US voters have not handed us a mandate, we have work to do

South Africans are entitled to some satisfaction at Donald Trump’s electoral rebuke. After the lies told and the hostility directed at it, why would Pretoria not welcome the prospect of a Congress prepared to challenge him? I certainly do. What troubles me is the speed with which Pretoria has translated that relief into expectations about American foreign policy.President Cyril Ramaphosa sees a “new era in world relations”. International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola has congratulated the Democrats on their victory. Both appear rather too eager to find vindication for South Africa in an election fought by Americans over their own country.There is an opening here, and South Africa should pursue it. But American voters have not handed Pretoria a mandate. South Africa will still have to make its case to people who may oppose Trump fiercely and disagree with us just as firmly.This should be obvious to a government familiar with Washington. The difficulties in the relationship did not begin with Trump’s return to the White House. His administration has amplified them, sometimes through outright falsehoods. But some of the disagreements predate him and extend well beyond his party.In 2023, Democratic Senator Chris Coons and Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks joined Republicans Jim Risch and Michael McCaul in questioning South Africa’s relationship with Russia and its suitability to host the African Growth and Opportunity Act forum. This was under Joe Biden. Coons could hardly be dismissed as a stranger to South Africa or an instrument of the American far right.In January 2024, 210 members of the House of Representatives signed a bipartisan letter denouncing South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Their indignation did not settle the legal merits of our case. It exposed the breadth of the political opposition to it in Washington.Pretoria cannot build a credible strategy around Democratic solidarity without accounting for what Democrats themselves have said and done.Of course, the party is changing. Legislators who have challenged American support for Israel’s conduct in Gaza deserve serious engagement. The election of representatives willing to withstand racism and Islamophobia, or question assumptions that have long governed US foreign policy, offers possibilities that should excite us. Their victories may broaden the conversation. They do not tell us how an entire caucus will vote when South Africa’s interests are at stake.Nor does opposition to war with Iran imply approval of Pretoria’s relationship with Tehran. A Democrat who condemns Trump’s approach to Russia may be more demanding, rather than less, about South Africa’s account of its nonalignment. We need to understand the substance of those disagreements instead of assuming that hostility towards Trump supplies a common foreign policy.Not a done dealThere is a similar problem with the expectation that a Democratic Congress can reset the bilateral relationship. Congress has formidable powers over funding, legislation and oversight. A Senate majority can also shape appointments and treaty consent. South Africa should know precisely where those powers can assist it. But Trump remains president, with substantial authority over diplomacy and the implementation of foreign policy. Congressional resistance can constrain him without delivering the policy Pretoria wants.The work requires more political intelligence than the government’s public enthusiasm suggests.Lamola’s congratulations are particularly ill judged. A foreign minister speaks for the country, including the businesses and workers whose interests depend on relationships across the American political system. Publicly celebrating one party’s victory gives Republican interlocutors an unnecessary reason to regard South Africa as invested in their defeat.That does not mean a minister must congratulate every successful candidate or pretend that political differences do not exist. He can welcome the democratic process and express readiness to work with the incoming Congress. There is no diplomatic advantage in turning that message into a party endorsement, still less in presenting an electoral result as proof that international law or the UN Charter has prevailed.We should be able to defend those principles without assigning their custody to the Democratic Party. Republicans, meanwhile, continue to represent constituencies with which South Africa needs to do business. Governors exercise power over state economies; senators and House members represent places where employers and investors may have a stake in our prosperity. A Republican can object to Pretoria’s position on Israel while supporting a commercial relationship that benefits constituents. Diplomacy has to find and develop that interest. It cannot wait for an interlocutor whose worldview matches ours.I would expect Pretoria to be examining the incoming Congress member by member: where influence will sit, which committee relationships need attention, and where South African interests intersect with the pressures representatives face at home. That work should extend to Republicans whose cooperation may prove useful on a specific issue, however difficult the broader relationship.The government also needs the discipline to sustain those relationships between crises. Washington cannot become a place we rediscover whenever a trade benefit is threatened or an offensive allegation reaches the White House.South Africa should sharpen the appetite for diplomatic work. What it cannot afford is a government so pleased by Trump’s setback that it mistakes it for the resolution of its difficulties. Americans have voted. Pretoria still has to read the room and persuade them. DM