WHY REPORTS OF SOUTH AFRICAN DEMOCRACY’S DEATH ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

By Steven Friedman

ONE of democracy’s features is that you can use the freedoms it offers to claim that it does not work – something the South African debate is always eager to do.

It is no surprise that the drop in the percentage poll in the November 1 local elections and lower than expected voter registration prompted claims that South Africans were saying that democracy does not work for them. Bad-mouthing the country’s democracy is a common theme among those who speak in the national debate.

Belittling democracy is common among both the suburban mainstream and among some on the left. Many in the first group don’t like majority rule and don’t think that black people are capable of governing countries. They have complained repeatedly that this country is not ‘a real democracy’ because they dislike the party which has governed since 1994. Although the election result suggested that it may now face an uphill battle to win over 50% of the vote, they really want a government run by people like them, which is impossible in a country where the vast majority of people are not like them.

Some in this group don’t have a problem with majority rule, but they still complain that ‘democracy has failed us’ because it did not prevent corruption. In their view, Jacob Zuma’s presidency showed that democracy here did not work.

On the left, democracy is said to have failed because, after 27 years, poverty and inequality remain and, outside politics, so do the racial inequalities which minority rule created. Some who hold this view believe democracy is never possible in a capitalist society which gives to the owners of property power they can use to get their way whoever wins elections. Others don’t believe that all capitalist democracies are shams but insist that South Africa’s has not freed most citizens.

All this explains the claims that the drop in election turnout and voter registration numbers this year shows that voters are rejecting democracy – and, perhaps, opinion polls claiming that people have a low opinion of the Independent Electoral Commission, the courts and other key institutions of democracy.

So, are these claims accurate? Is democracy here a sham and are voters rejecting it?

What Democracy is Not

Firstly, some of the criticism is based on misunderstandings of what democracy is and how we should judge it.

Democracy is not supposed to prevent corruption happening – humanity has not invented any system of government which can do that. Corruption is a temptation to holders of public office (and business executives) everywhere. What democracy is meant to do is to give citizens the means to do something about corruption when it happens. Free speech and democracy’s other political freedoms give citizens the right to speak out. The courts and other democratic institutions then ensure that there are consequences for those who betray public trust. The vote can force politicians to listen or lose their jobs.

Much the same is true of poverty and inequality. While a fully democratic society is one in which everyone has enough to enable them to be active citizens, the economy does not begin meeting everyone’s needs simply because a country has become democratic. Democracy is meant not to end economic unfairness but to give people on the wrong end of inequity in the society and the economy the means to do something about it. By forming associations, they can demand their fair share. They don’t always win even when they are able to do this, but democracy has enabled people to do something about poverty and inequality at many times in many countries.

Finally, free elections are essential to democracy because, without them, there is no way of ensuring that those who govern are those who enjoy the support of most citizens. But they are only a part of what democracy is about. If people don’t vote because they feel that none of the parties are likely to represent them, they may still value democracy and take part in it. Democracy enables all citizens to enjoy a say over the decisions which affect them. While elections are one way of doing this, there are many others. The person who does not vote but campaigns for causes or speaks in the public debate, is taking part in democracy.

South African Realities

South African democracy does what democracies are meant to do far better than critics claim.

The election turnout was not ‘dismal’ – a word used freely in media headlines. It was around 46%, which is high when compared to elections in other countries. Nor was it as new as we were told: the turnout in 2000 and 2006 was around 48%. And it is not true that, as we are also often told, more and more people have lost interest with each poll as they saw the system not working for them. The percentage poll in the first two elections rose sharply for the next two. This does not reflect ever-grown disillusion with elections – it shows that turnout can grow or drop depending on circumstances at the time.

Some voters were more eager to vote than others – the percentage poll in suburbs was around double that in townships. Particular areas stayed away – those where the governing ANC has tended to draw its support, and so the turnout was meant to send a message to it. While the fact that voters unhappy with the ANC would not support other parties could be seen as an indictment of all the parties, the drop in the poll does not mean that people are turned off party politics, merely that they have a particular way of sending a message. Also, over 400 000 spoiled ballots were cast. Most people who did this were sending a message and so taking part in the election. Because this country does not have an option on the ballot for people who don’t like any party (some countries do), someone who bothers to stand in line at a polling booth to cast a spoiled ballot is taking part, even if the message they send may not be heard.

Nor does the claim that people have lost faith in democratic institutions square with the way they behave. While grumbling at the IEC is common after elections, results are routinely accepted as reflections of voter sentiment. Anyone who is aggrieved at the IEC takes it to court, which is also a form of taking part. Even those who loudly announce that the courts are biased – such as former president Zuma – still use them repeatedly. Expressing a lack of trust in everything is a South African habit. But the way people act rather than speak suggests that the system is widely accepted.

Democracy here also often works as it is meant to do. The corruption during the Zuma presidency was defeated by democracy – by media who reported on it, citizens who protested about it, courts which ruled on it and voters who, in 2014 and 2016, punished Zuma’s ANC for it. Zuma and his group lost the ANC presidency because then Mpumalanga premier DD

Mabuza became convinced that the ANC would drop below 50% in the 2019 election if the Zuma faction controlled the presidency.

As a weapon against poverty and inequality, democracy has not been effective. But it has enabled important gains at particular times – there is no better indication of democracy’s power here than the fact that around 5 million people who are living with HIV and AIDS are alive today because democratic politics meant that demands for free treatment were heard.

So, South African democracy is in much better shape than we are told. But that does not mean that its health is nearly as robust as it should be. Democracy here works mainly for only about a third of the people – those who earn money from the formal economy which gives them the means to be heard. The other two-thirds can send a message through their vote but are ignored between elections.

This is one key reason why poverty and inequality remain a reality. In democracies, people are heard between elections only if they are able to get together with those who share their interests or goals and if their organisations are strong enough to be heard. The victims of poverty and inequality do form associations, but those they form tend to be too small to make a national impact or are simply ignored by a debate in which only one third take part. The simple answer to the question ‘who speaks for most South Africans’ is ‘no-one who has any national influence’, a point which was perhaps sharply illustrated last week when a party which claims to speak for the poor donated a luxury car to a king.

But the fact that democracy only serves one-third of the people is not the system’s fault – it is a symptom of realities in the society. This can be changed not by replacing democracy with something else but by ensuring that it is deepened and broadened so that everyone has a voice.

Prof Steven Friedman is a research professor, Faculty of Humanities, Politics Department, University of Johannesburg.