Abstract
D.Litt. et Phil. (Politics)
In recent years, growing concerns over the strength of South Africa’s democracy appear to indicate a population increasingly disillusioned and dissatisfied with the quality of its implementation. The overall purpose of this study was to assess the quality of democracy in South Africa after 17 years of democracy and in so doing, to ascertain whether or not this growing perception is valid.
The study is essentially an audit of South Africa’s democracy (with a personally derived method of scoring included) and utilises two existing analytical frameworks of democracy assessment, International IDEA’s State of Democracy framework and Leonardo Morlino’s tool for empirical research on democratic qualities, TODEM. The strengths of these two international frameworks are adapted to be applicable specifically to an assessment of South Africa’s democracy. The assessment is based on an analysis of primary and secondary literature and is informed by formal personal interviews and informal personal discussions with identified experts in the various democratic dimensions under assessment. Personal scoring is then based on the qualitative information derived together with the input from these experts which points to shortcomings, deficiencies, achievements and successes in South Africa’s democracy.
A definition of democracy is identified followed by four pillars of democracy assessment against which to evaluate South Africa’s democracy: the rule of law and institutional capacity; representative and accountable government; civil society and popular participation; and freedom and equality. Within each pillar, several dimensions are identified, which in turn, comprise several indicators. Overarching considerations are borne in mind throughout the assessment as well as guiding questions that narrow the focus.
In terms of the overall categorisation of quality democracy used in the study, that is, ‘low’ (very low presence and application of indicators in general - inefficient democracy); ‘low to medium’(low presence and application of indicators in some of the dimensions but some signs of efficiency in one or more of the other dimensions); ‘medium’ (indicators are present and applied for the most part; possible inertia must be avoided in favour of vigorous and conscientious action to improve on significant problem areas); ‘medium to high’ (indicators are present in most dimensions and are effectively guaranteed in practice barring a few problems); and ‘high’ (indicators are strongly present and fully applied across all dimensions – indicative of a robust, healthy democracy), it was found that South Africa places at the high end of ‘medium’ quality democracy - a positive finding especially given that only 17 years have transpired since the country’s democratisation.
This means, therefore, that despite problems, indicators of quality democracy are present for the most part in most dimensions and are effectively guaranteed in practice. Several of the most notable are, namely: consistently free and fair elections; a strong rule of law and independent judiciary; significantly improved participation of women in political life; a dynamic civil society; comprehensive civil and political rights; and a vigilant media actively engaged in its watchdog role. However, where problems do remain, it is essentially as a result of a lack of effective implementation of existing procedural elements. The areas in which South Africa has performed the worst thus far and which therefore present the most challenges in need of improvement are with regard to poor levels of individual security; high levels of corruption, negative effects of cadre deployment; continued existence of
discrimination, spreading poverty and inequality; and lack of efficient governance at local level in particular.
It is evident that the government must build on the successes achieved and take vigorous action to improve on the identified problem areas in order to continue to strengthen the quality of South Africa’s democracy.