What Factors did Account for South Africas 1994 Transition to Democracy - Essay Example

Module Factors that Accounted for South Africa’s 1994 Transition to Democracy The vigorous historiography debate on the nature of conflict during apartheid and the democratic transition in South Africa commenced in the early 1970s. The transition period (1978-1989) was full of animosity, resistance and conflicts. This period was associated with racial, social, political and economic segregation which led to apartheid. On February 2nd 1990, President FW Clerk released a speech that hinted to a decisive moment in South Africa’s struggle for democracy (Decalo 7-35)1. The day is highly regarded by many South Africans as it marked the commissioning of the release of Nelson Mandela (11th of February) and other detainees who had been arrested in the process of the struggle. This paved way for open negotiations. South Africa had been going through long struggles for democracy in a sub-society that chiefly consisted of whites at the helm of leadership and power and non-white sub-society with little or no influence in governance matters. The essay below is a discussion on the internal and external factors that caused democratization in South Africa. The major information sources will be books by Sola Akinrinade and Amadu Sesay (Africa in the Post-Cold War International System) and Samuel Decalo’s Coups and Army Rule in Africa: Motivations and Constraints. Factors that led to the transition in South Africa can be classified as both internal and external. In his book, Coups and Army Rule in Africa: Motivations and Constraints, Samuel Decalo, argues that the transitions that led to democratization in South Africa were majorly internal. He recognized the civil society and resistance as the main factors.2 One of the internal factors suggested by Decalo is the demand for participation and human rights. Commenting in the New York Times, Battersbay agrees that citizens of SA began to articulate their dissatisfaction with corrupt governments that were not responding to their needs between 1970s and 1980s. The authoritarian government tried to make the South Africans believe that apartheid and oppressive practices was their fate and that they had no choice but to accept. However, Decalo (34) alludes that no amount of compulsion intimidation could change the South Africans’ urge to fight apartheid3. The limited freedom of expression saw most opposition parties denied access to the media when conducting their political functions. The media content was normally dominated by news on the authoritarian governments. This had to be curbed with revolution being the only effective tool (Decalo 20).4 Another factor suggested by Decalo is the institutional factor (25-35).5 Most of the dynamics that characterized the negotiations were institutionalized in the post apartheid period. This led to a significant stability and consolidation of democracy. The rules, norms, formal and informal principles were widely accepted by the majority making the transition process possible. According to Decalo, the most crucial dynamic that underwent institutionalization is constitutionalism whereby all political groupings and civil organizations accepted the rule of law. The democratic changes that occurred in SA are also linked to international factors. According to Sola Akinrinade and Amadu Sesay in their book Africa in the Post-Cold War International System (eds.) the external factor that influenced transition in South Africa includes democratization in Eastern Europe and the End of Cold War. The end of World War II saw a rise in global political struggle for power between the United States and its associates from the West, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, allies of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe (Akinrinade & Sesay, 92-128).6 According to Akinrinade and Sesay (1998), the Eastern Europe group had less developed governments democratically and in the 1980s, the Soviet Union and its Eastern Europe allies went through vigorous democratic transitions, a period that also saw East and South East Asian countries leave authoritarian forms of government in favor of democratic government. Akinrinade and Sesay assert that African countries, especially South Africa looked upon their Asian and Eastern Europe counterparts and followed suit. Africans were encouraged by the actions of these countries and consequently initiated their struggle that eventually led to democracy. In relation to the end of Cold War factor, Akinrinade and Sesay (124) create a relationship between Africa and the rest of the world after the colonial period. They argue that during the Cold War (1945-1990) and the post-colonial period, the two super-powers, USA and the Soviet Union played part in the creation and maintenance of a number of un-democratic nations. This came to an end when the Cold War came to an end too, around the same period when South Africa was struggling for democracy. As a result, these undemocratic governments that received backing from either the Soviet Union or the United States of America began to lose the power to resist internal factors advocating for democratic governments. CONCLUSION The arguments on the impact of external factors by Akinrinade and Sesay are not sufficient enough as they do not recognize the crucial role played by the internal factors in the enhancement of their impact. For instance, termination of the cold war is not possible without application of efforts geared towards achieving the participation for all. The arguments portray revolutions as easy processes despite the fact that they involve bloodshed and other forms of societal evils. The same is true for negotiations settlements that led to the end of authoritarianism in South Africa. The arguments fail to explain the cause of the violence that rocked South Africa before democratic elections in 1994. Most conservative parties were also opposed to the settlement. This implies that the success of this transition is not only a product of the stipulated objective factors, but also subjective factors such as the behavior of the political parties and their leaders. The argument on the democratization aspect of the resolution to the conflict does not include the external compulsion that may have forced the authoritarian government indulge into negotiations. The sources failed to mention that the transition could have been the result of fear due to external events such as the apparent military defeat in Angola (Simon 70).7 The views presented by the authors fail to indicate the impediments that faced the transition process. According to Mandela (513), the major obstacles entailed the behavior of the political parties to play a second fiddle and the failure of the resurgent groups to renounce violence.8 Works Cited Akinrinade, Sola. & Sesay, Amadu. Africa in the Post-Cold War International System. London: Cassell Academic, 1998. Pp. 92-128. Battersby John D. "More Whites in South Africa Resisting the Draft". New York Times. 28 March 1988. Decalo, Samuel, “The Process, Prospects and Constraints of Democratization in Africa." African Affairs, 91, 1992, pp. 7-35. Mandela, Nelson, Long Walk to Freedom: the Autobiography of Nelson Mandela, Macdonald Purnell, Randburg, 1995. Simon, David. “Angola: Things fall apart again?”South African Journal of International Affairs, Volume 6, Issue 1, 1998 pages 67-72. Read More