swaying SA’s democracy after DA’s R225m revealed?

The DA received R225 million in political donations prior to the 2026 local government elections. Slick and sophisticated, the DA’s 2026 local government election campaign was a well-oiled marketing machine. But in helping to fund their bid to “stop the chaos”, the DA was graced with R225 million in the 15 months between April 2025 and June 2026. This excludes the four months leading up to the election, which had not yet been published on the IEC’s declaration portal. The funds came in the form of R33 million between April and September 2025, R31 million between October and December 2025, R57 million between January and March, and then a mammoth R104 million from 28 different donors between April and June. Members of the Slack family contributed at least R20 million, the Ball family through its trust contributed R10 million, while Fynbos Ekwiteit, owned by Capitec founder Michiel le Roux, contributed at least R60 million. ‘Why penalise the DA?’ Foreign and private funding of political parties is legal, but subject to thresholds as outlined in the Political Party Funding Act and Electoral Matters Amendment Act. However, the amounts donated to the DA dwarfed those of other parties, with Rise Mzansi’s R30 million, ActionSA’s R16.6 million and the ANC’s R10 million, the next closest financially. Three of those were the most popular in Johannesburg, with the DA being mainstays at the top of the metro leaderboards for the recent local government elections, raising questions about the power of money spent on campaigns. Political analyst Andre Duvenage brushed the scrutiny aside, saying the DA should not be criticised for being able to attract higher levels of private investment. “If you can mobilise money in a legal way, why not? If people are prepared to support you financially, why not? It is their right to put their money wherever they want to put it. “Why penalise the DA because they have more money? My take on it is that it is the right of the individuals to invest in their specific political viewpoints,” Duvenage told The Citizen. The head of strategic communications at the Institute of Race Relations, Hermann Pretorius, believed that critics of political funding should only concern themselves with the source of the funds. “Democracy is about the freedom to contest in the public square. Securing and spending resources is part of that. “The real issue of massive funding should be focused on is not the mind of the voter, but whether a case can be made that funds were obtained through improper means,” Pretorius told The Citizen. The DA declined to elaborate, telling The Citizen that it would “not make a comment on our donor relationships”. ‘Bourgeois democracy’ Detractors stated the financial muscle of the DA risked skewing election results in the favour of those with the deepest pockets. “The enormous sums flowing into the coffers of bourgeois political parties expose the class character of our so-called democracy. “Money buys visibility, influence and the ability to shape political narratives, giving parties backed by wealthy capitalists an enormous advantage over those representing working-class interests,” executive committee member of the Workers and Socialist Party Zaki Mamdoo told The Citizen. He explained that excessive political donations were not an anomaly, but a strategic aim of capital interests looking to make politicians their legislative puppets. “This is not some unfortunate distortion of bourgeois democracy. It is a reflection of its very nature. “Political parties dependent on capitalist financing are ultimately compelled to defend the interests of the class that finances them,” Mamdoo said. Stating that his organisation “consciously refuses external donations” to retain its independence, Mamdoo called for stricter financing caps, but believed party financing was the latter stage of the inequality pipeline. “The wealthy exercise enormous influence over society and the state regardless of electoral financing rules. “Genuine democracy requires challenging that concentration of economic power itself, rather than simply regulating how much of it can be spent influencing elections,” he said. The ballot ‘is the boss’ Pretorius stated that it was “essentially for the voter to decide”, stressing that even with the large financial backing, the DA fell short of expectations. “The DA clearly grew from the 2021 LGEs in Johannesburg, although they were clearly aiming for greater support than they got. “So, they will certainly be disappointed that they didn’t get, say, above 40%, but that just shows the power of the voter. The ballot, at the end of the day, is the boss,” he said. Duvenage said the DA was probably happy with its results, but added that he was concerned that the party may have plateaued. “They are not going to get it easy to reach that 30% threshold [nationally]. I believe it is going to become more difficult. “There are certain rules of the game and I believe we are entering a relative permanent phase of coalition politics,” said Duvenage.