18 Years Into Our Democracy- Fault-Lines and Future Prospects

Transformation, Transition or Regression?

18 years into our Democracy- fault-lines and future prospects.

October 2012

Paper Commissioned by the Raith Foundation and written by SPII

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Contextual Background to the Research 6

Note on the timeline of the stages towards consolidation of Democracy in South Africa. 9

What is the basis for transformation in South Africa? 10

Clash of Cultures between Exiles and those who Remained Inside. 13

Participation and the Mediation of Contestation. 18

The Constitution of South Africa. 20

Challenges and Limitations to Transformation. 22

The Role of Business in South Africa’s Transformation. 25

Perspectives on Civil Society. 29

Policy Development in South Africa. 38

Scorecard: How would you rate the transformational success of the ANC Government? 40

Challenges Ahead for Substantive Transformation. 43

Future scenarios for transformation. 49

Shifts and Drifts – the de- and remilitarization of the South African Police Service: 1994 to 2012. 54

Bibliography 56

Introduction

This paper, as one of three critical papers commissioned by the Raith Foundation, seeks, through undertaking interviews with six key people who were either integral to the transition of South Africa, or, alternatively, have carefully studied the process of change, to record people’s remembrances and analysis of the trajectories that have characterized this period. In essence, what we wanted to capture was whether there could be said to have been an overarching and uniform view pre-transition, of what the shape and texture of a liberated South Africa would be, socially, politically and economically, and if so, whether we have yet achieved that, whether we are on track to do so, or where emergent fault lines threaten the realization of this vision.

What emerges through these interviews is indeed a sense of drifting in terms of the shaping of a nation in keeping with the passion and vision that drove the long and demanding struggle against Apartheid. In trying to understand just what has led to this sense, a number of impressions emerged. Firstly, and crucially, there is a sense that society in general and leaders in particular, do not spend enough time on reflection and thinking. A common lament was the dearth of the intellectual capacity within the ruling party and other social sectors, including civil society, that could provide a sounding board for decision makers as well as generate new knowledge into alternative and innovative solutions to present and future challenges. While many of the formal commitments of state craft as contained, for instance, in the 1992 Ready to Govern document of the ANC in terms of the alignment of state, the values and principles that should inform the Constitution and the shape of government have been met, there seems to be a lack of space to be able to address underlying questions of the design and strengthening of institutions of democracy, of the place and space for informed participation by ordinary people, and also the nature and content of appropriate policies that both meet immediate needs as urgently as possible, and are further capable of building longer-term transformative institutions of delivery – difficult, contested issues.

The extent to which social transformation is possible in the absence of economic transformation – transformation of the ownership and nature of the economy was something raised by a number of the respondents. The sense emerged through the conversations that real economic transformation has still not been tried, let alone achieved, and that this was due to a successful pre-emptive strike by vested white Capital ahead of the transition, with the development of Black Economic Empowerment schemes, which resulted in the real enrichment of a few, with very little if any benefit being enjoyed by those marginalized from the mainstream of formal economic activities and opportunities.

The need to deploy people into government and into spaces opened up in business resulted, it was unanimously held, to an overwhelming haemouraging of leaders from communities and civil society structures. Combined with this was the sense that new and younger activists and leaders are no longer being developed, mentored and supported by these same people whose departure left such gaping holes.

Transformation will inevitably affect the alignment of interests of various sectors and people within any society, and this is true for South Africa as well. Contestation occurs in many spaces, including in the interpretation and application of guiding principles, and in the shaping of compromise that will inevitably follow. What emerged from a number of the respondents was a sense that in the cut and thrust of the mediation of such interests, at times there has been a sense that challenge to the prevailing interests carries with it the need to be brave enough to ‘stick your head over the parapet’, and the feeling that there are too few people who, when faced with the consequences of such actions – whether professionally, economically or socially - would be prepared to do so.

This paper by no means provides final solutions or absolute recommendations for a way forward towards attaining the objective of transformation. What it does present is a very honest and open insight into some of the complex challenges that mark the daily lives of everybody living in South Africa. The sense of the growth of social distance between ordinary people and leaders, and the inertia amongst the leadership around how to move forward to meet both local and global challenges does pervade many of the responses below, but we see this as an opportunity to frame some of the awkward questions that need, urgently but wisely, to be addressed and solved.

The paper takes the form of a series of questions that were put to respondents. We have chosen to represent the answers to the questions as put by the respondents, although no specific answer is attributed to any of the participating interviewees. Towards the conclusion of the paper we use the example of the de/remilitarization of the South African military since transition to illustrate the ongoing nature of the contestation for transformation.

Contextual Background to the Research

Positioning of the interviews within the broader research process:

These interviews serve as a form of a baseline a fulcrum to enable and facilitate the workshop discussion organized by the Raith Foundation- an inquiry into the role and positioning of Civil Society, in particular social justice movements 18 years into the post apartheid South Africa – in the process of transformation.

Context within which the interviews were conducted:

The notion and essence of transformation of South African society has not received as much attention and scrutiny post apartheid, as that heralded by the Marikana crisis and tragedy in August 2012, as well as numerous community- based protests that are termed, rather innocuously, ‘service delivery protests’, and wide spreads strikes, both legal and ‘wild-cat’ strikes, both under the leadership of trade unions and some undertaken outside of the process of collective bargaining, all of which have led to a sense on a variety of levels of a social crisis that also has economic repercussions. . While some have located the massacre in the ANC’s failure to deal with the enduring legacy of apartheid, others have seen the massacre of similar incidents as reflecting a failure on behalf of the full body politic of South Africa, to have sufficiently engaged in the transformation project.

The Marikana tragedy did not arise overnight, tensions were brewing in the mining community months in advance- yet it could not have ben or was not pre-empted and averted. Our ability to consolidate and protect the gains of our democracy depends largely on out ability to timeously mediate and defuse potentially threatening situations, in a way that is not reminiscent and a repeat of the past. The Marikana tragedy also laid bare the apparent inability of the state, and the limited capacity and capability of our Institutions meant to uphold and protect the hard fought for democratic gains made in the country, to act decisively to diffuse and mediate tensions and to promote the use of the comprehensive processes of collective bargaining that was developed in the early days of our democracy, as one of the central pillars to social and economic transformation.

Timing of the interviews:

The interviews were conducted in a tense socio-political environment, heightened political posturing and fallout leading up to the ANC Conference in Mangaung in December, and two weeks after the Marikana Crisis erupted.

Time limitation:

One hour interviews allowed for a cursory glance over a myriad of issues and little opportunity for thorough analysis, as such the interviews are reflections/recollections ad experiences by individuals/leaders who have been closely involved, contributed to and participated in processes leading up to a post apartheid South Africa and actively involved during the last 18 years within the broader South African body politic.

Process:

Interviewees were given a brief that outlined the purpose and issues for discussion. Interviews were informally structured and interviewees given the space to respond to the issues raised in the form they felt comfortable with. Both face-to-face and telephonic interviews were held.

List of Interviewees:

·  Joel Netshitenze

·  Janet Love

·  Moeletsi Mbeki

·  Prince Mashele

·  Barbara Hogan

·  Jay Naidoo

In the following text, the use of italics denotes the questions to the interviewees, and normal text, the responses. Different responses are indicated by the use of quotation marks.

Note on the timeline of the stages towards consolidation of Democracy in South Africa.

Change is a shift in the externals of any situation. By contrast, transition is the mental and emotional transformation that people must undergo to relinquish old arrangements and embrace new ones. Change is made up of events, while transition is an on-going process. Change is visible and tangible, while transition is a psychological process that takes place inside of people. Change can happen quickly, but transition, like any organic process, has its own natural pace. Change is all about the outcome we are trying to achieve; transition is about how we'll get there and how we'll manage things while we are en route. Getting people through the transition is essential if the change is actually to work as planned. Transformation occurs as a result of a well-orchestrated and well-led change strategy and transition plan. The result is a metamorphosis to the desired state in which there is a deep -seated adoption of the changes and the associated values, principles and/or processes. This leads to an embedded, and marked, change in culture and practice and reinforces a journey of continuous improvement.

For the purposes of this paper, we ascribe the various stages of South Africa’s trajectory throughout the last period as follows:

·  Pre-transition: (1902-1989)

·  Transition: (1990-1994)

·  Post Transition: (1994-1999)

·  Transformation: (end of the Mandela era 1999)

Shifts and drifts in South Africa’s social justice transformation agenda. To what extent did South Africa aim to and succeed in following a policy path and an implementation strategy likely to lead to social transformation as articulated in our Constitution?

What is the basis for transformation in South Africa?

‘The goal of the ANC since it formed in 1912, has been to give all the people of our country, the chance to choose their own government, remove the colonial status of the African people, abolish all forms of discrimination, and recognize the basic equality of all South Africans- inclusion on the majority that had been systematically excluded in apartheid South Africa.

The inspirational and aspirational values or basis of the transformation vision is located in :

·  Freedom Charter,

·  1992 – Ready to Govern,

·  RSA Constitution,

·  Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP)

·  and Gear.’

The 1992 document of the ANC, Ready to Govern, is referred to as being pivotal to the subsequent application of the principles of the Freedom Charter in South Africa. To what extent is there consonance between these documents, and to what extent were the ANC really ready to govern in South Africa by 1994?

‘i would really have to dig deep into my archives to be able to answer that. The document was drafted in a crisis situation, and was an articulation of us being ready to govern. I would need time to reflect on that document, it really was a long time ago- to reflect on the debates at the time.’

‘Were we prepared to govern? We did not really have a whole choice of models, as the collapse of the Berlin Wall buried dreams of socialism. Within those that came back from exile, the realities of having to govern.. within the trade union movement, we realized that transition was in fact going to be painful. We had tried to anticipated, and done research into economic alternatives. But perhaps negotiations came sooner than we anticipated. There was a lot of external pressure at the time from the UK and the USA.. were we ready to govern in 1990? Perhaps not.

‘The Freedom Charter reflects the ANC’s transformational vision, the Constitution reflects the vision of the country.’

‘ Re-enfranchisement, which refers to inclusivity as opposed to the exclusion policy of the apartheid regime, and not economic transformation was the ANC’s vision of transformation pre-1994.’

‘Was the ANC ready to govern in 1992? No- in terms of running a government and replacing the apartheid State and addressing the needs of the people.

We were unprepared in that we knew very little about the workings of the apartheid state, the economy, it’s strengths and weaknesses. Mandela on his release raised the point that we should not under-estimate the apartheid regime. The ANC had no prior experience, and there were, practically, huge knowledge and skill gaps and we were dealing with internal organizational issues (people coming back from exile).’

‘Transition was an interim phase, seen in the medium term, that allowed for an interim holding pattern while we developed a programme of action – look at the VAT strike that took place within this period -- it mobilised society around a vision of a non-racial and multi-class society within a vacuum that had never thought differently before.’

Clash of Cultures between Exiles and those who Remained Inside.

From the interviews, it appears as if the question of cultural shifts around policies and priorities and practice within the ANC, including regarding issues of transformation emerged with contestation between various interests in the ANC. The transformation trajectory could be seen as a reflection of the various points of ascendency of either of the groups. In the early 1990’s, it was more likely that it was UDF (United Democratic Front) activists on the ground that would have been more likely to be the ones talking about social transformation and not necessarily the ANC leadership of exiles. So the differences meant that each group approached and profiled different aspects of the transformation and that there was not a cohesive approach or line of march. The “organic” or ad-hoc way that policies and positions were arrived at was, in fact, developed out of contestations between the two.