I am sure I am not alone in feeling somewhat underwhelmed by the final results of the recent election. In the run-up to the ballot, politicians and political pundits alike predicted that the 2009 poll would be the most significant political event in our nation's history since the advent of democracy in 1994. The vibe on election day, both on the streets and in the voting station queues, seemed to bear out this analysis. It seemed that change was imminent, that we as a nation had reached a turning-point of sorts.

But as the results began to trickle in, it became increasingly apparent that what had been expected to be a watershed event had, for the most part, turned out to be predictably mundane. Despite internecine infighting, a leader tainted by corruption charges and a dismal record on service delivery, the ANC romped home with a near two-thirds majority, garnering 65.9% of the vote. Its support did decline by a few percentage points in every province except KwaZulu-Natal.

It is difficult to say at this point whether this slight drop in support should be regarded as a harbinger of further future electoral decline or a mere stumble on the ruling party's path to even greater political dominance. The DA made modest gains in the polls, securing 16.66% of the national ballot.  However, it managed to win outright control of the Western Cape, the first time this has occurred since 1994.

Newcomer Cope made a respectable showing given its age and limited resources, winning 7.42% of the national ballot and attaining official opposition status in five of the country's nine provinces.  But it hardly shook up the electoral landscape in the manner predicted at the time of its launch several months back.

All in all, the 2009 elections were characterised by subtle, rather than seismic, tectonic shifts. When the heat and dust of electoral battle had settled, very little had really changed.  Give or take a few percentage points, the 2009 ballot remained a dull and predictable process akin to an ethnic census, just as it had been in the three democratic elections preceding it.

The 2009 elections have confirmed without a doubt that race is the overriding criterion determining which party a South African chooses to vote for.  As a result, the issues which should be electorally decisive in any functional democracy - the state of the economy, clean government, administrative efficiency, commitment to the rule of law - were apparently swept aside as relatively unimportant when the electorate went to the polls.

Hence the ANC's whopping win, corruption scandals and chronic service delivery failures notwithstanding.

While the ruling party failed to secure a two-thirds majority, it will easily be able to rustle up another three votes from various smaller parties of a similar ideological persuasion.  Thus, it has effectively secured itself a two-thirds majority and can therefore do as it pleases as regards constitutional reform. 

The DA's outright win in the Western Cape is perhaps the only truly dramatic outcome of the election.  However, whether its provincial victory will translate into increased support nationally and in other provinces in subsequent elections is questionable. 

While Helen Zille is surely sincere in her efforts to transcend racial voting patterns and build a consolidated multiracial opposition, the results of the recent elections are a stark indication that black voters still resolutely refuse to support a political party perceived as acting in furtherance of minority interests.

The DA ran an energetic and inspired campaign, but the depressing truth is that the DA's victory in the Western Cape had more to do with demographics than ideology.  Simply put, the DA would not have won the Western Cape had there been fewer white and coloured and more African voters in that province.

The DA has managed to win the trust of the overwhelming majority of white, Indian and coloured voters, taking the Western Cape as a result.  But to whom will it turn next to extend its gains?

No matter how clean, efficient and effective the DA governance of the Western Cape turns out to be, it is unlikely that black voters will support it in 2011 or 2014, either in the Western Cape itself or in the other provinces.  It is a question of ethnic identification and identity politics: the DA remains, in the eyes of the African electorate, a white party which is not to be trusted.  Given this country's history, that is perfectly understandable.

That Cope managed to secure only 7.42% of the national ballot clearly indicates that it failed to succeed in making substantial inroads into the ANC's support base.

This is not surprising.  Despite the fanfare with which it was launched, it soon became apparent that Cope lacked the vigour and ideological coherence required to make an impressive showing in the elections.  The party flip-flopped embarrassingly on such key issues as affirmative action and BEE in an attempt simultaneously to win the support of both white and black voters.  In the end, it didn't secure the trust of substantial numbers of either group. 

So where does that leave us?  Why, with the whites in one corner and the blacks in the other, in the tried and true South African tradition.

The future of vibrant and effective multiparty democracy in South Africa depends on the emergence of a truly multiracial and multiclass opposition that can challenge the ANC on a range of social and economic issues.  South Africans of all races need to learn to coalesce politically around values, not racial identity.

It is therefore regrettable that Cope, which attracts significant black support, has categorically rejected any notion that it might form a coalition with the DA in the Western Cape.  Such an arrangement might have gone some way towards dismantling the racially bifurcated nature of the South African polity.

James Linscott is a lawyer. He writes in his personal capacity.