Since South Africa's presidential election, I've been interested in South African politics especially the role of the ANC and I've been curious. Is South Africa really democratic? The current President, Jacob Zuma, has had over 700 charges of fraud and corruption against him. In 2005, he was dismissed from his position as Deputy President due to some of those charges. He was also accused of rape in 2005 in a highly publicised court battle and yet he was still elected.
The ANC has been elected with over 60% of the vote in every election since the first democratic election in 1994. Politicians get into Parliament by being on the party list which consists of the partys perfered candidates as opposed to electing individuals by electorate. Not to mension, they are costantly accused of corruption.
However it could just be that the ANC has the staunch support of the people of South Africa. And I guess no government is completly free of fraud and corruption. But what do you guys think?
South Africa could well be one of those cases we have discussed which highlights the weaknesses of democracy.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy works best when every citizen votes based on what they believe is best for the country and what, in turn, will benefit them most in the long run. This is essentially the best way democracy ensures good governance; the governance is the approximation of the collective judgements of a nation.
However it can be vulnerable when this doesn't happen. The first way in which it can be coopted is when voters make their decisions purely based on personal and short term gains and hence you have a scenario where people are elected on the back of promises acting as bribes for only a certain part of the electorate.
What I think is happening here is the otehr vulnerability: Voters voting not based on the policies of candidates or parties but based on WHO that candidate or party is. In these cases ethnicity and religion play a major role. With specific regard to the South African case, look at the history of the nation: a huge black population long suppresed by a minority of whites. Also the ANC, if I rememember correctly from Nelson Mandela's biography, was the main democratic organisation for blacks involved in the ending of apartheid.
With this sort of history of the ANC's repute among blacks and the history of suppression for being black, it is very predictable that the ANC would be assured of massive voter support purely on the back of, well, being the ANC!
This considered, it might somewhat explain what is happening. Because of the ANCs guaranteed majority support they do not have the same incentives to run such a tight ship in the democratic sense and, I would not be surprised, if this has led to a bit more conniving party politics than you might see otherwise. In America or New Zealand, the sort of shenanigans and interior politics that goes into the leader of a party being a man like Jacob Zuma results in a total lack of votes and hence an incentive to sort that jazz out!
Perhaps as memories fade slightly voters may vote less based on history and more based on politics. Or perhaps the creation of new black-orientated parties could lessen the 'guaranteed' factor of the ANC's support and give them an incentive to follow closer the political sensitivity you find in other countries?
South Africa is a unique country to say the least. It could be argued it is a first world country trapped in a third world continent. This article certainly raises some interesting points such as the state of the South African leadership as well as the appearance of a very poor leader.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt South Africa is suffering from at least some degree of corruption I think it would be hard to find a single country within Africa that doesn’t, but knowing people who live in South Africa I am aware the ANC has a huge following. I think this comes down to a number of factors, the first being that Since the collapse of Apartheid along with the fact such figures as Nelson Mandela have associated themselves with the ANC many within the black majority of South Africa see the ANC still as a party for the future (despite it failing to fix many of the problems South Africa is plagued with)
I also must question the level of participation each citizen truly can have with the government. The age old debate over democratically elected leaders V Guardians as preferred leaders could be argued here. South Africa does not have a huge level of education in comparison to other “partly Western” countries, nor does it have a history of freedom. Therefore it has developed a history in which for generations I believe people have been uneducated into the aspects and importance of politics, therefore they fill to make what could be considered “good decisions” when they vote. Therefore citizens simply vote for the ANC because they always have, they know no better.
I also can only laugh at the title of this article. To call south African totalitarian is completely ridiculous. There is no evidence that the government has put their citizens in a state of total control or fear (as common with totalitarian regimes such as that in v for Vendetta *a great movie btw*)
Overall I would agree South Africa’s political climate is not overly healthy, but looking back on what it was like pre 1994 it has came along way.
Peace for all, Daniel
Recently as in Friday last week was talking to a white Afrikaner family who moved to New Zealand from South Africa last year. I found their first hand account of South Africa very interesting. The man said that in the work force the South African government passed a bill thats says that employers have to have a certain percentage of black workers to white workers and Indians. This means that employers are often having to employ the less skilled workers because they have to employ based on race. White people are generally better skilled because they can afford the education. He said that a lot of businesses' have suffered and closed down because amongst other things their employees were not efficient. Is this democratic? Having to employ based on race?
ReplyDeleteThe family said that the ANC was very corrupt. The crime rate is extremely high and the police in South Africa just can't cope. When the ANC took over they did not know how to run the country successfully and some black people as I saw on a television documentary recently, even believe they were better off under apartheid! Although those were the people living in shacks on the side of the road. I think there is a great deal of tension left over after Apartheid between white and blacks. The blacks are so anti white government they will vote for black governments and because they out number whites something like 50 million to 4 million, South Africa won't get better for a long long time. As someone else mentioned above, yes the ANC does not have too much to worry about when it comes to elections because people do vote based on who not what the policies are.
BTW yes South Africa is really democratic, they hold free fair elections in a sense that people are not bribed/threatened into voting for any particular, just there is a lot of racial problems so people tend to vote by race.
ReplyDeleteHaving free fair elections does not make South Africa automatically democratic state...
ReplyDeleteTP, why not?
ReplyDeleteI developed quite an interest in South Africa, especially Apartheid and Nelson Mandela after befriending an Afrikaner who had strong views and deep feeling about his country. I could probably sum up a few reasons as to why the ANC always gets elected, even with a leader such as Jacob Zuma, who apparently believes AIDS can be cured or prevented with a shower...
ReplyDeleteThe main reason would probably be that the ANC was such an important part of the history of Apartheid and Nelson Mandela played a huge role in bringing about the end of Apartheid, so I imagine the ANC remains hugely popular for this reason and holds as a strong symbol of hope and freedom for them, especially after about 42 years of suffering under a vicious system.
The population of South Africa also consists of about 80% blacks and about 7 or 8% whites, which is quite a difference, so thus the majority would be inclined to vote for a black leader. I also imagine that not many whites vote thus handing more voting power to the black majority. As apartheid ended roughly 19 years ago, feelings would still be rather strong in relation to that era and the majority would not be prepared to vote for a white leader in fear of provoking another 42 or so years of oppression.
We must also note that democracy and general elections have only been in place for about 14 years and has only seen 4 elections so far, making it a fairly new democracy. As time passes though, we may see a new party rise up and the ANC pushed to the side, especially as older generations die out and new ones come of age to vote.
To say South Africa is totalitarian is a bit of a far out claim especially seeing as they do hold free and fair elections. When I spoke to my afrikaner friend, he believed that South Africa was in a state of "reverse-apartheid" especially with these quota systems being put into place in the work force and in national sports teams like the Spingboks and Proteas. But is that really totalitarian or even so-called "reverse apartheid"? or is that just the government trying to find a way to unify their country which is still relatively divided race-wise?