The hopes and dreams that were present at the end of apartheid will not yet be realized.
South Africa in the last few days has formed an unprecedented government of national unity after the ruling African National Congress (ANC) suffered severe losses in the recent elections. It is a new era for the country, with the ANC ruling continuously since the transition from apartheid in 1994.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the new political order will generate enough reform to fundamentally alter the direction of the country after decades of misrule. The hopes and dreams that were present at the end of apartheid will not yet be realized.
The ANC had the cards stacked against it during the election. Since 1994, the economy has only grown by an average of approximately 2.3 percent. Unemployment is at 33 percent, among the highest in the world. And, despite an enormous amount of social spending, South Africa remains the most unequal country in the world, a stunning rebuke to the great dreams of 1994.
Most of all, though, the ANC’s monopoly on political power transformed it, first gradually and then rapidly, into an extraordinarily corrupt organization, creating a class of clients who live off government largesse.
Especially under the presidency of Jacob Zuma (2009 to 2018), a system that became known as “state capture” developed, whereby government tenders and public contracts were used for the personal enrichment of political favorites. For instance, so much has been stolen from the electrical company that the power frequently goes off for several hours at a time. In 1999, the last year of Nelson Mandela’s presidency, Transparency International rated South Africa 34th in the world in its Corruption Perceptions Index. By 2023, on the same index, it found that South Africa tied for 83rd.
The ANC garnered only 40 percent of the total vote, at the low end of everyone’s expectations. It had received almost 58 percent of the vote in the last election, in 2019. The Democratic Alliance, its main rival on the right, won 21.8 percent of the vote, but this was only a percentage point more than in the last election — a surprisingly poor result given that the ruling party was hemorrhaging voters.
Rather, the big surprise was that most of the ANC’s lost votes seemed to migrate to Spear of the Nation, a party founded by the disgraced former President Zuma and named after the ANC’s armed wing during the struggle years. The party, which did not exist until a few months ago, won 14.6 percent. A large number of South Africans seemed to be saying they were tired of the ANC but, paradoxically, wanted the worst aspects of its rule over the last few decades to return.
The ANC needed to form a coalition that controlled more than 50 percent of parliament. After much drama, it managed to reach an agreement with the Democratic Alliance and several smaller parties that gave a new government of national unity a clear majority in parliament and allowed President Cyril Ramaphosa to retain his post while freezing out Zuma.
The published agreement between the parties promises consensus policies and a large number of platitudes but no clear policy direction. Much was undoubtedly discussed behind closed doors, and there will be many further strategy sessions. There will also be, for some in the ANC, the continuing siren call of aligning with the left, including possibly with elements of Zuma’s new party, whose Zulu name harkens back to the glory days of the struggle against apartheid, and which would allow it to continue to rule without aligning itself with a party seen by many as still being white-dominated.
Even if the government of national unity remains relatively stable, it is unlikely to dramatically change the way South Africa operates. The ANC has been appointing civil servants and employees of state companies for three decades. Those officials will not be going anywhere, and it is unlikely that they will be interested in quickly changing the way they have operated for a generation. Although leadership at the very top matters, getting government and vital state-owned companies to improve service will be a gargantuan task.
Then there is the problem of Ramaphosa himself. As a much younger man, he played a key role in the transition from apartheid. However, since his re-emergence on the national scene — first as deputy president for four years during the profoundly corrupt Zuma years and then as president since 2018 — he has been indecisive, unwilling to expend political capital. He can sound pro-business and seems to recognize the corruption that his party fostered, but he regularly disappoints when implementing policy. In the new government, he will undoubtedly be tempted to continually triangulate and waffle, trying to preserve his own status while not doing too much to antagonize a left that is very much waiting in the wings.
South Africa’s democracy works, and that is to its credit. Few countries have managed to institutionalize a system of fair voting only 30 years after a revolution in the political order. The creation of the government of national unity showed that many actors were able to compromise at a critical moment.
But the voters delivered a mixed message: The ANC is down but not out, and it is not completely clear whether the population wants change that would lead to more moderate pro-business policies or even more of the disastrous rule of the past.
South Africa is therefore likely to muddle through. But much more than that will be needed for the country to become a success and realize the hopes and dreams of 30 years ago.
Jeffrey Herbst is president of American Jewish University and former president and CEO of the Newseum.
