South Africa’s Landmark Elections

The results of the South African elections are in, and the African National Congress’ (ANC) showing was even worse than expected—the party barely garnered 40 percent of the vote. But while the storied party’s fall from grace dominates the headlines, it is not truly surprising.  Polls show that the vast majority—over 80 percent—of South Africans believe their country is headed in the wrong direction. Change votes were to be expected.

In that sense, the election results suggest that South Africa’s democracy is still working; it has responded to popular dissatisfaction by punishing underperforming leadership and rewarding new ideas. There are no indications that the exercise was anything but free and fair, and the leader of the ANC and President of the country Cyril Ramaphosa has accepted the results. Rather than abandoning democratic principles in a quest for change in government, as has occurred in several African states recently, South Africans used the democratic process to signal their discontent, retaining the connective tissue between voters and leaders.

But there are real signs of trouble. More eligible voters stayed home than in any election since the end of apartheid. For a country just a few decades out from such a long and costly struggle for liberation and genuine democracy, the trendline is discouraging.

The strong showing of the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) party, which explicitly opposes the country’s constitution, is another worrying sign. MK won fifty-eight seats in the National Assembly—a remarkably successful debut that exceeded the expectations of pollsters. But former President Jacob Zuma and his supporters are also contesting the integrity of the elections themselves—a strategy familiar to Americans, and one designed to undermine citizens’ faith in democratic institutions. The threatening language Zuma used to argue against the announcement of election results, which included warning the electoral commission not to “start trouble” is characteristic, but also alarming.

The most interesting drama is yet to unfold. The ANC will now have to form a coalition with political opponents to govern the country, and the potential partners run the gamut from the business-friendly Democratic Alliance to the radical, quasi-Marxist Economic Freedom Fighters. The maneuvering will test the rifts between ANC factions—the same fault lines that have made Ramaphosa so tentative in decision-making. The inevitable recriminations within the ANC in the wake of its electoral setbacks could create more dysfunction, as ambitious contenders for leadership smell blood in the water. But too much inward focus on party dynamics would be a mistake. Citizens want to see results from their government. Making security, competence, and integrity in public services the lodestar of coalition government is the only way to convince South Africans that their voices were heard.

Similarly, it will take time for the broader regional implications of the ANC’s humbling to become apparent. Southern Africa is rife with dominant political parties that have been trading on their historic role in achieving independence for decades. South Africa’s election results provide incontrovertible proof that such historic associations are not enough, at least when elections are free and fair. Those powerful parties could respond by stepping up their game, improving service delivery and transparency. Or they could conclude that genuine political competition is to be avoided at all costs, ushering in even more blatant repression.