Government and politics in South Africa 5

Landsberg C, S Graham, Landsberg C, S Graham

• Publisher: Van Schaik Publishers
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780627034053
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

An up-to-date introductory narrative on the contemporary political environment in South Africa. Examines and evaluates the processes and policies in place in this country. Aimed at undergraduate and postgraduate students as well as other interested observers to the complexities of South African politics and the governmental machinery that operates the country.

1

1

The context of South African government and politics

Kwandiwe Kondlo

The following key issues are examined in this chapter:

• The meaning and character of South Africa’s transition to democracy
• The political economy of South Africa, post 1994
• Twenty-one years of South Africa’s leadership
• The sociocultural context of politics and government in South Africa
• Beyond “the nation-state paradigm” – South Africa’s international context

​1.1 Introduction

Many observers of South African politics are likely to agree that the context of politics and government in the country is multilayered. There are various issues, interpretations and perspectives with regard to this topic and as such, it needs to be discussed in depth. We also need to consider that different methods and perspectives make it difficult to define South African politics and government comprehensively, yet succinctly. The challenge resides not only in interpreting the country’s contested history but also in deciding what could be regarded, in analytic terms, as constituting “the central nervous system” of politics and government in South Africa. Is it the liberation movement led by the African National Congress (ANC) or political parties in general? Is it the economy where issues of inequality, unemployment, poverty and low growth levels are persistently a challenge? Or is it society with all its fragmentation and cultural diversity? Is it the relationship between spheres of government or is it the direction and orientation of public policy? Is it the international context, which conditions the national context? Is it the quality of presidential leadership, from Nelson Mandela to Jacob Zuma? These questions are why it is important to read and examine the context of South African politics and government with an open but critical mind. Magubane (2004: 663) summarises the challenge more concisely when she says, “politics is a notoriously tricky and ambiguous business. The intrigues that occur behind closed doors in the corridors of power are, for the most part, impenetrable to the academic who must, therefore, rely heavily on the public pronouncements of the powerful when they formulate their analyses”. This chapter is a compressed statement of a very broad and complex area.

In examining the context of politics and government in South Africa, the chapter attempts to 2find a balance between pessimistic and optimistic narratives. In so doing, it encourages positive reflection about some of the intriguing questions of today. One of these questions is: how does one explain that democracy in South Africa has survived and endured after 21 years even though there is no basis from the past, to inspire confidence in the proposition that such a political system would work in a country deeply divided by poverty, illiteracy and entrenched racial cleavages?

South Africa’s democracy has survived the political “coup”, which saw former President Thabo Mbeki recalled from his position of power and almost the entire cabinet resigning in support. It has survived turbulence within the ruling party, the ANC, as well as embarrassing moments stemming from what one may call the scandals of the Presidency post-Nelson Mandela. The Mbeki administration had to deal with the “arms deal scandal”, which marked a low point in a period reflecting otherwise relative progress and strong leadership. In the case of the presidencies of Jacob Zuma the scandals range from the personal integrity of the president, which has become questionable on several occasions, to criticism of his acumen to make sound political decisions. Recent examples undermining the president’s authority to lead include the “Nkandla debacle”, in which the private residence of the president was allegedly unduly upgraded at the cost of tax payers; and the removal of the Minister of Finance, Mr Nhlanhla Nene, in December 2015, which caused the South African rand to tumble in the midst of challenging economic times when stable leadership was required. Yet despite these examples South Africa’s democracy seems to remain unshaken.

It is also important to understand the compromises that were negotiated, and the hopes and aspirations, which informed the foundation of the new South Africa. Former South African president, F.W. De Klerk cautioned President Zuma at the start of his first term as president to ensure there were no attempts to “undermine the historical compromise which is encapsulated in our Constitution” (The Times, 2009). Another question debated particularly in scholarly circles is whether the republic is on the path to democratic consolidation or democratic reversal.

Key concept: Democratic consolidation

Democratic consolidation occurs when democratic structures and processes “become completely and irrevocably embedded in society” (Graham, 2015: 31).

If neither, is the country likely to stagnate in the grey area between the two? One refers here to consolidation of liberal democracies, with all of their limitations, or reversal to non-liberal forms of democracy. The question about consolidation or a possible “reversal” or even “stagnation” arises from the uncertainty and flux, which became more noticeable in politics and government ever since the recall by the ANC of former President Mbeki in September 2008. The uncertainty and flux cast a long shadow, which stretched beyond the brief interim presidency of Kgalema Motlanthe and into President Zuma’s first and second administrations, which came into being in May 2009 and 2014 respectively. Although the optimistic view is that new attempts to improve the governance of the country are being made, the loftiness of intentions, if not matched with the same level of action, can be a recipe for disaster. Millions of the downtrodden, if not uplifted, will pull down the whole country.

There are many important issues and questions fuelling wide-ranging debates about the context of South African politics and government. In trying to provide a snapshot survey of issues, which have caught the public’s eye, this chapter develops three thematic areas around which it structures the discussion. These are: the political economy of South Africa; the sociocultural context of democracy; and in a final section entitled “beyond the nation-state paradigm”, the connections South Africa has developed in the global context. The chapter will link the discussion of each theme with reflections on leadership periods in order to delineate the stages on the pathway of South Africa’s democracy. Reflections on the character of transition to 3post-1994 politics and government is an important starting point as it informs the various current contextual issues of South African politics and government.

​1.2 The character of South Africa’s transition to democracy

​1.2.1 Theoretical issues1

The transition period, especially the character it acquired, forms an important backdrop to understanding politics and government in democratic South Africa. It is also useful to note that the meaning of “transition” in South Africa continues to be at the centre of political debate. Some have invoked the notion of “the unfinished transition”, but the question then is: “What is transition?” How does one theorise the contingent, mutable and unfinished character of changes, which began especially between the years 1990 and 1994? The mutations and contingencies continued even after 1994 as aspects of the old order refused to die out despite being formally dismantled, and as the excitement of the new order began to fade in the light of early disappointments post 1994. In terms of political theory, how does one get to theoretical grips with the South African transition experienced before 1994 and afterwards? Does the concept of “transition” help or is it inappropriate? If it is appropriate, then what exactly is the meaning of “transition” in the South African context?

Mooney (cited in Kondlo & Maserumule 2011: 107) makes a useful argument when he says that “historical transitions” are progressive “realizations of insights and co-relative institutions through a conflict of opposites”. In other words, the mediation, which occurs between the initial state, its opposite and the resolution that emerges constitute a “transition”. In our case we could regard the preceding era of apartheid as the initial state, the contestation largely by opposition forces in and outside the liberation movement as the opposite, and the emerging post-apartheid liberal democracy as the resolution. If one follows this approach, then the concept of transition is useful and appropriate but the quality of transition could be debatable. Freire (2009: 6) pushes the debate further. He argues that “while all transition involves change, not all change results in transition. Changes can occur within a single historical epoch that do not profoundly affect it in any way”. In other words, Freire detects a nuance, in that there is a difference between epochal transition and transitions that involve a normal interplay of social and political readjustments. In the case of South Africa, it is clear that the “epochal transition” occurred with the negotiated demise of apartheid, which led to the inauguration of a non-racial democracy under Nelson Mandela’s leadership. As Terreblanche (2002: 371) puts it, “we can regard 1994 as the biggest turning point in the 350 years of modern South African history. For many years to come, social historians and social scientists will distinguish between what happened before and after that year”. One could add that the changes that occurred after 1999 and 2009 during the Mbeki and Zuma administrations respectively are also transitional moments of different scales, as they involved and continue to involve changes that seek to fulfil democracy’s “unended quest”.

Key concept: Epochal transition

Political theorists have raised questions about the meaning and relevance of the concept of transition when examining the changes that occurred in the landscape of South African politics and government before and after 1994. To settle the debate, a distinction was made between “epochal transition”, and transitions that involve a normal interplay of social and political readjustments. In the case of South Africa, it is clear that the epochal transition that occurred was with the negotiated demise of apartheid, which led to the inauguration of a non-racial democracy under Mandela’s leadership.4

Laclau (2007: 1) is categorical in his analysis and debate of transitions. To him transition, as embodied in the act of emancipation, infers a complete break with the past. Hence in his elaboration on the emancipatory moment he invokes the notion of a “dichotomic dimension”, which separates the “emancipatory moment” from the social order which preceded it (Laclau 2007: 1). This conception does not easily apply to the South African context where there was never outright victory over past repressive forces, and therefore emancipation cannot be considered a truly radical foundation of the post-apartheid period. The new social formation depends on relations of power with forces of the past as well as with enabling and constraining forces of the present, both locally and internationally.

The theoretical positions indicated above illuminate some of the conceptual issues that emerge when the concept “transition” is used in the context of South African politics. Laclau’s argument about the dichotomic dimension, which separates the emancipatory moment from the social order that preceded it, is thought provoking. The most important issue is about the quality of the dichotomic dimension – in South Africa’s case this dimension was blunted by compromises forged between the ANC leaders, the corporate sector and the National Party political elites. When one examines the compromises forged, one realises that there is a lot in the new South Africa that is not new. There is continuity inasmuch as there is change. The dialectic of change from pre- to post-1994 South Africa is a point of intellectual discourse and continuous research. This next section focuses on the political economy of South Africa’s transition.

​1.3 The political economy of South Africa

The term “political economy” is used to infer the interaction between politics and the economy and how it affects the fibre of society. The analysis of South Africa’s political economy from 1994 onwards, exposes important foundational truths about the new dispensation, including the reasons why the National Party and the ANC had to negotiate from 1990 to 1994. This is explained by Adam and Moodley (1993: 339) who argue that it is their mutual weakness, rather than their equal strength, that makes both long-time adversaries embrace negotiations for powersharing. Like a forced marriage, the working arrangement lacks any mutual love, but nonetheless is consummated because behind any alternative behaviour looms a worse fate for both antagonists.

In terms of this assertion the new South Africa was born out of a stalemate – a product of an awkward equilibrium in the balance of forces between the liberation movement and the apartheid state. During this period, as political leaders closed a deal on a new dispensation, contradictions became more visible – the more black communities celebrated the victory they had not really won, the more some sections of the white community insisted on continuing with their “old ways”. The Afrikaner right-wing movements were a good example of the latter case. The liberal constitution of 1996 that eventually emerged from a negotiated interim constitution provided for many political rights, but left numerous grey areas regarding economic equality, and indeed disparities between the wealthy and the poor. Furthermore, access to property did not significantly change for the majority of South Africans after 1994. These were essentially the birthmarks of what, in Simon Critchley’s (2006: 100) words, is now the “quasi-normative axis” of the emancipatory paradigm of South Africa’s democratic politics. In short, South Africa’s negotiated liberation was never premised, from the start, on intentions to fundamentally reorder economic power relations in completely new ways. The post-1994 state was premised primarily on political accommodation which, somewhat inadvertently, saved the capitalist economic system by deracialising its political basis. Hence the feature of South Africa’s political economy today is one of political inclusivity but economic ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Imprint Page
• Preface
• List of acronyms
• About the contributors
• List of figures and tables
• Contents
• Chapter 1: The context of South African government and politics
• Chapter 2: Parliament
• Chapter 3: The executive
• Chapter 4: The legal system and the judiciary
• Chapter 5: Administering national government
• Chapter 6: Provincial government in South Africa
• Chapter 7: Local government
• Chapter 8: Public policy making in South Africa
• Chapter 9: Political parties and elections
• Chapter 10: The political economy of South Africa in a global context
• Chapter 11: South African foreign-policy formulation, 2009–2016
• Index