The only question when it comes to repression is: who will be in control? In terms of what has happened over the past week, it will be the ANC headed by the security cluster ministers. It the longer term, it could be the brash populists of the EFF who could take control. That much was promised shortly before the election this year by Andile Mgxitama, the EFF “commissar on land”, when he told an audience at Cape Town’s Institute for Justice and Reconciliation it was “action on the streets” that mattered; parliament was fundamentally irrelevant.
However, it seems unlikely the EFF will be allowed to grow and organise sufficiently to truly challenge the political status quo. It is much more likely that the current regime will crack down, using the “unparliamentary antics of the EFF” and the continued explosion around the country of what the police term “unrest incidents” as an excuse. And the crackdown will be in the name of patriotism and the preservation of democracy.
One should never forget that throughout the exile years the ANC always maintained it was the only true representative of “the people of South Africa”. And since the leadership of the ANC represented the movement, any challenge to that leadership was a challenge to “the people of South Africa” and amounted to treason. Such attitudes can linger for decades and, in South Africa, they have.
Amid all the turmoil, however, there are widespread calls for “social cohesion” and for citizens to become more involved in in the affairs of the country. But such involvement requires a level democratic control that is impossible under the present dispensation.
Because it is a simple fact that we do not have a democratic political system. Placing a cross on a ballot paper every five years in order to hand over political control to a party bureaucracy is democratic only in that voters willingly forgo the potential power they, collectively, have. It is, in effect, a fraudulent democracy. A constituency system is marginally better, but unless the authority is vested, on an ongoing basis, with the majority of citizens, what we have, at best, is limited or partial democracy.
The interests of politicians, many of whom move seamlessly from political office to the boardrooms of big business, lie not with the voters, but with party bureaucracies. These bureaucracies, in turn, rely for much of their funding on the financial elites whose fundamental interests are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of the population. And they who pay the piper tend always to call the tune.
So the way the system functions at the moment is in direct contradiction to the egalitarian principles contained in the Bill of Rights. This document, in fact, provides a political programme that could be agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the country’s citizens.
But in order to have the best chance of achieving such egalitarian goals democracy would have to be realised to its fullest extent; rule by the people, the definition of the term given to the world by Athenian Greece, should be implemented. In simple terms, let the people decide.
The only questions that arise, are: is widespread – extreme – democracy possible and, if so, how can it be achieved? Since systems of direct democracy have existed in the past, usually on a village level, both in Africa and elsewhere, the possibility exists. Co-operative governance, without chiefs or hereditary rulers, has been practiced in areas as diverse as the Eastern Cape and Iceland. Regular assemblies, in many cases admittedly only of men, would be called to discuss and decide, as equals, policies to be implemented and on actions to be taken by the community and for the community.
Where necessary, representatives, wholly accountable to, and recallable by, the community would be elected to carry out specific functions. The community would also decide their pay and conditions of employment. This is real democracy in action and should be the goal aimed at by every person laying claim to be a democrat.
Communication is obviously the essence here and it is readily pointed out that millions of people can hardly be gathered together on a regular basis to discuss and make decisions; that the partial democracy we now see in most countries around the world, in one form or other, is the only answer. It is not. Courtesy of the very technology that has made increasing millions of men and women redundant as workers, rather than freeing them from drudgery, it is perfectly feasible for every citizen to be kept informed, to discuss all issues and to decide on appropriate actions. But this does need to be within an agreed framework.
As we are constantly reminded, we live in a world village. But it is a village in ongoing crisis where the management structures – the governments – of a system based on competition and the pursuit of profit as an end in itself pay lip service to democratic principles. Solutions are sought in economic policy, in greater or lesser regulation of national or international economies. But without changing the political framework, this amounts only to variations on the same theme that has now clearly outlived its usefulness to humanity.
Yet the technological advances that are now proving harmful could equally be immensely beneficial. Cell phones and the Internet connect even the most remote communities — and South Africa is no exception. The latest available survey has revealed that more than 12 million South African adults regularly access the Internet.
These are people who are members of various organisations such as trade unions, religious communities, stokvels and other groups – even political parties – that come together regularly. There is also, especially in the Eastern Cape, a move toward community ‘hubs’ in the form of community schools. So units large and small of what could be a coalition of citizens already exists, along with the technology to link them.
What they lack is organisation within an agreed framework and on the basis of a set of goals and a code of conduct. The goals and the principles of conduct – effectively a political programme – exist in the Bill of Rights. As the first clause of the Bill notes, this “cornerstone of democracy… affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom”. Using existing social structures or setting up new ones in neighbourhoods or wherever, citizens, accepting the principles in the Bill of Rights, can come together as members of a coalition of equals to debate and decide on all matters concerning them.
This will require that elected representatives of such groups, at all levels, should be both accountable to, and recallable by, their constituencies. In the case of parliament, for example, this would mean each nominated candidate signing a legal agreement to accept the conditions imposed by the constituency.
Ideally, constituencies should be clearly defined and candidates for office be selected by coalition members in each constituency. However, because we are constrained by the present list system, with constituencies arbitrarily defined by political parties after the event, it will be necessary to adapt to this until change can be introduced.
This means a ‘citizens’ coalition’ putting up candidates for office who are broadly acceptable to voters in different regions and who are prepared to sign ‘constituency agreements’ whereby they agree to be wholly accountable to, and recallable by, the constituents to whom they are allocated. The proportion of votes for such a citizens’ coalition in various regions should determine the boundaries of “constituencies” and who should represent them.
Because every individual has a unique ID number, there can be little chance of duplicate membership or voting. A trade unionist, for example, may choose to be a member of a trade union unit of the coalition or of a religious, community or other grouping. Only in the unit where the coalition member is registered may a vote be recorded. This can be managed by a simple computer database.
To get such a system underway in the present conditions will perhaps require representatives from major social organisations such as trade unions, religious groups and community structures to come together to finalise the organisational details. These could be presented to the public at large for comment, criticism and eventual implementation.
The basic structure would require a database and a computerised ‘hub’ operated by people who would have no political authority. This hub would manage the membership details of those subscribing to the coalition and act as a ‘switchboard’, passing on debates, requests and arguments from various regional groupings to every coalition member. There are various ways in which this could be done, some of this almost certainly using existing social media platforms.
Such a system should be wholly transparent and, to ensure this, checks and balances would have to be put in place. What these should be and how they should operate should be one of the subjects for debate, should a national gathering come together to seriously discuss this proposal. Since the ANC, as the largest political organisation has not moved in this direction, perhaps the numerically larger groups such as Cosatu, the South African Council of Churches or other large trade unions, religious or community organisations, either alone or together, could arrange such a dialogue.
It is vital that this is done because it seems that only an extension of democracy will avoid still more suffering and desperation as the present, fundamentally undemocratic, system attempts to claw its way back to stability. It can do so, but only at terrible cost to millions of people and to the further destruction of the natural environment. The choice seems clear: an alternative is possible. Let’s build it. DM
In other news...
South Africa is in a very real battle. A political fight where terms such as truth and democracy can seem more of a suggestion as opposed to a necessity.
On one side of the battle are those openly willing to undermine the sovereignty of a democratic society, completely disregarding the weight and power of the oaths declared when they took office. If their mission was to decrease society’s trust in government - mission accomplished.
And on the other side are those who believe in the ethos of a country whose constitution was once declared the most progressive in the world. The hope that truth, justice and accountability in politics, business and society is not simply fairy tale dust sprinkled in great electoral speeches; but rather a cause that needs to be intentionally acted upon every day.
However, it would be an offensive oversight not to acknowledge that right there on the front lines, alongside whistleblowers and civil society, stand the journalists. Armed with only their determination to inform society and defend the truth, caught in the crossfire of shots fired from both sides.
If you believe in supporting the cause and the work of Daily Maverick then take your position on the battleground and sign up to Maverick Insider today.
For whatever amount you choose, you can support Daily Maverick and it only takes a minute.
Burger King is called "Hungry Jack's" in Australia. This is due to one restaurant in Adelaide having already claimed the named Burger King.