Electioneering in South Africa has pretty much reached a fevered pitch within the last two weeks, since the general election happens in just three days. That's right, after closely following the big national elections for two years in the US, I came here and have been following theirs since. They're electing new mayors, provincial premiers, and even the president. Except it is more difficult to read into the politics here, certainly because I'm an outsider. But I've been trying, through conversations, Wikipedia, and general creeping.First, the election cycle (as in most other countries) is a lot more relaxed that in the US. The main method of campaign publicity, it seems, are the hordes of party posters that line every single street post in and around Cape Town (see left). These went up just over a month ago, and parties have been ramping up public appearances and newspaper rhetoric since. The last two months, though, have been when most of the action has happened. This difference, however, is small compared to the general culture surrounding the election.
Unlike in the US, there is virtually no question who will win the presidency. It will be whoever is leading the ANC (African National Congress), in this case Jacob Zuma. There is so much loyalty toward the party for leading the resistance to, and the liberation struggle against apartheid that they have a monopoly on votes in the country. The problem, as I understand it, is that the ANC has not made the transition from liberation movement to a sound, intelligent, responsible government that has the resources and organization to deal with some of South Africa's major contemporary problems, like crime, HIV/AIDS, housing availability, and employment rates. They've faced fighting within the party, corruption, and generally do whatever they want while being secretive about it (like an underground liberation movement does). Many would argue that the ANC hasn't done a whole lot since 1994, and it is no longer the party of the great Nelson Mandela. I can't really disagree, but am careful to make the statement my own.
So today, you have Jacob Zuma assured a presidency. I think they are already planning his inauguration. A man that has no formal schooling past grade 5, and has been embroiled in national, high-profile lawsuits over the last few years over corruption, money laundering, fraud, racketeering, and even a very serious charge of rape (which made a mockery of him). All charges were eventually dropped, some just a few days ago. I've really not met anyone in the country that is looking forward to Zuma being president. It seems very depressing, actually, since things in the country seem to be getting worse, a distancing from the grand visions of a non-racialized, progressive society in 1994. It is, more importantly, a distancing of the protections built into their heralded constitution as well.
The thing to watch, then, isn't who will be president. Most people are watching whether or not the ANC gets 2/3 of the vote this coming Wednesday, because if they do, they will have the power to alter the constitution. And lots of people are scared of that. Opposition parties have been warning that South Africa could be headed the same way as Zimbabwe, where Mugabe changed the constitution every time he ran into legal trouble regarding his position and power, and other things that stood in his way. We'll see. I've heard good things from the opposition parties, especially the Democratic Alliance, but they aren't gaining much traction outside of this province. It is a bit scary, actually.
All eyes are on Wednesday.
I think this political cartoon illustrates the general idea.
1999: Thabo Mbeki trying to fill Mandela's shoes.
2004: Thabo Mbeki trying to fill Mandela's shoes.
2009: Jacob Zuma using Mandela's shoe to destroy Mbeki.
A lot of what you say is true. However, to say that "things in the country seem to be getting worse, a distancing from the grand visions of a non-racialized, progressive society in 1994" simply isn't true. According to what are things getting worse? Is it according to a disgruntled white student who feels let down that he has to achieve higher marks so that he can compete with black contemporaries who in the past wouldn't have had the opportunity to even live let alone study together? Or is it the millions of people still homeless in the economic and social deadzones created by apartheid? To say that things are getting worse is shortsighted and simply ignores the growth of a black, urban middle class, increased integration of universities and schools, as well as the increasing role that opposition parties play. In comparison to 1994 things are incomparably better.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't to say that South African society is utopian. The ANC has failed to address major issues facing millions across the country - and it is shocking that the South African electorate at large disregard this when voting. Similarly, it is distressing that Jacob Zuma will be elected as president. However, a comparison between South Africa and Zimbabwe is no comparison. Different economies with different investment interests and a different political structure as well as liberation 'inheritance'. Furthermore, the ANC has less chance of gaining a 2/3 majority in this election than they did in the last election. Much of the fear surrounding an ANC victory, particularly among white students, stems from an irrational fear that somehow Jacob Zuma will help the country descend into anarchy. Instead of voting for the DA, a party that paradoxically consists of a host of old NP members lumped together with 'ex-freedom fighters', whose only concrete policy seems to be 'Stop the ANC' (nothing about education, unemployment or health care), it would probably make more sense to vote for a party such as the IFP or the ACDP simply to allay the 2/3 majority without supporting a party which seems to be the face of white discontent at majority rule.
South Africa will vote in 3 days. The ANC will win, in all likelihood with distinctly less than a 2/3 majority. If they do win with a 2/3 majority, the Constitutional Court (equivalent to your Supreme Court in effect) would have to approve any constitutional amendments. Considering the sitting judges there isn't much chance that anything controversial will pass. And at least Jacob Zuma might provide some entertaining gaffes in the same vein as Hugo Chavez. It's just a pity there aren't any inspirational politicians here that could inspire people to vote differently.
Alexei, I hear what you're saying, and don't really disagree. I think I should have put it differently. There is no doubt in my mind that things are better for scores of people, definitely due to integration and a strengthening black middle class.
ReplyDeleteI'm say that at the government level, the vision set forth over ten years ago about protecting people with the new constitution and working to *unite* doesn't seem like its happening, and that opinion is the product of conversations with professors, too. That protections for women are there, and the desire to have equal representation at the government level is, too, but isn't being realized by citizens... not even in rhetoric. That there practically shouldn't be verbage protecting gay people for the stuff that happens and is allowed to pass. That government stances to protect human rights and the history of country result in lying and things like the Dalai Lama incident where the real agenda comes out. It just seems like a facade, and maybe that's cynical... but it seems painfully transparent.
The things that a leader, like Jacob Zuma, says... about Afrikaner's being the only white South Africans, and stuff about gay people, and some of the other stuff... is just irresponsible. It's damaging to say stuff like that and tarnish ideals of unity and respect, and ideas of a responsible government when you're supposed to be leading.
That might be a superficial reading of it, I already said I'm trying to get past that... but its come up in lots of class discussions I've had, and professors have echoed some of it. And I'm not saying I subscribe to the doom-sayer's predictions of Zimbabwe, just noting it because I've heard it in editorials and such, so it is within the realm of political conversation in this election (for better or worse). Cheers, buddy.
"about Afrikaner's being the only white South Africans"
ReplyDeleteWhat did Zuma mean by that comment?
Zuma: Afrikaner only true white South African They were among comments he made at an election stop outside Johannesburg a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question about what he meant - he was simply electioneering. It is just a political slogan that gives the impression that the ANC is a multi-cultural party that accepts even ostensibly marginalised white Afrikaans South Africans. As to why Afrikaners are the only white South Africans, some people would argue that since they are descendants of the first white settlers, the Dutch, and have had generations of families born and brought up in South Africa they are truly white South Africans. It's a silly thing to say really considering that South Africa is really a nation of settlers - both the Dutch, the Nguni language people (Xhosa, Zulu), and the English settled in South Africa from Europe and Northern Africa - some of the settlers have just been here longer.
ReplyDeleteNyTimes today cites a survey that concluded that fewer than half of South Africans feel they are better off today than they were under apartheid. (Not sure if I quite believe that, but I'm not in SA)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/africa/23safrica.html
I just found it interesting Shaun your blog post is very similar to the Times article.