South Africa takes uncertain steps | Opinion

It’s been widely reported that in 2024 more people will be eligible to vote than ever before (over 4 billion people). But this includes fake votes in countries like Russia that run fake elections. So let’s focus on reality and celebrate real progress, which was made in South Africa this week.

It is a feat that 30 years after the abolition of apartheid, a system in which the black majority was denied suffrage and equal rights, the African National Congress failed to win a majority of seats in parliament. This is not because the ANC performed so poorly, winning majorities in six consecutive five-year parliamentary elections.

Indeed, South Africa’s record is mixed: it has not experienced the same disasters as its sister to the north, Zimbabwe, where white minority repression, tyranny and economic collapse were the main features of bad governance.

The ANC has been successful. Despite corruption, inequality and persistent poverty, South Africa is also a country of political stability, economic growth and significant foreign investment. To the extent that there is an ideological debate in South Africa, it is about free markets versus heavy-handed intervention for black supremacy, and the ANC has been neither. Apart from that, South Africa functions, albeit just barely, as a state that serves its people. Given the global situation, this is a big deal.

Current President Cyril Ramaphosa seems likely to retain his position despite losing his majority. The ANC is the largest party and should be able to form a coalition government. But the difficulties are a sign of the country’s maturity. It’s a somewhat unusual situation for Africa, but it gives hope that South Africa is on the path to becoming a true democracy.

In the bigger picture, single-party rule is typical of developing and emerging countries in the post-colonial and post-World War II order, and when it eventually loses support, it either retreats into autocracy (as in China) or gives way to genuine democracy (as in Taiwan).

example:

• The Indian National Congress ruled India from independence in 1947 until the late 1970s. Since then, elections have become more fierce, and the nationalist rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been in power since 2014.
• Following the Mexican Revolution, which ended in 1920, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was founded and remained the dominant political force for much of the 20th century. Elections are now competitive.
• Kenya gained independence from Britain in 1963, and the Kenya African National Union (KANU), led by Jomo Kenyatta and later Daniel arap Moi, ruled until 2002, and is now a somewhat functioning country.
• In Israel, the Labor Party ruled from independence in 1948 until turbulent elections in 1977 when divisions and corruption ultimately ousted it from power. Today, Labor is one of the smallest factions in the Knesset.
• The aforementioned Taiwan was founded in 1949 when the Chinese Nationalist government retreated to Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War and a Communist regime was established in mainland China. The main political party, the Kuomintang (KMT), imposed martial law until 1987 and remained the dominant party until 2000. Since then, Taiwan has developed into a multi-party democracy.

In these cases, and others not mentioned here, the original parties eventually ran out of steam, were accused of bad governance and broke away. In the ANC’s case, the process seems to have been gradual and natural, many years after it was led by Nelson Mandela, a brighter leader than any in recent memory.

Mandela spent decades in prison for sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the government. He was not a terrorist, but he helped establish the armed wing of the ANC. His real achievement was that he rejected revenge against white people and instead embarked on a series of procedures, personal examples and symbolic acts aimed at reconciliation.

These included the Truth and Reconciliation Commission under Archbishop Desmond Tutu, whose nominal purpose was to uncover the truth of human rights violations but in reality promoted national healing. At one point, Mandela played for the predominantly white national rugby team, an inspirational figure for many, who was celebrated in the Clint Eastwood film The Unconquerable.

Mandela had style. I once told a short media executive I knew well: “I never knew someone like you could be the person you are.” When I visited the country in 2006, a man who shook Mandela’s hand told me he felt an electric energy. He clearly believed it.

His successors were nowhere near his level.

Thabo Mbeki (in power from 1999 to 2008) was a bureaucrat who focused on economic growth, infrastructure development and pan-African issues. He ran into problems with his domineering style of governance and was forced to resign in 2008, with caretaker leader Kgalema Motlanthe becoming president. Things only got worse when Jacob Zuma became president in the 2009 elections.

In 2008, I interviewed Zuma, who became president after evading rape and corruption charges. He was accused by the HIV-positive daughter of a family friend and claimed the sex was consensual, but was acquitted. But not before, he made damaging statements that called into question his judgment, such as believing that showering after sex reduced the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

It’s interesting to think about why people like Zuma have stayed in politics for so long and are so much more numerous than decent people like Mandela. Some people think that someone like Zuma is better suited to politics than someone like Mandela or Tutu. I can say this: I thought Zuma had charisma.

He praised the ANC, saying, “We have institutions on the continent that show deep roots of democracy in a way that we have not seen before. … I think that’s what Africa needs,” and, like a democrat, he said, “There has been talk about a culture of good governance…[I]take a firm position that I will not support any military junta… I am convinced that Africa will be a different kind of place in the next 20 years or so.”

Zuma’s tenure was marked by numerous corruption scandals, economic difficulties and political controversy, leading him to step down in 2018 amid growing pressure from within the ANC and from the public. But now he’s back with a vengeance, and his MK party won more than 10% of the vote, likely causing the ANC to lose its majority.

The two decades he referred to are nearly over, and Africa is still in a bad place, with the possible exception of South Africa. Let us take some solace in that in these difficult times for democracy.

Dan Perry is a former London-based Europe/Africa editor and Cairo-based Middle East editor for The Associated Press and served as president of the Foreign Correspondents Association in Jerusalem. danperry.substack.com.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.