Those who are least keen on our new democracy, it seems, make most use of it. Take the current mobilisation against the Property Rates Bill, which offers further evidence that neat theories often fail to explain political life here. Logic suggests that majority rule should relegate whites to the outer margins of public debate. Race remains crucial to our politics; whites who do not identify with majority aspirations – as most do not – are therefore reduced to a permanent political minority. Government politicians know that they do not need white votes, so there is no particular reason why they should listen to white lobbies.
This has led many analysts, including this one, to warn that a possible consequence is a damaging white withdrawal from public life into an insulated cocoon, similar to that of other white minorities elsewhere on the continent.
But reaction to the rates Bill confirms again that almost precisely the opposite has happened; far from being alienated from the policy debate, white interest groups often dominate it. Reaction to the proposed law has been positive and negative – but has been restricted almost entirely to the affluent racial minority. In one sense, this is a sign of democratic health since it shows that whites still see themselves as part of the constitutional order. Much of the attack on the Bill has been fuelled by hysteria rather than information: the current draft does not propose to raise the rates which suburban residents pay, and some analysts suggest that rates for some suburban city-dwellers could actually fall. Yet some of the more lurid reaction is confidently
predicting that whites will be driven out of their homes by punitive rates. So the campaign against the Bill may say more about gut white fears of majority rule than about the legislation itself. But, since these white fears exist, democracy is far stronger if they are expressed in public debate than if they are confined to suppressed resentment. Their expression does suggest that many aggrieved whites remain willing to pursue their concerns in democratic engagement rather than by opting out. Far less healthy is the fact that, ironically, white suburbanites are just about the only interest groups who are participating in public debate on the Bill. The sole vehicle of black opinion to wade in is the Inkatha Freedom Party and its chiefly base in KwaZulu-Natal who oppose the proposed law because it would allow rates to be levied in traditional areas – which they see as an erosion of chiefs’ authority. The vast array of other organised interests among the majority have remained silent. One explanation could be that only minority interests – those of whites and traditional leaders – are affected. But the Bill proposes, for example, to levy rates in shack areas. It also contains much which should be of direct concern to organisations who only a few years ago fought apartheid. It directly affects the interests of many black citizens and, if our democracy were in robust shape, we should expect a host of groups besides suburbanites and chiefs to be trying to influence it. Ironically, then, reaction to the Bill sets on its head many of the assumptions which are made about our civil society – groups outside government who represent citizens in the public policy debate. “White” civil society which, logic suggests, should be sullen and alienated, is vigorously exercising its democratic rights. “Black” or “non-racial” civil society, whose strength is meant to be one of our greatest democratic assets since it is said to offer people at the grassroots a means of holding government to account, is largely silent. There are several possible explanations. One is that most of civil society supports the current government and is happy to leave to it the task of representing majority interests on issues such as how to fund municipalities.
Another is that “majority” civil society lacks the capacity to participate effectively in many public debates – in this view, organisations which were good at fighting apartheid are not adept at monitoring legislation and framing
responses to it. Yet another is that, despite its presumed strength,
“majority” civil society is generally out of touch with its grassroots and therefore unable to champion the concerns of, say, shack dwellers, in the policy debate. Whatever the reason, we are left with the reality that, despite six years of majority rule, the willingness and ability to play one of civil society’s key roles, to attempt to influence policy on behalf of citizens, is – on many key issues – still largely the preserve of the affluent
minority.
And that this may have far more to do with the inadequacies of civil society organisations which champion majority interests than with the fact that whites are more affluent. Civil society organisations who represent majority
constituencies and who battled white rule are still, it seems, trying to find a role in the democracy for which they fought. Many are still unsure how to relate to a government with which they sympathise – how much store to place on independence, how much on solidarity. And for some, the adjustment from fighting an undemocratic system to playing an effective role in a democracy remains difficult.
The result is to sharply weaken democracy. Continued participation by white interest groups remains essential if democracy is to command the loyalty of all. But, as long as shack dwellers, the poor, single mothers in the townships, and a host of other majority interests remain outside the key public debates, our policy discussions will be distorted and the prerogative of engaging the government on issues which concern citizens will remain far more of a minority preserve than it should be. The point does not only apply to property rates, but also to issues such as corruption or, more generally, the accountability of the government to citizens.
While organisations in “majority civil society” do take part in debate on issues which immediately concern them – unions on economic policy, education lobbies on the school system and the like – there are still key areas of public debate which, by default, are reduced to a debate between the government and minority interests. If democracy is to take root and grow, we need a much wider public debate in which organisations representing majority interests, particularly those of the poor and the weak, participate far more vigorously. Until that happens, our often complacent boasts about the health and strength of our civil society will hide the narrowness of participation in some of our most important decisions.
And, as long as the policy debate is ceded to the minority, democracy – in between elections at any rate – will remain beyond the reach of those it is most meant to serve.