SA's stride since the dawn of democracy

JOHANNESBURG - South Africa marks 31 years of freedom today.
Today commemorates the first post-Apartheid election, held on this day more than three decades ago.
Now while many are critical about our political, financial and economic freedoms, we should never forget the gains that we've made.
Historian, poet, multi-award winning sculptor and activist in the struggle against Apartheid, Professor Pitika Ntuli discussed the strides made since the dawn of democracy.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Maverick

4 days ago

• Daily Maverick

Coalition governance: Will the GNU forge a new centrist political landscape?

There is the potential that the ANC and DA partnership in the GNU may provide the impetus for a new centrist political consensus for South Africa, which spans ideology, race and class in the country's politics, economics and society. Given that coalitions at the national level will from now onwards be the dominant form of governance, South Africa's Government of National Unity (GNU), whether it is successful or not, may very likely be the catalyst over time to unleash a much-needed realignment of the country's current not-fit-for-purpose political party system, with its origins in our apartheid-era divisions, into future national coalitions that could group political party coalitions into pro-constitutional versus populist ones. There is the potential that the ANC and DA partnership in the GNU may over time provide the impetus for President Cyril Ramaphosa's social democratic, constitutionalist, and non-racial wing of the ANC to partner with the DA in a long-term governing pact, like for example the post-World War 2 coalition between Germany's Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian ally, the Christian Social Union (CSU), or they may even merge. Such a new political party arrangement could, over time, lead to the formation of a new pragmatic centrist political consensus for South Africa, which spans ideology, race and class in the country's politics, economics and society. South Africa needs such a new pragmatic, Constitution-based, evidence-based policy that is racially inclusive, with centrist governing consensus that goes beyond past entrenched apartheid-era political party divisions. South Africa's current identity-based, past-based, outdated ideology-based, narrow village-view outlook of political party politics, and slogans for policies, is not fit for purpose for the requirements of Constitutional democracy, or to ensure effective public service delivery or for non-racial unity. South Africa will not be able to tackle its complex problems based on the current flawed political party set-up. The reality is that South Africa is facing deep existential crises, which one ethnic group, party, or colour alone cannot solve. There is currently a fierce battle within the ANC between the party's constitutionalist, Social Democratic and non-racial wing that favours the ANC's GNU alliance with the DA and members of the former Multiparty Charter (MPC); and the left populist wing of the party, centred around the ANC's Gauteng provincial party, who want the ANC to align with the populist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and former president Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party. The endgame of this internal ANC battle may be another split in the ANC, possibly this time between the party's constitutionalist, Social Democratic and non-racial wing on the one hand; and on the other hand, the remainder of its left populist wing that has not defected to either the EFF or MK party. Ironically, Zuma, immediately after the GNU announcement, angrily said that the ANC partnering with the former Multiparty Charter or 'Moonshot Pact' parties, the Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party and the Freedom Front Plus, meant the ANC had now joined the Multiparty Charter. There is some truth in his statement. South African Communist Party Chairperson Blade Nzimande at the party's fifth Special National Congress in December 2024 said: '(The) Moonshot Pact whose aim was bringing the ANC under 50%… They attained their goal of bringing the ANC under 50%.' Moonshot and doomsday The Multiparty Charter was aimed at kick-starting the realignment of South Africa's politics. The original agreement was that the 15-party member Multiparty Charter would, if the ANC fell below 50% in the 29 May 2024 elections, form a government, if needed, with pro-constitutional, business-friendly, civil society-friendly and media freedom supportive and racial diversity supporting parties, not part of the Multiparty Charter, but part of a Multiparty Charter Plus, who would be willing to govern with the group. The idea was that if the charter was unable to put together a national government, they would go into opposition as a collective and fight the 2026 local and the 2029 elections together. By working together in a pre-electoral coalition, the Multiparty Charter's aim was, whether in power or in opposition, to lay the foundations for the possibility for some members of the charter to be in a permanent coalition, or some members even merging in the future. The outcome of the 29 May 2024 general elections were dramatically different from what Multiparty Charter members or even the ANC or EFF had projected. The ANC dropped below the psychological barrier of 40% to 39.7% after the IEC's final audit of the results. Many of the Multiparty Charter members obtained fewer votes than they thought they would get. Although the collective opposition secured 61% of the vote, the Multiparty Charter group — even with the additional Multiparty Charter Plus members, parties such as Bosa and Rise Mzansi, who were not part of the charter, but who were open to joining it in the government — could not put together a government, because they would have needed the support of anti-constitutional parties the MK party and EFF, which want anti-democratic changes to the Constitution. A key pillar of the Multiparty Charter agreement was not to work with the ANC or with unconstitutional, violent parties or those that opposed non-racialism. The combination of bringing the ANC to below the 40% floor, and the inability to put together an alternative government of opposition parties, left the Multiparty Charter with one of two alternatives. The Multiparty Charter could stick with its founding agreement not to partner with the ANC and go into opposition, using the time also to forge closer unity. The charter, in opposition, could then benefit from the country's doomsday crash and in the 2029 election come to power. However, this would leave the ANC to partner with the EFF and MK in a 'doomsday' populist coalition that could lead to capital flight, skills flight, the rand to crash, and more state failure, lawlessness and corruption. In such a scenario, the Multiparty Charter would take over an Argentinian-collapse-like country. The other option was to ditch the Multiparty Charter principle of not partnering with the ANC, in order to try to prevent a South African crash, by partnering with the ANC to create a centrist leaning growth coalition. Key members of the Multiparty Charter, such as the DA, the IFP and Freedom Front Plus, decided to co-govern with the ANC, to prevent a 'doomsday' crash government. ActionSA and the African Christian Democratic Party declined to work with the ANC, deciding to stay true to the original Multiparty Charter agreement, that if the charter could not put together a government, it must as a group oppose the ANC in opposition, and then fight the 2026 local government elections and the 2029 national elections together. Unintended realignment The GNU is likely to change the ANC — and may lead to another breakaway in the ANC, between the pro-GNU and anti-GNU groups. There is a coming fallout within the ANC tripartite alliance of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and SACP, between the factions that want to continue the ANC having a partnership with the former Multiparty Charter members; and the factions wanting the ANC to align with the EFF and MK, formed by breakaway ANC members. The SACP claimed the ANC's partnership with the DA, IFP and FF Plus was the party embracing 'white monopoly capital'. The SACP will now contest the upcoming local elections as a separate party to the ANC. Cosatu said it remained 'concerned' about the DA/IFP/FF Plus inclusion in the GNU, and that it wanted the ANC to pursue a 'different option', meaning a GNU partnership with the EFF/MK. The endgame of this internal ANC battle may be another split in the ANC, this time between the party's constitutionalist, Social Democratic and non-racial wing and the remainder of its left populist wing, that has not defected to either the EFF or MK party. South Africa desperately needs a consolidation of parties. Many of the current parties should ideally close down, fold into bigger parties, or smaller parties should merge. If a consolidation of parties is not the route taken, then South African parties should form coalitions whereby they operate almost as one party, but retain their individual identity. Most of South Africa's parties share the same policies, ideologies, slogans and even colours, which can rarely be distinguished from one another, beyond having different leaders. Despite the many parties, South African voters have little choice, as parties are all the same. This is one of the reasons why so many parties get so few votes in elections, and why many South Africans refrain from voting. Sadly, gangsters, populists, ideologues, the prejudiced, the narrow-minded, the violent, the ignorant, and the corrupt are increasingly dominating South Africa's mainstream politics, economic, public and cultural discourse. The failure of the ANC-run state, the decline of the economy and the rising fracture of society, because the ANC, before the GNU, had become increasingly racially exclusionary, gave the space to populists, the corrupt, the violent and ideologues to mobilise support based on narrow identity laager politics, and to secure parliamentary and municipal positions. It is critical that the angry, violent, ignorant, narrow-minded and populist 'leaders' and groups on both the far left and far right be prevented from dominating South Africa's mainstream politics. South Africa needs a new pragmatic centre based on the embrace of the Constitution, common sense, reality, pragmatism and racial inclusivity. Such a new pragmatic centre must be based on honesty, decency, rationality and compassion that goes across race, identity or political affiliation and on governing in the widest public interests of all South Africans. The unintended impact of the GNU could just be such a realignment of the country's political parties, which could transform components of the current GNU political parties into a long-term centrist national coalition. DM Professor William Gumede is based at the School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand, and is the author of the bestselling Restless Nation: Making Sense of Troubled Times; and former Independent Chairperson of the negotiations to establish the Multiparty Charter (Moonshot Pact), the 15-party pre-electoral opposition coalition group before the 29 May 2024 general elections, and advised parties in their negotiations to form the Government of National Unity.

IOL News

6 days ago

• IOL News

Rethinking Leadership: A Diplomatic Reflection on US Global Primacy in a Changing World

In a world increasingly defined by rivalry, Daryl Swanepoel explores the implications of US global primacy and the potential for a cooperative approach to leadership in a multipolar landscape. Image: Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images / AFP By Daryl Swanepoel In recent months, I have found myself increasingly reflecting on the shifting nature of global politics, specifically the intensifying polarisation between the United States and its perceived rivals. The increasingly assertive tone from Washington, the vilification of competing powers and the strategic hardening of positions have given rise to a growing sense of unease. What is driving this renewed emphasis on confrontation and to what end? As someone who believes deeply in the value of cooperation, mutual respect and inclusive progress, I worry that we are witnessing the re-emergence of a Cold War mindset. One that risks undermining the hard-won gains of multilateralism, development cooperation and global solidarity forged in the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras. This article is not written to cast blame or take sides. Not at all. Rather, it is a diplomatic reflection, offered in the spirit of constructive questioning. It is an invitation to consider whether the United States, in its response to rising global competitors, particularly China, might find greater strength not in reasserting dominance, but in reimagining leadership for a multipolar world. The question of economic supremacy: Zero-sum or shared growth? At the heart of US strategic thinking lies a long-standing belief that being the world's number one economy is essential, not just for domestic prosperity, but for global leadership. This belief is understandable, especially given the remarkable contributions the United States has made to global development, innovation and stability over the past century. However, in today's deeply interconnected world, the notion of absolute economic dominance may no longer be the most rational or productive aspiration. Global prosperity increasingly depends on collaboration, mutual resilience and inclusive growth. Nations benefit when others succeed. A more prosperous China, India, Brazil or South Africa, for instance, can become valuable partners in trade, climate action and technological progress. If the primary concern is the well-being of ordinary Americans, it may be worth asking whether the US economy truly requires global supremacy or whether a competitive, but cooperative international environment would better serve national interests. After all, many high-income, high-wellbeing nations have flourished without being number one. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Military strength and strategic intentions: Security or supremacy? The United States maintains by far the world's most powerful military. Officially, this is framed as a commitment to protecting global peace and defending democratic allies. Yet, as with any great power, questions inevitably arise around intent. Are all military deployments and alliances purely defensive in nature or are they at times a means to maintain strategic dominance? This is not to cast doubt on America's intentions. Rather it is to raise a broader philosophical question: Can lasting peace be achieved through perpetual pre-eminence or does real security come from shared norms and mutual respect among sovereign states? Indeed, the human cost of military overreach is significant, not just for those abroad, but also for American taxpayers and veterans. Might some of these resources be more effectively channelled into serving domestic priorities, such as education, health, infrastructure and innovation, as well as multilateral diplomacy? The Rare Earths race: A case study in strategic anxiety Rare earth elements, crucial for green energy, high-tech manufacturing, and defence, have become a flashpoint in US - China competition. Understandably, the US seeks to secure its supply chains and reduce dependence. But here, too, a distinction should be made: Is the primary goal strategic autonomy or the preservation of industrial dominance? The answer matters, especially when we consider how resource competition can shape global policy. If the priority is sustainability and global equity, international cooperation, including with China, on responsible mining, environmental safeguards and technology sharing may be more ethical and effective than a scramble for control. Self-interest and the ethics of leadership It is fair and expected that nations act in their own interests. But the United States has long aspired to more than that. It has projected itself as a moral leader, a defender of freedom and a steward of international norms. From a global humanistic perspective, this moral leadership is best upheld not through dominance, but through example. That means: Applying human rights principles consistently, regardless of a country's strategic value. Supporting democratic institutions globally without coercion. Championing fair trade, climate finance and technology access for developing nations. The concern, increasingly voiced in academic and diplomatic circles, is that the moral clarity of US leadership may be muddied when values appear to be applied selectively. When the US critiques China's governance, but at the same time maintains close ties with other autocratic states for strategic reasons, the message becomes blurred. Again, this is not a criticism, but a concern that selective advocacy may inadvertently diminish the US's soft power and global legitimacy. China's rise: A threat or a test of adaptability? It is true that China operates under a vastly different political model and is increasingly assertive in its foreign policy. Differences as to the Chinese interpretation of human rights, assertiveness in the South China Sea and digital surveillance are valid and deserve attention. However, China's economic rise is not, in itself, an aggressive act. It reflects long-term planning, population scale and integration into global markets. In many ways, China's development mirrors that of other industrialised nations, only faster. Its growing influence, particularly in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, presents a real challenge to US influence. But is the best response to contain China or to renew US engagement with these regions on more equal, less conditional terms? The Global South increasingly sees China as a viable partner, not necessarily because of ideology, but because of perceived respect and responsiveness. The question I am pondering is whether the United States can respond to this shift not by resisting change, but by reimagining its own global engagement. Toward a shared future At this pivotal moment, the United States has a choice. It can double down on hegemony, viewing China's rise as a zero-sum threat to be countered at all cost. Or it can step into a more mature form of leadership; one that recognises the inevitability of a multipolar world and embraces cooperative stewardship over combative supremacy. This path does not demand retreat. Rather, it calls for confidence. Confidence in America's enduring strengths: its open society, its innovation culture, its civil society and its democratic ideals. Being 'number one' may no longer be the most important metric. Perhaps being first among equals, in ethics, generosity, and global cooperation, will define the most respected and resilient leaders of tomorrow. Conclusion The United States has long stood at the crossroads of power and principle. As global dynamics shift, its greatest strength may lie not in resisting change, but in embracing it with humility, adaptability and renewed moral clarity. The world does not need a guardian, it needs a partner. And there is perhaps no nation better positioned than the United States to lead in that spirit, if it so chooses. * Daryl Swanepoel is the Chief Executive Officer of the Inclusive Society Institute. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

IOL News

15-06-2025

• IOL News

Emulating the 1976 generation will require resilience, innovation

On June 16, 1976, thousands of students in Soweto took to the streets to demonstrate against Bantu Education and the imposition of Afrikaans in their schools. We owe the 1976 generation not silence, but succession. Not nostalgia, but nation-building, says the writer. Zamikhaya Maseti As we mark June 16, 2025, forty-nine years since the uprising, we must ask not for the sake of ritual but for the sake of our republic: Where is the youth of today? What are they confronting? Do they carry the same fire, and crucially, do they have control over their economic destiny as the 1976 generation had over the political one? On June 16, 1976, the youth of this land, armed with nothing but conviction and the matchbox of defiance, took to the streets and declared war against the Apartheid state. They confronted tanks with chants. Today's youth stand at a different frontline. It is not one patrolled by army vehicles and tear gas but by unemployment, under-skilling, digital exclusion, and economic marginalisation. The war is no longer for votes but for value. And make no mistake, it is no less urgent. Recent QLFS data from Stats SA (Q1 2025) reveal that out of 8.2 million officially unemployed South Africans, 4.8 million youths aged 15–34 remain jobless, pushing the youth unemployment rate to 46.1 per cent, a yawning gap compared to the 32.9 per cent general rate. Moreover, 58.7 per cent of these unemployed youths are first-time seekers, indicating acute structural unemployment and a stalling of labour market entry. The NEET rate (Not in Employment, Education or Training) stands at 45.1 per cent, signifying profound cyclical and frictional unemployment constraints. In macroeconomic terms, this cohort's participation inertia and underabsorption exacerbate the natural rate of unemployment and depress potential GDP growth, a symptom of underleveraged human capital and insufficient aggregate demand. This is not merely a labour market problem; it is a national emergency. While the youth of 1976 wielded placards and songs as instruments of change, today's youth grips smartphones and Wi-Fi logins, but to what end? The digital economy, the new battlefield of production and innovation, has found them mostly on the periphery. They scroll. They consume. They swipe through innovations imported from elsewhere, yet their fingerprints are absent from the circuitry of invention. This is not participation; it is passive absorption. There lies a pressing obligation on the Ministry of Science and Technology, indeed, on the entire State apparatus, to respond not with speeches but with strategy. The young must be repositioned from being spectators in the Fourth Industrial Revolution to being its architects. We must ask, urgently and boldly: Where is our National Youth Tech Incubator? Where is our State-funded Digital Skills Academy, open to township youth, free at the point of use, and rich in ambition? A well-articulated and cross-sectoral Country Youth Employment Strategy is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. This strategy must locate and activate the engines of growth where youth can insert themselves, not as interns but as innovators, not as job seekers but as job creators. We must also interrogate the voluntaristic landscape of Youth employment interventions, particularly the much-lauded Youth Employment Service (YES), a Presidentially endorsed mechanism aimed at integrating first-time job seekers into the formal economy. At the surface level, YES presents as a visionary model: private sector collaboration, placement targets, and experiential learning. But scratch beneath the glossy annual reports and you find a structure held up by corporate voluntarism, not sovereign will. The State applauds from the sidelines but does not fund from the centre. There is no budget line in the National Treasury with YES's name in lights. This is the central contradiction: a government that rhetorically champions the program but refuses to place fiscal muscle behind it. Without direct state investment, YES remains a charity model in a crisis economy, admirable, but insufficient. It cannot absorb the millions locked out of labour markets, nor can it scale against systemic constraints without an injection of public capital, regulatory certainty, and structural alignment with industrial policy. Voluntarism without velocity breeds stagnation. And the youth are tired of waiting. Our macroeconomic data whispers a truth we must listen to: agriculture and manufacturing remain the pillars of our GDP, yet they stand like old factories, functional, but underutilised. These sectors require not only revitalisation but also infusion of young blood. In agriculture, particularly, the crisis is grave and immediate. The post-1994 public sector cohort of agricultural bureaucrats is now ageing, and with them, the institutional memory of land and food security is fading. We are sleepwalking toward a nutritional catastrophe. Shockingly, we have 49 South African farmers, yes, forty-nine, now refugees in the United States. They are not coming back. The Minister of Land Reform must act decisively and distribute those abandoned farms, not tomorrow, not after another feasibility study, but now, as part of a radical agrarian reset. Land is not only a historical grievance; it is a living resource. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is not merely a diplomatic trophy; it is an economic corridor. But who walks through its gates? If our youth do not take up the challenge of intra-African trade, someone else will. Already, the machinery of cross-border commerce is moving, but our youth remain untrained in the languages of export regulation, fintech, and customs compliance. This is where the State must intervene with scholarships, borderless internships, with youth-led export hubs. To shape the economy, the youth must first be armed with skills. Yes, the youth of 1976 defined their destiny. They defied an oppressive order and offered themselves to history's altar. The youth of today must do the same, except their struggle is not to enter the political system but to redesign the economic one. They must ask themselves not 'What is to be done?' but 'What must we build? 'June 16, 2025, must not pass like a calendar commemoration. It must sting. It must summon. It must stir our policymakers from their slumber and our Young people from their scrolls. We owe the 1976 generation not silence, but succession. Not nostalgia, but nation-building. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.