Establishing two political systems in South Africa; a paradigm shift: The masses must remain represented and the empowered must protect their interests to avoid anarchy, revolution and tyranny

I have been engaging my mind on trying to anticipate the most appropriate political system that would best serve our diverse needs given that, the democracy we have created has not necessarily delivered an efficient selection system of political leadership, an efficient public resource management regime and economic prosperity and transformation as intended.

This we have experienced particularly in Africa where, despite the masses having the right to vote, the so called democratic systems and processes have tended to promote populist leaders who, once they attain power, have not been necessarily concerned on the preservation and promotion of the common good. Instead, the conditions of life and justice have tended to depreciate to the injury of the economic objectives of transformation and the political objectives of inclusive governance.

In his theory on Politics, Aristotle examined in his times, the various political systems and tried to articulate on the disadvantages of each. Of interest to me and relevance to our times, I think, are the political systems of democracy and oligarchy. According to Aristotle, "A democracy exists whenever those who are free and are not well-off, being in the majority, are in sovereign control of government, an oligarchy when control lies with the rich and better-born, these being few"

This has led me to ask the question that: are those who are free and not well-off, being in the majority in South Africa, in sovereign control of government? Are the masses who go and vote every so often in control of the government? I would argue to the contrary that, in most African states such as ours, besides having the institutions that represent  democracy and voting systems that are inclusive, we effectively have oligarchies: these being essentially power structures where the power rests with a small number of people, mainly those individuals, families and organizations that were involved in the liberation struggle. Or those individuals, families and organizations that are associated to liberation struggle political parties in power by some historical coincidence or past munificence.

The emergence of these oligarchies essentially means that Africa is still therefore, to experience true democracy in its full sense and whether that is a future possibility remains to be seen.

My view is that, post independent Africa has seen the emergence of an indigenous ruling and capitalist class who have usurped economic advantages at the expense of its citizens, the latter counting in the majority. As a result a significant number of the masses have not only remained poor but have been excluded in determining matters of the state once they deliver their vote. They are effectively disenfranchised as would be citizens that suffer under an oligarchy: an oligarchy dominated by a few "representing" the interest of the masses. That is one political system.

The challenge we face is that, on the other hand, with regard to the empowered or enlightened middle class, the upper echelons of society, the media, the capitalist class and opposition parties, all who are either apolitical or outside the influence of power, we have a collection of citizens who seek to establish a participative democracy representing their interests. In order to protect their social and economic interests they must agitate to have a say and be represented in managing the affairs of the state as would be the case in a democracy. This sector of the population requires and demands a participative democracy as we have seen.

Just as Mbeki identified two economies in South Africa, I speculate that we need consider two political systems operating side by side and aligned to the interest of the two economies that we have: the first economy where the empowered or enlightened middle class, the upper echelons of society, the media, the capitalist class and opposition parties, all who are apolitical or outside the influence of power, reside and the second economy where the masses, labor and the poor reside.

In my view , there would be nothing inherently immoral or injurious with this structure because it balances the interests of society and therefore creates an environment where the probability of the achievement of the common good is high (something that post liberated Africa has failed to do).

South Africa is fortunate in that it protects individual rights whereas, in most post independent Africa, tyrants emerged because it was mistakenly assumed that the newly created post independent "democracies" stood for the common good: a reality which is a lie as we saw the emergence African leaders who effectively exercised power only for selfish motives. Zimbabwe is the common example.

In order to achieve political and economic stability I would propose that: The masses on the one hand must remain represented by a few (oligarchy) and the empowered must represent themselves and protect their interests (democracy) to avoid anarchy, revolution and tyranny.

In my estimation, this duality of political systems within one country can indeed serve the common good and thereby increase the likelihood of economic progress for all.

Vince Musewe is an economist and you may contact him on [email protected]

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter