There is no doubt that our country is experiencing its worst political crisis since the end of apartheid. This is not only reflected in the corruption and conflicts of interest affecting the ruling party, but also in the virtual absence of any credible political vision that is truly alternative to the status quo.
The current leadership of the ANC has been extremely successful at building patronage and the widespread capture of state institutions. And it has done so to a degree that is unprecedented in democratic South Africa, largely explaining President Jacob Zuma’s resilience in power.
In my view, however, their most striking success has been psychological: they have gone so far at breeding “bad” governance that most of us simply hope to go back to where the country was in 2009.
The succession battle is a case in point. It is clear that neither candidate, let alone possible “third” options presented as a compromise to unite the party, will bring meaningful change. Indeed, nobody is challenging Zuma with the same vigour and tone used by the soon-to-be-victorious factions at Polokwane against then president Thabo Mbeki. It seems as if many, not only in the ANC, appear to have become content with marginal improvements.
Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma may well be the candidate identified by the president to continue his legacy, but some hope that her being a woman will at least bring a degree of novelty. Cyril Ramaphosa has been sitting side by side with Zuma while the latter has been intent on weakening state institutions and building his patronage networks, yet the deputy president’s connections with business are described by some as a good omen for more rectitude in the running of public affairs.
The truth is that both candidates present a worrisome predisposition for continuity.
The opposition has been reinforced by this state of affairs and has thus far demonstrated its ability to work quite co-operatively in the running of some major cities.
At the same time, it has not brought a new approach to development and the public good. Despite the EFF’s rhetoric of transformation, its co-operation with the DA has been based on conventional approaches to governance.
We are still to see what new ideas they will be able to put forward, given that citizens are demanding a U-turn in service delivery, better infrastructure and a more innovative and just approach to common resources, especially water.
At best, they have been better administrators than their predecessors. In practice, they have not yet produced a new vision for the country, a vision that is not only rhetorical but embedded in concrete actions.
It is often said that crises can be turned into opportunities profoundly to transform the rules of the game. If the chaos is to lead to change, then we need to realise that this predicament is just the last symptom of a malaise that predates Zuma.
In a word, we need to accept that there is no going back.
South Africa was already in serious trouble before the Guptas and their friends began to dominate public debate.
Even if Zuma had never won at Polokwane, we would nevertheless be facing enormous challenges, requiring a different type of leadership and completely new approaches to the economy.
This is something we do not have now, just as we did not have it then.
Neither Zuma nor the governments before him have been able to tackle long-standing challenges, from inequality to energy, environmental degradation and violence.
Problems have not only remained, they have become worse in many cases. The past 20 years have fundamentally altered the global economy and the social dynamic it affects, making conventional approaches completely obsolete and ineffective.
While two decades ago, South Africa could be satisfied with its successful transition to democracy, now we need to achieve much more to thrive as a society. Going back to business as usual after Zuma’s two tenures would be disastrous.
Why? Because the world seeks not just economic growth but sustainable development, which we have never been able to achieve.
Whatever approach to industrialisation South Africa takes will need to tackle (or at least reduce) the effects of climate change, which has ravaged our land like no other force before.
Massive migration processes threaten the social order of entire continents. It is not clear how South Africa and its future leaders plan to develop our society given this fundamentally different context.
The thousands of people marching on our streets demand more than diligent administrators and less cronyism; they demand a new narrative for our country for the future.
What we need is a concerted effort by the whole of society at articulating a shared sense of direction, similar to the one produced during the fight against apartheid.
Can the best forces in society, from political parties to civic groups, academic associations and progressive businesses, come together to develop a vision?
Can they achieve a “sufficient consensus” that is transformative in nature?
Can they articulate a narrative that is not simply about “good governance” but about “new governance”?
We need an approach to decision-making that sees the interconnection between our political, social, economic and environmental challenges – something we have never done before. Conventional democratic institutions, including the very concept of representative democracy, are in crisis everywhere.
How do we plan to revive participation, listen to people’s needs and involve them directly in building a better society?
Re-establishing the independence of parliament is crucial but is not enough to achieve this objective.
Our development model based exclusively on economic growth is also in crisis, especially when traditional industries are unable to provide jobs, let alone dignified work. What proposals are we willing to discuss to ensure we can succeed in times of low growth globally?
Environmental dynamics that have long been disregarded by governments are now affecting the livelihoods of entire populations, triggering resentment and violence. What new ideas do we need to put the environment at the core of policy planning?
Mass migrations will become a dominant reality in the near future. If we struggle to deal with the relatively few migrants moving to our country today, how do we even imagine responding in the future?
Any meaningful change requires a set of minimum conditions that must be met, and arguably the restoration of constitutional rule is a necessary precondition to move forward.
But it is not a sufficient one. The risk is that, as we all focus on re-establishing the institutional status quo that the Zuma years have so fundamentally altered, we will forget that the real goal is to build a new future.
The social upheaval triggered by political events should be channelled not to “restore” order but to establish a new one.
Fioramonti is director of GovInn at the University of Pretoria and author of The World After GDP: Economics, Politics and International Relations in the Post-Growth Era
Patch-up job won’t build post-Zuma future
The current leadership of the ANC has been extremely successful at building patronage and the widespread capture of state institutions. And it has done so to a degree that is unprecedented in democratic South Africa, largely explaining President Jacob Zuma’s resilience in power.
In my view, however, their most striking success has been psychological: they have gone so far at breeding “bad” governance that most of us simply hope to go back to where the country was in 2009.
The succession battle is a case in point. It is clear that neither candidate, let alone possible “third” options presented as a compromise to unite the party, will bring meaningful change. Indeed, nobody is challenging Zuma with the same vigour and tone used by the soon-to-be-victorious factions at Polokwane against then president Thabo Mbeki. It seems as if many, not only in the ANC, appear to have become content with marginal improvements.
Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma may well be the candidate identified by the president to continue his legacy, but some hope that her being a woman will at least bring a degree of novelty. Cyril Ramaphosa has been sitting side by side with Zuma while the latter has been intent on weakening state institutions and building his patronage networks, yet the deputy president’s connections with business are described by some as a good omen for more rectitude in the running of public affairs.
The truth is that both candidates present a worrisome predisposition for continuity.
The opposition has been reinforced by this state of affairs and has thus far demonstrated its ability to work quite co-operatively in the running of some major cities.
At the same time, it has not brought a new approach to development and the public good. Despite the EFF’s rhetoric of transformation, its co-operation with the DA has been based on conventional approaches to governance.
We are still to see what new ideas they will be able to put forward, given that citizens are demanding a U-turn in service delivery, better infrastructure and a more innovative and just approach to common resources, especially water.
At best, they have been better administrators than their predecessors. In practice, they have not yet produced a new vision for the country, a vision that is not only rhetorical but embedded in concrete actions.
It is often said that crises can be turned into opportunities profoundly to transform the rules of the game. If the chaos is to lead to change, then we need to realise that this predicament is just the last symptom of a malaise that predates Zuma.
In a word, we need to accept that there is no going back.
South Africa was already in serious trouble before the Guptas and their friends began to dominate public debate.
Even if Zuma had never won at Polokwane, we would nevertheless be facing enormous challenges, requiring a different type of leadership and completely new approaches to the economy.
This is something we do not have now, just as we did not have it then.
Neither Zuma nor the governments before him have been able to tackle long-standing challenges, from inequality to energy, environmental degradation and violence.
Problems have not only remained, they have become worse in many cases. The past 20 years have fundamentally altered the global economy and the social dynamic it affects, making conventional approaches completely obsolete and ineffective.
While two decades ago, South Africa could be satisfied with its successful transition to democracy, now we need to achieve much more to thrive as a society. Going back to business as usual after Zuma’s two tenures would be disastrous.
Why? Because the world seeks not just economic growth but sustainable development, which we have never been able to achieve.
Whatever approach to industrialisation South Africa takes will need to tackle (or at least reduce) the effects of climate change, which has ravaged our land like no other force before.
Massive migration processes threaten the social order of entire continents. It is not clear how South Africa and its future leaders plan to develop our society given this fundamentally different context.
The thousands of people marching on our streets demand more than diligent administrators and less cronyism; they demand a new narrative for our country for the future.
What we need is a concerted effort by the whole of society at articulating a shared sense of direction, similar to the one produced during the fight against apartheid.
Can the best forces in society, from political parties to civic groups, academic associations and progressive businesses, come together to develop a vision?
Can they achieve a “sufficient consensus” that is transformative in nature?
Can they articulate a narrative that is not simply about “good governance” but about “new governance”?
We need an approach to decision-making that sees the interconnection between our political, social, economic and environmental challenges – something we have never done before. Conventional democratic institutions, including the very concept of representative democracy, are in crisis everywhere.
How do we plan to revive participation, listen to people’s needs and involve them directly in building a better society?
Re-establishing the independence of parliament is crucial but is not enough to achieve this objective.
Our development model based exclusively on economic growth is also in crisis, especially when traditional industries are unable to provide jobs, let alone dignified work. What proposals are we willing to discuss to ensure we can succeed in times of low growth globally?
Environmental dynamics that have long been disregarded by governments are now affecting the livelihoods of entire populations, triggering resentment and violence. What new ideas do we need to put the environment at the core of policy planning?
Mass migrations will become a dominant reality in the near future. If we struggle to deal with the relatively few migrants moving to our country today, how do we even imagine responding in the future?
Any meaningful change requires a set of minimum conditions that must be met, and arguably the restoration of constitutional rule is a necessary precondition to move forward.
But it is not a sufficient one. The risk is that, as we all focus on re-establishing the institutional status quo that the Zuma years have so fundamentally altered, we will forget that the real goal is to build a new future.
The social upheaval triggered by political events should be channelled not to “restore” order but to establish a new one.
Fioramonti is director of GovInn at the University of Pretoria and author of The World After GDP: Economics, Politics and International Relations in the Post-Growth Era
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos