The government of national unity’s concept carries profound implications in South Africa’s political landscape, suggesting a coalition where diverse political groups collaborate for the greater good. But recent criticisms, including from figures like former president Jacob Zuma, cast doubt on the current government’s alignment with this ideal, raising concerns about transparency and public perception.
As South Africa grapples with its complex past and envisions a hopeful future, the notion of forging a new social contract and the potential effect of a government of national unity (GNU) have emerged as pivotal themes. The recent episode of The Big Debate, featuring a diverse panel of thinkers and activists, underscored the urgency of addressing these issues to heal our nation and build a more inclusive and equitable society.
A new social contract for South Africa is not merely a political or legal document, it is a collective agreement encompassing our shared values, aspirations and commitments to each other as citizens. It requires acknowledging the deep wounds inflicted by centuries of colonialism and apartheid, as articulated by decolonial scholar Dr Wanelisa Xaba. She poignantly described South Africa as a “500-year-old infected wound”, highlighting the need for more than just superficial fixes like the democratic promises of 1994. While groundbreaking in many ways, our Constitution cannot address the persisting profound structural and intergenerational traumas.
Section 18 of the GNU framework mandates that decisions must be made by consensus, requiring all parties to agree for a decision to be approved. This provision ensures that diverse viewpoints are considered and integrated into policymaking. But this also raises questions about the efficiency and practicality of such an approach. How will the unity government handle potential deadlocks, and can it move beyond mere symbolic unity to achieve tangible results?
Section 19 provides provisions for cases where consensus cannot be reached, allowing parties to formally record their objections and consider them before a 60% majority decides. This mechanism aims to balance inclusivity with the need for decisive action. Will this “sufficient consensus” system maintain unity and progress, or will it lead to further fragmentation and inefficiency?
One of the critical issues that the new social contract must address is xenophobia. South Africa has witnessed numerous outbreaks of violence against foreign nationals, often fuelled by economic frustrations and misguided perceptions that foreigners are taking jobs and resources from locals. This xenophobia undermines our national unity and tarnishes our commitment to human rights and dignity.
Methodist Bishop Paul Verryn highlighted the importance of addressing the root causes of xenophobia, which include poverty, unemployment and poor education. He stated, “We must adopt a compassionate and inclusive approach that sees foreign nationals not as criminals but as fellow human beings contributing to the country’s diversity and economic vitality.”
The concept of a GNU offers a framework for inclusive governance that could bring together diverse political perspectives to address our nation’s most pressing challenges. The new cabinet, which includes members from various political parties, exemplifies this inclusive approach.
South Africa’s government of national unity is not the first of its kind. For example, Kenya’s unity government, formed in 2008 after post-election violence, showed how political inclusivity can stabilise a country. Zimbabwe’s GNU from 2009 to 2013 also aimed to restore economic stability and peace. These examples demonstrate both the potential benefits and challenges of such coalitions.
While South Africa’s GNU framework offers a semblance of unity and cooperation, the effectiveness of such a coalition hinges on more than just political representation. It demands rigorous oversight, transparent decision-making processes and genuine collaboration for meaningful reform. Can a coalition encompassing such divergent ideologies and priorities deliver coherent policies that benefit all South Africans, or will it succumb to internal discord and ideological clashes?
In the words of our Constitution preamble, “We, the people of South Africa, recognise the injustices of our past, honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land, respect those who have worked to build and develop our country, and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.” This vision must guide us as we work towards a new social contract and a truly united nation.
To achieve this vision, we need to take specific steps. Policymakers should pledge to participate in real collaboration, rigorous oversight and transparent decision-making processes. Citizens must hold their leaders accountable and take an active role in rebuilding our society. We can create a more inclusive and equitable South Africa by working together.
Thabo Motshweni is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg.
