After a fourth ANC victory in South African elections earlier this year many both within the country and abroad are worried about the direction of the country under a new leader who, by virtue of allegations of corruption, inspires little confidence. How will South Africa find its way on a road to prosperity in these difficult economic times and will the country provide for the security of its citizens?
The ANC, amongst others, fought against Apartheid South Africa on the grounds that the regime’s laws were discriminatory. It discriminated against black and other non-white South Africans. Politically speaking, non-white South Africans were disenfranchised. They were forbidden by law from participating in a political system that nevertheless passed laws they were bound to adhere to. The ANC claimed to represent the disenfranchised black majority in its apposition to Apartheid or what it labeled as its liberation movement.
At its inception the ANC was narrowly focused on the interests of black South Africans. Its membership was closed to others and the colour black on its flag was symbolic of black South Africans. Its political objective was to overthrow a government representing a minority, and replace it with one representing the majority. It defined itself along ethnic grounds just as its political opposition in power. The ANC’s own moral justification was founded upon its claim to represent the majority of South Africans and opposition to discrimination against that majority.
The thinking of the ANC at its founding has a direct link to the present day as South Africa’s political elite understand that their political mandate is derived from their electoral majorities. This mandate is indeed legally correct, but the constitution also constrains the majority through protecting the rights of minorities. Therefore, if the ANC only pursue the interests of its voters then it is potentially no different from those previously in power, with the exception that the ANC represents the majority rather than the minority. This resembles a majoritarian view of democracy – one where a political party gaining a majority of votes may do as it pleases as regards the entirety of society.
There are upsetting signs that the ANC is verging ever closer to a majoritarian view of South African democracy. Earlier this year the ANC opposed a court application seeking voting rights for some 2-million expats at South Africa‘s foreign legations and Zuma recently blasted the conduct of the judiciary and questioned the supremacy of the Constitutional Court as the highest court in the land, saying it "is not God". He also accused Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke of declaring war on the ANC, and criticised other judges who, coincidentally, ruled against him in his corruption court appearances.
The South African constitution was constructed with the intention of it being the foundation of a modern, democratic society with equality before the law and, importantly, the protection of individual rights and a balance of power. The drafters of the constitution drew inspiration from other nations that had provided models of stable democracies.
Ideally, the new South African constitution would provide for a genuine representative democracy but alas it does not. Take for example the more than one million expatriate white South Africans. The ANC’s attempts to disenfranchise them politically would be little more than a de jure addition to what is already de facto. Indeed those who have left South Africa have done so precisely because they are already politically disenfranchised. In interviews with those who have left South Africa reasons such as violent crime, discrimination in employment and a breakdown in government services are cited. When confronting the government with such issues, such concerns are casually dismissed as did former Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula when he proclaimed “They can continue to whinge until they're blue in the face, they can continue to be as negative as they want to or they can simply leave this country.” Well, in the absence of political representation that is what many are doing. Everyday citizens are willing to put up with significant levels of dissatisfaction if they believe that they will, through the power of their vote and personal action, enable change to occur in future. However, if that vote is essentially deemed worthless then dissatisfaction turns to despair.
A means to counter this despair would be a new arrangement of the balance of power in South Africa. When the current constitution was drawn up, there was a delineation of power between national government and the provinces. This is consistent with a federal structure like that of Germany, from whom the drafters of the South African constitution drew inspiration. However, if one looks closely, the two nations differ in important respects that impact on the effectiveness of their respective balances of power. Germany’s federal states have, in many cases, been forged by history with many named after peoples who were once governed independently such as Bavaria, Saxony, and Hessen. The federal structure of Germany which dates back to the Holy Roman Empire, was created to ensure a balance with no single people emerging to dominate others politically.
South Africa’s nine provinces, with the exception of KwaZulu-Natal, are largely artificial creations of convenience following the end of Apartheid. The provinces’ largely arbitrary boundaries contain a variety of different ethnic groups. South Africa’s demographic kaleidoscope resulting from migrations following the Zulu wars and British Imperialism has made it extremely difficult to delineate political boundaries along ethnic lines.
However, ethnicity matters in South Africa as it does elsewhere and it will be of vital importance to the future stability of South Africa that ethnic minorities not be marginalized politically. The balance of power between the central and provincial governments does not serve the purpose of minority representation in South Africa as it does elsewhere in successful multiethnic societies.
Switzerland is one such society that is multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-confessional. The country has a German speaking majority, a strong French speaking- and smaller Italian and Romance speaking minorities. The country’s unity is unusually strong and contrasts starkly with societies like those of the former Yugoslavia which broke apart as a result of ethnic conflict. Switzerland is delineated politically into twenty-six cantons varying from a mere 15 thousand citizens in the smallest to 1.3 million in the largest. The boundaries were not created along arbitrary lines such as population or geographic size. The biggest canton comprises around seven thousand square kilometers with the smallest being a miniscule thirty-seven square kilometers. Instead the cantons are continuations of historic boundaries encompassing different communities.
Each canton enjoys almost equal representation, regardless of size, in the Council of States or Switzerland’s upper house of parliament. This ensures that no single community, even the fifteen thousand citizens of Appenzell, lacks representation at the highest levels of federal government, whose power is itself limited in Switzerland’s confederate system. Cantons also send representatives to the lower house proportional to their number of citizens. This balance ensures an effective representation for all ethnic and cultural minorities and the evidence is centuries of peace and prosperity in Switzerland. The country consistently places amongst the top of rankings for both wealth per capita and quality of life.
South Africa enjoys far greater diversity than Switzerland. But despite the now clichéd pronouncements of a “Rainbow Nation” there are no genuine political safeguards for South Africa’s various minorities. Instead we only witness claims by populist ANC leaders to mandates derived from simple majorities. The over one million South African expats number more than a quarter of Switzerland’s entire population and yet they, and many others within South Africa, find themselves without representation.
South Africa needs to move beyond a simplistic majoritarian view of democracy and instead live up to its claims of being a Rainbow Nation and actually accord genuine representation to all its minorities. Such a system could resemble that of Switzerland, with smaller communities, or newly created African cantons, electing representatives to an upper house. Given South Africa’s demographic situation, those cantons would not necessarily need to be territorially contiguous. The Zulus would be given equal representation in the upper house that the Sotho, Xhosa, Afrikaner or English speaker would enjoy. Areas of high diversity in a single area such as major metropolitan regions would simply remain multi-ethnic cantons such as are the larger cities in Switzerland. Such a representative system would balance the current lower house of parliament. A cantonal system, adapted to the demographic realities of South Africa, would require co-operation and consensus building amongst South Africa’s various communities. No-one would feel disenfranchised but rather empowered to better their local communities and in doing so the nation as a whole.
South Africa’s future as a successful multi-ethnic society holds enormous promise. But first, the ANC and others must abandon antiquated notions of simple majoritarianism which effectively translates to might is right and encourages the rise of populist leaders. Instead a re-balance of power needs to take place recognizing the legitimate and equal political rights of all minorities. The proven path to successful multi-ethnic nations is through a strong degree of equal minority representation. This may indeed be the only means towards building a peaceful, prosperous, and genuinely Rainbow Nation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment