In the general media mini-storm over Julius Malema's opening parliamentary salvo, several things seem to be lacking.

First, it is worth pointing out that the EFF completely blotted out the official Opposition. The fact is that where the DA leadership has neglected Parliament, the EFF has already shown how powerfully that forum can be used. If the DA is going to compete with this, it is going to have to raise its game considerably. Its best parliamentarian is David Maynier. Logically, he should be the party's parliamentary leader but even if that is ruled out under the DA's racial preference regime, it would be sensible to give him a larger role.

Second, in an age of disciplined party majorities, what is Parliament for ? Bernard Crick answered that in effect it was the key forum in the "permanent election campaign", that politicians used its debates in order to try to reach out to constituencies outside Parliament in order to win their support at the next elections. This is, indeed, exactly what Malema did - and most effectively. There is little doubt that if he can continue to stage such gripping theatricals at regular intervals, the EFF vote is only going to grow. So much for predictions that the EFF would not thrive in Parliament.

Third, both the rulings by the Speaker were preposterous. There was absolutely no reason why Mr. Malema should not have been allowed to allude to Blade Nzimande's faction battles against Thabo Mbeki, if he wanted to and even his accusation that the ANC government had been guilty of a massacre at Marikana should have been allowed. As he pointed out, who else do the police work for but the government ? This would certainly have been permitted as robust parliamentary speech in, say, the House of Commons. Parliamentary free speech is supposed to be prized and protected. The truth is that the Speaker's rulings merely drew attention to the fact that she, like the normal Speaker, Baleka Mbete, is a high-ranking ANC official. When she said she was going to "take advice" about Malema's accusations, it seems likely that she meant from Gwede Mantashe, not from lawyers. Both rulings in fact give a good indication of just how badly rattled the ANC is by Malema. There seems little doubt but that there has been an ANC decision to try to shut him down as far as possible.

Finally, why has the DA not been speaking up to make these points and to protect Mr Malema's right to free speech ? Such freedoms are indivisible and the DA must, if it has any shred of liberal conscience left, defend Malema's rights just as much as anyone else's.

The DA should also be pointing out how outrageous it is to have the Chairperson of the ANC as the Speaker, especially given Baleka Mbete's utterly disgraceful role in the Gold Fields affair. And really I would have hoped to hear the DA speaking up during the election campaign against the undeniably unfair treatment of the EFF, which repeatedly found itself shut out of public halls and buildings.

There are strategic considerations here too. During the middle 1990s I toured around many provincial legislatures and was everywhere impressed by the way that lone DP MPLs were playing a crucial role way beyond their own party, giving assistance to the PAC, Azapo and others who were new to parliamentary life and who needed help with their speeches, with putting down motions, with understanding procedure and with devising tactics.

I remember the work of Eddie Trent in the Eastern Cape in this regard with particular affection - Eddie was a dynamic one-man band exposing local corruption but all the time you were talking to him there would be people banging on his door from other parties, and he helped them all. Similarly, the DP in Parliament gave crucial help to Patricia de Lille, then a PAC MP.

This is important from all points of view. First, it shows that liberals really are people of principle and will stand up for free speech, freedom of assembly and so on for everyone, not just for themselves. Second, there is no doubt that the DP served a valuable service in helping integrate alienated outsiders into the new political system and making sure it worked for all of them. With such help many of them ceased merely to be "wild men" and became useful citizens.

Finally, of course, it won the DP friends - Patricia de Lille even ended up joining them but perhaps the greatest benefit was seen in municipal politics where, frequently, the DA ended up gaining power by dint of multi-coloured coalitions with many of the smaller parties. This is, for example, how the DA finally levered itself into power in Cape Town. The smaller parties all knew that in any coalition with the ANC, the ANC would dominate everything whereas the DA would share out portfolios, committee appointments and so on in a far more democratic fashion.

All these considerations now apply to the EFF. Whatever its distaste for Mr Malema personally, the DA has a strong interest in trying to work with the EFF as fellow members of the Opposition. All Opposition parties need to stick up for the rights of minorities and all Opposition parties find that the Constitution is their best friend. In many cases EFF MPs probably need to be shown the ropes both in Parliament and in provincial legislatures and they too may become more integrated into the system as this happens. The relationships which are built in the course of proffering such assistance may well turn out to be useful in the future.

This could become very important indeed. It is a matter of time before the DA finds itself - either in a metro or in some smaller municipality - having to ponder the possibility of a coalition with the EFF. Of course, many DA voters and even members would recoil from such a thought. But it won't go away.

Consider, for example, the possibility that in the 2016 municipal elections the DA gets 46% in Pretoria, the ANC 42% and the EFF 9%. If the DA forms a coalition with the EFF, the DA gets the mayoralty and all the key portfolios and - as happened in Cape Town - will hope that this will enable it not only to capture the nation's capital but govern sufficiently well that by 2021 it is able to get over 50% of the vote and rule on its own. In the meantime it would have to put up with the EFF using its one or two minor portfolios for patronage, tenderpreneurship and grandstanding. This would be an irritation but the DA would have gained the essential and would hope that after five years it not only won power on its own but, perhaps, won a few EFF members over to its side.

This might be regarded as Machiavellian. However, consider the alternative. If the DA refuses such a coalition then it forces the EFF into a coalition with the ANC. This is the worst of all possible worlds, cementing the ANC in power and encouraging all the worst elements within it. There is no doubt that the citizens of Pretoria would feel betrayed if the DA, although the largest party, allowed - or even encouraged - such a deal.

Given the DA's progression into an ANC-lite party, there is no doubt, of course, that many of its leaders would, in that situation, prefer an ANC-DA grand coalition. This would be a very big mistake. The ANC would never share power equally and fairly and it would effectively continue to control the city because of all its placemen and deployees in every nook and cranny of the metro. The fact is that wherever the DA takes over it has to fight an uphill battle to make the local civil service behave in a properly neutral and professional manner. Typically, many of them have to be "performance managed" out of the system under a barrage of accusations that the DA is "targeting blacks" etc. This spring cleaning process typically takes several years and is always carried out under duress. An ANC-DA coalition would prevent the DA even from beginning such a process, whereas an EFF-DA coalition would not. This is really a dominant consideration.

So the EFF's arrival ought to be an occasion for DA stock-taking and, very probably, re-orientation. The world stands still for nobody.

RW Johnson

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter