"The task at hand will not be easy, but you have mandated us to change South Africa from a land in which the majority lived with little hope, to one in which they can live and work with dignity, with a sense of self-esteem and confidence in the future." South Africa’s first democratically elected president Nelson Mandela echoed these words during his inaugural address in 1994. South Africa’s successful transition to majority rule with minimal bloodshed, saw us named the miracle nation by the world all over. South Africa's transition came at a time when democracy globally was on the ascendency with the fall of the Soviet Union, the dominance of capitalism and western-style of democracy carried the day in the 90s and South Africa was yet another example of this democratisation wave. 

Moreover, the connection made between political liberalisation and economic liberalisation was sold as a must for socio-economic development and South Africa under the leadership of President Thabo Mbeki, Finance Minister Trevor Manual, and South Africa Reserve Bank (SARB) governor Tito Mboweni, pushed South Africa towards neo-liberal policies that put the liberalisation of trade, removal of capital controls and inflation targeting at the centre of state’s plan to bring forth economic transformation. All of this in the name of increasing economic opportunity for most of the people who for 300 years were subject to colonial conquest and rule. However, while these policies increased the black middle class, and even saw a few politically connected people turn to riches, the majority of the poor who remained outside of the formal economy continued to face economic marginalisation, this seen by the rise of unemployment and poverty even as the economy grew by 4%-5% between 2001-2007. 

Today after 27 years Luthuli House at the helm of the Union Building, unemployment is at its highest, corruption scandals continue to expose the political elite as not a faction between the good and bad apples (corruption allegations against key Ramaphosa allies such as Zweli Mkhize and Oscar Mabuyane are a good example) and moral decay continues to raise the flag that the commitment made by the Father of Nation, Mandela have landed on mud. The very fact that Ramaphosa remains more popular than his political movement is a testament to the fact that while his brand remains largely untainted, the African National Congress (ANC) is widely seen not as a party of angels and demons but one where the dark forces have prevailed. However, the historical legacy of the ANC will continue to be a soft power that will save the ruling party from the exit door and the weakness of a solid opposition will continue to undermine any real chances of alternative claiming the keys. 

The implications of this are that South Africa will have to settle for a leader whose goodwill sits amoung thorns who will continue to attempt to use the state as a source of self-enrichment to detriment of the national project of restoring the dignity of the people. This would mean that South Africans will continue to accept half-hearted efforts to improve the dire situation in the name of a stable head at the top. On the other side of the ledger is the risk to choose a different path, one that entails walking away from the ANC altogether, this option may be hard for many to fathom. Our experience with coalition politics in 2016 has yielded mixed results, with opposition parties unable to meet in the middle and this has led to degree a resurgence of the ANC not for the “excellence” it brings but for the predictability it brings. Yes, South Africa may be doomed between choosing predictability versus instability of coalition politics.  The latter risks a worsening of risk trend in terms of political and policy uncertainty. An issue South Africa has largely avoided by the ANC’s dominance at the polls from the local to national level. 

Perhaps, we need to look to electoral reform as one solution to the problem. Could the direct election of our leaders to the office be the solution to our problems? In 2020, the constitutional court has already ruled in the case brought by NGO the New Nation Movement (NNM) that it was unconstitutional to prohibit independent political candidates from running for office in any level of government. The court's ratio decidendi is one step closer to broadening political participation but something must be done to reduce the cost of formal political involvement. The cost of running the local government to national government elections remains high and thus makes it difficult for those with fewer means to get involved outside of party-political formations. This elitism means that donor money will continue to unduly shape the kind of policies pursued by those running and will just lead to the same sad state of affairs where allegiance to the party and big money will outweigh the interests of the masses. 

At the end of the day, the fact that political parties decide who candidate means that we have not a representative democracy but a political elite democracy and this leaves room for political calculations and power plays at the centre of the political environment rather than the will of the people. Moreover, it means that those who chosen to represent the people owe their political allegiance to the political body rather than the electorate. They need not be qualified but politically elevated. While the constitutional court judgment highlights the importance of broadening formal participation in the political game, it does not go far enough to call on reform in our political system that ensures the people who elect representatives, are given the greater constitutional power to hold their elected officials to account. Cadre deployment will thus remain not just an ANC thing but a is a national issue impacting all political formations, and whether we like it or not it will continue to shape this country’s future unless we choose to do something new… You decide!