Much bitter criticism has been directed at Thabo Mbeki and his failed government over the past month. The Institute issued what was widely described as a "scathing indictment" of Mbeki's tenure in office. No doubt all of that criticism was well deserved by a complacent government that stood by when it should have been apparent that the wheels were coming off for South Africa. But the criticism, our own included, has arguably ignored one vital point - that Thabo Mbeki and his government were elected freely and democratically by a large majority.
The government's policies whether on Zimbabwe, or job creation, or HIV, or education, or crime have always been in the public domain and have been openly and clearly articulated to voters.
It would be one thing if the ANC government and its failed policies had been foisted upon poor South African communities. Then the outrage and violence in response to policy failures could more easily be understood even if it were not condoned. But many of those protesting backed the ANC in the polls and therefore endorsed many of its policies. They must therefore share some of the responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. Certainly they are not entitled to resort to violence and anarchy - when the option to vote for another government remains open to them.
The argument that there was no suitable opposition party to vote for or that the opposition was weak carries little merit. More than fifteen parties are represented in South Africa's parliament representing views from pan- Africanism, to religious centrism, and liberalism. That the opposition may be weak is the fault of voters who did not vote for it, not the fault of the opposition! At the very least disgruntled ANC voters could have indicated a protest vote by voting for a party they do not support in order to send a strong statement to the ANC.
As none of this happened the ANC was satisfied to govern with the knowledge that it could be fairly certain of large electoral victories no matter how successful its delivery efforts were. The party was probably also guilty of assuming that the continued voter support meant that its policies were successful even as development data suggested there were shortcomings. With hindsight can one blame Mbeki the politician for imagining that those that delivered him to power in such large numbers approved of his performance?
Can the ANC still rely on unconditional voter support? A year ago the answer would have been a certain yes. Today the answer is probably still yes although it is possible that disgruntlement among ANC supporters may see them choose not to vote in 2009. If ANC voter turnout is lower than the 10 million odd voters that would ordinarily draw their crosses for the ANC then the relative representation of the opposition would increase. A critical question would then be whether this relative change will be sufficient to see the ANC lose its two thirds parliamentary majority.
Is this destined to happen? A year ago such a notion would have been shouted down as ridiculous but today it can be seriously discussed. Low voter turnout at local government elections has long been a concern for the ANC. The party still has time before 2009 to undo the damage that infighting, corruption, arrogance, public service incompetence, Eskom, slower economic growth, xenophobic attacks, and perceptions of failed delivery in jobs and services have done to its reputation. Failing that it would be pity for South Africa's widely praised democracy if its voters remained reluctant to use their hard one votes to insist on a better life for all.
*Frans Cronje is deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations. This article was originally published in the institute's weekly newsletter SAIRR Today June 6 2008
To subscribe to the Politicsweb newsletter click here.
