For fifteen years South Africans have been able to freely elect their government. But many communities, such as that in Sakhile outside Standerton, behave as if the ANC is an illegitimate regime. These communities are increasingly resorting to violence to get the Government's attention. In most cases they turn to violence despite the legitimate democratic channels that are open to them to address their grievances. The government and the ANC are therefore quite correct not to tolerate such lawlessness and to deploy the security forces to crack down hard on any community that threatens violence against the State.
The residents of Sakhile township near Standerton in Mpumalanga must go home. They must remove the barricades they have put up in the streets and return their township to normality. If they do not then the State must bring the full might of the law to bear on them. The manner of their violent protest of recent weeks has little legitimacy in a democracy like South Africa. They voted for the Government they got and until the next election must live with the consequences of that choice.
The ANC is not an illegitimate regime foisted on Sakhile. Counting all national and local government elections the Sakhile residents have voted for an ANC Government 7 times in the last 15 years. The last national election was only six months ago! That is an unambiguous mandate that the residents of that township have chosen the people and the type of Government that they want to live under.
But for the last three weeks those same voters have been leading violent and anarchic protests against this same Government. These have effectively shut down parts of Standerton and caused great damage to public buildings, private businesses, and the local economy. The violent nature of their protest has been reported in the international media to show South Africa as being plagued by public violence and anarchy. Standing among armoured personnel carriers television journalists are broadcasting from 'safety zones' outside the township and reporting that they 'may go in tonight' as if they were reporting from some far off war zone. Soon they will be wearing bullet proof vests and helmets creating the impression of South Africa as being anything but the democracy that it is.
The residents of Sakhile seek to justify their conduct on the grounds that their local council is corrupt and has not provided them with the services they were promised. But these are not grounds for public violence.
If the residents are aware of corruption in the township they must open cases with the police. If the police do not act they must complain to the Independent Complaints Directorate. If they are not happy with service delivery they must complain to their ward councillor. If that does not help they must write a letter to their MP. They can even gather for peaceful public meetings or marches. If that does not work they can now even phone the presidential hotline and complain. If the hotline staff do not help them that is tough because this is all the action our democracy allows.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a plan B clause that says that if you are not happy with the Government you voted for you may engage in all sorts of mayhem and public violence in order to get what you want. There is no justification for Sakhile residents to burn down government buildings, throw stones at the police, blockade public roads, or destroy private businesses. They cannot demand that if the councillors that they voted for do not step down they will cause more anarchy and violence. Nor can they threaten violence if the president does not immediately and personally attend to their grievances.
Before 1994 when South Africa was ruled by an illegitimate white regime such action may have been justified. The majority of the people had no say in how they were governed. They had every right to resist the government that was thrust upon them. The legitimacy of such action ceased in 1994 when for the first time South Africans were led by a Government of their choosing. The free and fair nature of that election, and of each of the following six elections, disqualified the citizenry from resorting to violent means or threats to change their Government.
Our democracy only has a plan A clause which allows its citizens to access all manner of democratic institutions to address their grievances. Where these do not adequately address the concerns of citizens they have the opportunity every few years to vote. In just under two year's time there will be another such opportunity at local government level. That is the one and only occasion at which citizens can enforce a change in who governs them. They do so in a peaceful and orderly way by making a cross on a piece of paper and they live with the consequences of that decision until the next election comes along.
That the Sakhile residents live in squalor while their representatives in the Government allegedly steal from them is the fault of those same residents. They returned their local council and national representatives to power election after election even though they must have been aware of how little those same officials and representatives were doing for them. If all other democratic avenues are closed to Sakhile's residents they must wait for the 2011 local government elections and then vote for an opposition party of which there are many. If they do not want to do that then they must stay at home in their shacks and their RDP houses because our democracy offers them no other options.
While the Sakhile residents effectively squandered the power inherent in their vote they now behave as if they can resort to plan B. This is not only a problem in Sakhile but in hundreds of small towns across the country. It is also a growing problem which undermines democratic institutions and is starting to represent a threat to the rule of law. The State must not tolerate such public anarchy. The Government is therefore justified in deploying the security services to crack down on any looting and public violence.
They should indentify the agitators and instigators behind such violence and arrest them. Communities, no matter how poor, must accept that apartheid ended 15 years ago and with it any right they may have had to threaten violence against the State. They must realize that if they use extra-constitutional means to change their government they will be met by the full might of the law.
This is not the first time that this column is left to conclude how peculiar it is that a country and people that suffered so much for the right to vote have been so reluctant to employ that hard won right. It seems that many would rather resort to the violence and anarchy of the past and threaten the very democracy they fought so hard to create.
Frans Cronje is deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations. This article first appeared in the Institute's online newsletter, SAIRR Today, October 15 2009
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
