South Africans may be forgiven for feeling a little confused. Speculation is rising about a Cabinet reshuffle after the DA announced moves before President Cyril Ramaphosa had even “applied his mind”.

DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis has reportedly asked Ramaphosa to approve a reshuffle of the party’s ministers and deputies. This has apparently sparked an uproar among his ranks for being “done without proper consultations”.

The proposed reshuffle would see Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen demoted to deputy minister of trade, industry and competition, replacing Alexandra Abrahams who, in turn, moves to deputy minister of electricity and energy, succeeding Samantha Graham.

Forestry, Fisheries and Environment Minister Willie Aucamp is set to take over the agriculture portfolio, while Western Cape education MEC David Maynier will assume Aucamp’s former post.

Yusuf Cassim, a former member of the higher education portfolio committee, will become deputy minister of higher education and training, replacing Mimmy Gondwe.

Gauteng MPL Jack Bloom is expected to be the deputy minister of water and sanitation, a role previously held by Isaac Seitlholo.

The real story is not where officials are being shuffled, but why the DA appears to be conducting the Cabinet reshuffle itself.

Although Ramaphosa insists the constitution makes him the final authority, he is not known for swift Cabinet reshuffles. It took intense public pressure to remove Sisisi Tolashe as social development minister – and no successor has been named yet, as he is still “applying his mind”.

So why does it feel as though the DA’s “leaked” reshuffle was less about transparency and more about forcing Ramaphosa’s hand?

The government of national unity (GNU) was sold as a partnership – not a hostile takeover, nor a franchise, where coalition partners arrive with portfolios and demands in hand.

The DA has every right to negotiate. But there is a vast difference between negotiating and acting as though the final decision is already theirs.

Imagine the uproar if the ANC publicly announced the deployment of DA ministers before consulting the party. The DA would cry arrogance and abuse of power.

Yet, when the roles are reversed, it is somehow treated as normal coalition practice. It is not.

Every public declaration, demand and attempted power play affects the authority of the Presidency. It sends a message that the executive is no longer led from the Union Buildings, but from coalition bargaining tables where political leverage matters more than constitutional principle.

And perhaps that is the real issue. The GNU was supposed to bring stability after the ANC’s historic electoral decline in 2024.

Instead, it resembles a corporate boardroom where shareholders are fighting over office space, while the company itself struggles to stay afloat.

South Africans are grappling with unemployment, collapsing infrastructure, crime, failing municipalities and a sluggish economy – yet politicians remain fixated on portfolios.

The public is entitled to ask who is actually running the government? Is it Ramaphosa, the ANC or DA?

Or has South Africa stumbled into a strange new arrangement where nobody is fully in charge, but everybody wants credit when things go right and somebody else to blame when things go wrong?

If Ramaphosa allows coalition partners to dictate Cabinet arrangements publicly, he risks looking like a lame duck president. If he pushes back, he risks a confrontation within the GNU.

Either way, a government cannot project strength when the country is unsure who is steering the ship. And if coalition partners are announcing reshuffles before the president – who is still “applying his mind” – perhaps the wrong person is in the driver’s seat.