A number of reports have called South Africa a politically polarised society. This may seem uncontroversial, given the country’s history of dispossession and discrimination during colonialism and apartheid, and their continuing legacy after 30 years of democracy.
But my analysis of South African history and politics disputes this view.
The Atlantic Council reported ahead of the country’s May elections that, although the country ranked “very high” on elections and political rights, a slight
negative trend may be attributed to political polarisation.
The Democracy and Development Progam said party loyalty and political popularisation could make it difficult for people to accept electoral outcomes that were not in their favour.
For its part, the Edelman Trust Barometer recently ranked South Africa among the most politically polarised countries in the world, along with Argentina, Colombia, the US, Spain and Sweden.
Political polarisation, it argued, was an outcome of decreasing economic optimism, consequent rising distrust in government, and a widening gap in incomes at the extremes. Distrust in the established media was growing, with people increasingly receiving their information from social media “echo chambers”.
This assertion that polarisation in South Africa is extreme is widely cultivated by notions that the country’s politics is split along lines of “race” and class. Of black versus white, and rich versus poor. Given the country’s brutal history, this isn’t surprising.
However, based on my analysis of South Africa’s political landscape since the 1970s, I believe we should be careful about accepting the notion that the country is politically polarised. This matters because some argue that polarisation is dangerous, leading to political gridlock, instability and collapse of democracy. In short, if South Africa is politically polarised, then democracy would appear to be on the way out. But is this so?
If the country was as politically polarised as suggested, this would presumably have been reflected by the outcome of the 2024 general election. But the results indicated very clearly that the country is not divided into two antagonistic camps. The longtime governing African National Congress won 40% of the vote. The opposition Democratic Alliance won nearly 22%. Although ideologically divided, they found enough ground in common to form the core of a government of national unity. It presently consists of ten parties.
This has been widely interpreted as the political centre having held. This is endorsed by opinion poll findings indicating that the unity government is giving rise to greater optimism about the future.
Political polarisation
American political scientists trying to understand the rise of Donald Trump to the US presidency in 2016 developed the notion of political polarisation.They had always recognised that the American electorate was divided along class, ideology and political interest lines. Now they identified it as divided into mutually antagonistic camps.
Democrats and Republicans had come to view each other as an existential threat to their nation or way of life.
The political scientists went on to identify similar processes taking place in many countries across the world. They argued that this was undermining the capacity of democracy to survive.
All this taps into the recognition that socio-economic inequality has dramatically increased globally since the 1980s. This has undermined trust in established political institutions and parties. The outcome has been the rise of increasingly extremist modes of politics. Populist politicians encourage this. They mobilise support by dividing society into bitterly opposed groups. They then pose as saviours of honest citizens under attack by established elites, a “deep state”, or unwelcome and exploitative outsiders. The extreme inequalities in South Africa have enabled similar scenarios.
Contrary evidence
In South Africa, during the Jacob Zuma presidency, 2009-2018, members of the governing ANC’s “radical economic transformation” faction made numerous attacks on “white monopoly capital”. The suggestion was that shadowy apartheid-era economic forces were subverting the country’s democracy.
Whether this reflected reality was less important to the faction than using it to mobilise political opinion. The notion was that, despite the formal arrival of democracy in 1994, South Africa was still run by a rich white minority at the expense of the mass of black South Africans.
Read more: South Africa's foreign policy: a unity government must be practical in a turbulent world
Some politicians seek political support by using polarising language and terminology. But does that mean South Africa is politically polarised?
Careful reflection suggests otherwise.
The South Africa of the 1970s and 1980s, when the anti-apartheid struggle was at its height, was manifestly polarised between the apartheid government and the forces of democracy. Yet today, after the sixth democratic election, the unity government is holding together, despite policy differences between the ANC and DA (who between them took nearly two-thirds of the votes cast). For the moment at least, they are exploring ways to agree how to disagree. The country remains divided in many ways. Yet it is not polarised into irreconcilably antagonistic camps with wildly opposing world views.
Tensions
There are nevertheless tensions.
An alternative interpretation of the 2024 election result is that South African politics is dividing those who adhere to the legitimacy of the democratic constitution and those who don’t.
The surprise appearance of Zuma’s uMkhontho we Sizwe Party (MK) was the major factor leading to the ANC losing is majority, down from 57% in 2019 to 40% in 2024. MK won 14%. It has thrown its lot in with Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), whose share of the vote fell to 9%, to form the “Progressive Caucus” in the national assembly. Together they now make up the core of the opposition.
The MK Party wants to replace the present constitution. It argues that the constitution enables the courts to declare acts passed by parliament unconstitutional, and it denies majority rule. Meanwhile, the EFF has long displayed its contempt for many aspects of the constitution.
It is therefore unsurprising that the Progressive Caucus has been cited as an alliance of anti-constitutional forces, heralding the division of South Africa into two warring camps.
Considerable opposition within the ANC to the government of national unity confirms that the party is in danger of further fragmentation. Those hostile to the coalition with the DA might jump ship.
This does not necessarily add up to a united, anti-constitutionalist opposition.
Nonetheless, what the Edelman Trust Report and other surveys do confirm is that trust in the government and other national institutions, such as the judiciary, police and the electoral authorities, is declining. A similar thing is happening in many other democracies.
In the recent elections, only 58% of the registered electorate voted. The low level of participation is worrying. It’s a sign that democracy is not working as well as it should for a large minority of the population.
But only further probing will show whether that minority is resolutely antagonistic to the constitution.
Roger Southall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
