“Let the facts speak for themselves” - we all know the saying, but when we are emotionally invested in an outcome other than the one facts are suggesting, it can be very difficult to make peace with what those facts are telling us.
South Africa’s largely peaceful transition from white minority rule to multi-racial democracy, and the advent of the so-called Rainbow Nation, has been extraordinary. It captured the world’s imagination and it has served an invaluable purpose, but it is now time to take stock of its true legacy and to chart out South Africa’s next chapter.
The hard truth that far too few are yet ready to face is that South Africa’s system of government has failed. Its euphoric start, encapsulated by an Ellis Park, Springbok-clad Mandela, has long since given way to the reality of collapsing infrastructure, a stagnant economy, chronic unemployment, rampant crime, and no visible solution.
For the most part, we understand all too well how we got here. The real question we need to answer is: how do we turn South Africa around? And here we have to be brutally honest with ourselves - not only is there no workable national consensus, but our centralised system of government actively prevents one from emerging. It functions as a means by which to impose the lowest common denominator onto everyone.
Domination without consent
For the three decades between 1994 and 2024, South African government had a very familiar feel. One group held virtually unfettered power and acted largely as it pleased, regardless of empirically negative outcomes, and despite the protests of those it steamrolled in the process. Structurally, ‘democratic rule’ changed the ringmaster, but involuntary exclusion remained inherent to the system.
Purists have tried to argue that this was simply a transitional issue and that, following the ANC’s loss of its outright majority in 2024, the true character of South Africa’s democracy would come to the fore. Proportional representation (PR) would henceforth ensure that no one group could dominate and that a singular workable compromise would emerge. Once again, the evidence now exists - it hasn’t worked out that way.
The Government of National Unity (GNU) is by nature a compromised compromise. It has kept the worst excesses of African Nationalism at bay, at least for now, but the price has been high. The GNU has neutered the erstwhile opposition, the Democratic Alliance - a party which was elected to remove the ANC but which ended up intentionally returning them to effective power. Economic growth remains below population growth, unemployment remains disastrously high, and violent crime is endemic. The GNU epitaph will ultimately underwhelm - ‘It would have been even worse without us’.
African Nationalism one way or another
In a country as diverse as South Africa, coalition government is not a progressive solution; it is a recipe for disaster. It is an inhibitor which prevents coherent policy from emerging, delivering instead fractious government and ideological deadlock.
Here, once again, we have to be honest with ourselves. South Africa is not a first-world Western economy where a largely homogeneous population contests ideas across a fairly well-defined political spectrum. Its people do not share a common sense of who they are, and there is no regular modulation between opposing political ideologies. The strong correlation between culture, ethnicity, and voting behaviour has led political scientists to describe South African elections as racial censuses.
What has emerged is a dominant ethnically derived voting block which contests the level of extremism with which its associated ideology is applied, as opposed to genuinely contesting competing ideas - something which inclusive democracy is inherently supposed to deliver. Reduced to party politics for illustrative purposes, even were it to become the largest single party in 2029, the DA will have no reasonable prospect of being able to implement its policy platform. Instead, just as was the case in 2024, it will be forced to agree terms with the least extreme African Nationalist party, in the certain knowledge that a refusal to do so would usher in an even more extreme version.
Given South Africa's extreme cultural diversity, this is a very significant problem. It results in a system of government which effectively guarantees that minority groups are deprived of agency - even when, like in the Western Cape, they are millions strong and form a regional majority.
A compromised system of government
When the current constitutional order was designed, this should have been catered for. Decentralised (or federalised, if you prefer the term) government was the logical solution to South Africa’s ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and ideological diversity. Instead of forcing disparate groups to find a mutually agreeable compromise which they are simply not capable of reaching, decentralised government would allow parallel pathways, each catering to the diverse communities they serve. In doing so, this would deliver genuine ideological contestation, whilst ensuring that minority communities are not deprived of agency.
Regrettably, South Africa recognised the potential problems but, much as we have done again with the GNU, settled upon a weak ‘it could have been worse’ compromise - quasi-federalism. We have a unitary state that isn’t unitary, and a federal structure that has so little power over key policy that it isn’t federal.
If South Africa is to fulfil its undoubted potential, whilst delivering meaningful representative democracy to all of its diverse communities, we need to do more than just change the party of government - we need to change the system of government.
Like far too many political systems, South Africa’s quasi-federalism is self-sustaining. For the foreseeable future, there is no prospect whatsoever that the dominant political voting block will use its hegemony to vote in the constitutional changes required to disempower it, and to distribute power more equitably, including amongst South Africa’s ideological and cultural minorities. This, however, does not mean that there is no viable solution.
Self-determination: how to fix the system
In my considered opinion, the key to South Africa’s future prosperity lies in section 235 of the Constitution, and the right of all people to self-determination which is guaranteed in international law.
Self-determination exists for precisely this purpose - to ensure that no community can be dominated by another without their consent. Participation in democracy alone does not satisfy this right - landmark judgements such as the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgement on Quebec have made this clear - the effective outcome experienced by minority communities is materially relevant.
Critically, by its very definition, self-determination is not, in the final reckoning, subject to the consent of the national majority, and the Constitutional Court has already signalled the pathway via which it can be asserted. Communities wishing to do so would be compelled to enter into negotiations with the national government, and any sustained refusal to engage would place the state in conflict with its own constitutional and international commitments.
Sceptics will laugh off the idea of good faith negotiations, but it isn’t that simple. Self-determination is recognised by the International Law Commission as a peremptory norm (jus cogens), binding on all states. It is also a right which South Africa itself has vocally championed on the international stage, and repeatedly sworn to uphold in the international treaties it has signed. The moment that one (or more) of South Africa’s sub-national communities formally asserts its legitimate right to self-determination, South Africa’s unitary system of government will be fatally undermined.
System change in South Africa will not be delivered top-down by a two-thirds majority in parliament; it will be driven from the bottom up by a sub-national community.
The question that excites me is who will be the first to open Pandora’s box.
This article was first published on Politicsweb: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/beyond-the-rainbow-sa-cannot-be-governed-this-way
