The London School of Economics and Political Science Miracle Or Misery
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Miracle or Misery? Understanding democratic participation in South Africa Heidi Matisonn A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, December 2010. Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Acknowledgements This has been a long journey. As such, there are so many people I wish to thank. Firstly, to my supervisor Paul Kelly who rescued this project moments before the ship sank and steered me to shore. No words can adequately express my gratitude. All of my colleagues, past and present, have been so supportive: Lawrence Hamilton, Raphael de Kadt, Jeremy Seekings and especially Simon Beck and Laurence Piper – the former, for always ensuring there was coffee available and the latter for reading and rereading my work. Christine and Mike: thank you for trying to keep me sane, for making me laugh and for being willing to help me re-arrange my office so that I could avoid „PhDing‟. To the Tennants, Ushers and de Klerks: thank you for assuming my parenting duties over the last few months. My parents have been phenomenal. If they had their doubts as to whether the „Albatross‟ would ever be completed they never said so; instead provided encouragement, financial and emotional support and a place to go to when I wanted to escape. It has been a tough few years and without them, I would not have got through it. Lara, Greg, Gavin and Natasha – my siblings and siblings-in-law – who have been part of this journey – the Cape Town and London legs: thank you too for everything. Especially for providing me with my munchkins: Amelia and Rebecca („Archie‟) Fury and Thomas Matisonn. I cannot wait to spend more time with all of you. Finally, to Geoff and Emily. What can I say? I know it has not always been easy putting up with me. You have both changed my life so much – I cannot imagine how I lived without you. I love you both. Nunu – I promise: no more aftercare! 3 Dedication To Ma. I‟m so sorry it took a month too long. 4 Abstract On 27 April 1994 the most hated flag in Africa was lowered, signifying the end of the Apartheid regime. As the world watched the transformation of South Africa taking place – without the bloodshed that the state‟s direst cynics had predicted – words like „miracle‟ and „inspirational‟ abounded. Since then, the world has continued to watch South Africa‟s transition to democracy and even those who were its greatest supporters have begun to ask questions about the quality and quantity of democratic reforms. The increasing centralisation and monopolisation of power by the African National Congress, declining rates of formal participation by citizens and considerable failures in service delivery are major factors contributing to the concerns about the long-term prospects for democracy in South Africa, especially given the record of democratic failure across the rest of the continent. While significant contributions have been made to the study of South African democracy – both theoretical and empirical – there are few, if any, that have sought to combine both these methodologies and hence the scholarship is not, in my view, paying the dividends it should. This research thus explores contemporary politics in South Africa, examining its assets and liabilities in order to provide a clearer picture of the state of democracy in the country. It does so by measuring practices in South Africa in terms of the role accorded to participation in three conceptions of democracy: liberal representative accounts, deliberative accounts and what I term the „categorical‟ account. In so doing the research will show that although concerns about democracy in South Africa are justified, if we shift our focus from the instrumental value of participation to its categorical one we may find a way to ensure that the miracle continues. 5 Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction 8 Chapter Two: Democracy in South Africa 19 Chapter Three: Understanding Democracy Introduction 54 I. People get the government they deserve 63 II. Do people get the government they deserve? 76 III. An alternative reading of limited participation 80 IV. An alternative reading of extensive participation 86 V. The value of participation – limited or extensive 96 VI. A categorical value of participation 100 Conclusion 107 Chapter Four: How Democratic is Democratic South Africa? Introduction 109 I. Liberal Democracy in South Africa 116 II. Deliberative Democracy in South Africa 140 III. Democracy in South Africa on a Categorical Account 154 Conclusion 163 Chapter Five: Understanding Democratic Citizenship Introduction 166 I. Citizens on a Liberal Account of Democracy 168 II. Citizens on a Deliberative Account of Democracy 174 III. Citizens on a Categorical Account of Democracy 181 IV. The Obligation to Participate 205 Conclusion 214 6 Chapter Six: How Democratic are South African Citizens? Introduction 215 a. Crime in South Africa 218 b. Citizen Responses to Crime 227 i. Responsible Citizen Responses 228 ii. Autonomous Citizen Responses 234 I. Citizens on a Liberal Account of Democracy 243 II. Citizens on a Deliberative Account of Democracy 252 III. Citizens on a Categorical Account of Democracy 259 Conclusion 263 Chapter Seven: Conclusion 265 Bibliography 277 7 Chapter One Introduction „If you want to understand democracy, spend less time in the library with Plato, and more time in the buses with people.‟ (Anonymous) In the sixteen – almost seventeen – years since kilometre-long queues of patient South Africans waited to cast their vote, academic and non-academic contributions analysing democracy in South Africa have been prolific. So why another and why now? After all, 2010 is not a particularly significant year in South Africa – with the exception perhaps of being the host nation of the FIFA World Cup. But this is partly why the timing is right: with no national or provincial elections, no presidential recall (as occurred in 2008), in a sense, not much politics in general, we can concentrate on the bigger picture and take stock of where we are instead of focusing on specific and often momentous events. Why I believe another contribution is necessary at all is because although important and valuable contributions have been made, most are offered by political scientists: empirical, often largely descriptive, studies which use general indicators of democracy to assess the extent to which South Africa is democratic. In contrast, political theorists tend to examine democracy as a normative concern and hence the state of democracy in the country is assessed in terms of the author‟s personal preference for a particular form of democracy – for example, deliberative democrats such as Edward LiPuma and Thomas Koelble (2009) argue for greater deliberative opportunities based on the supposed „culture of democracy‟ amongst (black) South Africans but seldom justify these arguments with empirical evidence. Thus although there is an abundance of scholarship on democratic theory on the one hand, and democracy in South Africa on the other, work that combines the two is in short supply. This is not simply a 8 methodological issue – empirical political theory is a much smaller area of research than either (empirical) political science or (normative) political theory. My concern is that without using the brushes of political and science and political theory, the picture being painted of democracy in South Africa is incomplete. Many of the „blueprints‟ offered for achieving accountable, legitimate and responsive government – broadly accepted as the core values of „rule by people‟ – whether through more participation or less, seem to ignore the importance of treating the study of democracy in an engaged and concrete way rather than as a strangely scientific matter on the one hand or as an abstract and idealised notion on the other. Empirical positivists are moving from an assumption of democracy as the hegemonic model (liberal, representative and capitalist) while normative idealists construct democracy in relation to key values. Thus, like Rattigan‟s actors, the two sit at separate tables: my approach is to bring the two sides together. In so doing, my aim is not only to make a contribution to how we do – and should - understand democracy in South Africa but to how we do – and should – understand democracy itself. This may require a series of compromises: for example, the empiricists will have to be prepared to measure „democracy‟ according to different, and perhaps less conventional standards, and the theorists will have to think about what is actually doable, and desirable, in the current complex world. But changing the way we think about democracy itself is not the primary goal of this thesis. I want to suggest that we can – and should – change the way we think about democracy in South Africa. In this sense, I am aware that some may feel that the work is not entirely objective, that I am trying to adapt the theory of democracy to fit the reality of South Africa in order to put a „positive spin‟ on things.