south africa factors for and against democracy: –moderate level of development –highly unequal...

South Africa

• Factors for and against democracy:

– Moderate level of development

– Highly unequal society

– History of labor coercive practices

General backdrop: Apartheid

• Established in 1948 with coming to power of National Party

• Three parts:– Political: complete exclusion of non-whites

from political process.– Economic: use of coercive means to keep

wages of non-whites low.– Social: physical separation of races.


• But, economic and social goals conflicted: the dependence of whites on non-white labor made segregation difficult.


• Solution: Homelands policy.

• But, this never really worked. Africans came to the cities anyway.

Timeline of African Response

• 1912: Formation of ANC

• 1950s: Initial response to apartheid– Freedom Charter (1955): non-racial

democracy, mild socialism.– Sporadic peaceful protests.– State response: ban ANC, jail leaders– Why so easy to contain? Small urban

population.


• 1960s: Quiet decade of economic growth– Urban African populations grew (and grew!)– Flourishing of civil society in African areas


• 1970s:– New organizations, political movements

• Young people influenced by Black Consciousness • Civics• Trade Unions

– Economic slowdown– Renewed protest: 1976 riots in Soweto,

spread to rest of country.– Much harder for the state to contain.


• P.W. Botha liberalizes the unions in 1978:– The hope: this will moderate the conflict.– The reality: Unions (COSATU) initiate wave

after wave of protest in early 80s.

• United Democratic Front (UDF) forms, contributes to mass insurrection.

• South Africa: “ungovernable” by 1986.


• Mid 1980s: Economic Crisis– Worker productivity down– Massive capital outflows– IMF cuts off loans

• South African capitalists: Apartheid not worth it! Begin pressuring government to negotiate.

Negotiations and Love Songs

• 1990-1993: Hammering out a plan – ANC, NP: Very different notions of what “New”

South Africa should look like– Dicey moments, but desire to avoid war kept

both parties at the table.– Deal involved compromises for everyone

• April 1994: Nelson Mandela elected

Conclusions

• Structural factors mattered:– Greater development made protest easier.– Change in interests of economic elite key to

initiation of negotiations.

• However, political factors mattered also:– Economic interests changed because of

political protests– Political leadership key at certain critical

points.

Conclusions

• Finally, international factors once again very important. Domestic politics cannot tell us the whole story.

Extra Office Hours

• Schedule an appointment with me if you can’t make my office hours.

• Steve Oliver: 11-1:50 Monday (today!) SSB 328

• Lydia Lundgren: 10:30-12:30 Monday (today!) SSB 323

• Kai Ostwald: 10:30-11:30 Monday (today!) SSB 326

Definition: Ethnic Group

• Membership determined by descent or ancestry. Ethnic identity is ascriptive: something you are born with instead of something you choose.

• Members of ethnic groups know and value membership in the group. It has meaning to them.

Definition: Ethnic Group

• Group members share distinguishing cultural features.

• The group has a shared history, which may be partially invented.

• Most ethnic group has a homeland, or at least memories of one.

Factoids

• Ethnic identities are quite prevalent.

• Ethnic identities are only one of many different kinds of collective identities. Other examples: class, occupation, age, gender, hobby, school ties, sports affiliations, etc.

Factoids

• Ethnic identities are distinguished from many other types of identity (esp. economic ones) in that they are less voluntary in nature. But even here, there’s ambiguity.

Classic Approaches to Ethnicity

• Liberalism:– Ethnicity is “morally suspect” because it

places groups above individuals. For better or worse, modernization would dissolve ethnic ties, create “new” people unconnected to the old ways.

– Fiction: White Teeth by Zadie Smith; Hunger by Lan Samantha Chang

Classic Approaches to Ethnicity

• Marxism:– Ethnicity is epiphenomenal, secondary to

deeper forces (i.e. material interests).

– Ethnic identifications = false consciousness.

– Marxist revolution (Workers of the World Unite!) will end ethnic based thinking.

But the reality is . . .

• Ethnicity is alive and well in all corners of the globe!

• Developed countries: anti-immigrant parties in Europe, separatist movements in Spain and Canada, minority mobilizations in US.

But the reality is . . .

• Former communist countries of Eastern Europe: many new ethnic mobilizations.

• Developing countries: economic development fuels ethnic mobilization.

• Since the end of the Cold War, the world has seen a series of destructive wars in which ethnicity has played some role.

Primordialism

• Ethnic identities are more fundamental than other types of identitity. Ethnicity is not subject to rational cost/benefit calculations. It belongs to the realm of emotion.

• Ethnicity is immutable, unchangeable, fixed.

Primordialism

• Ethnic mobilizations are motivated by expressive not instrumental needs.– Participation is related to our search as human beings

for security in an insecure world.– Individual self esteem is a function of group position.– More about expressing belonging than further self

interest.

• Conflict based on ethnicity is inevitable, persistence is a given.

Instrumentalism

• Ethnic identities are not more fundamental or powerful than other types of identity.

• Ethnicity is fluid. Individuals have multiple identities, these identities shift according to context.

Instrumentalism

• Mobilization is about getting something. People join ethnic movements when there is a pay-off to doing so. Furthermore, when it is useful to them, they may even invent new identities.

• Ethnicity leads to conflict when someone has something to gain from going to war.

Instrumentalism

• Persistence? As long as ethnicity is a useful way of organizing people, it will persist.

Critiques of each theory?

• Primordialism:

– Empirically, identities do appear to shift according to context.

– If conflict is so inevitable, how do you explain long periods of peace? And why are most multiethnic societies peaceful?

Critiques of each theory?

• Instrumentalism:

– How do we explain the intensity and emotional quality of ethnic bonds?

– Ethnic conflict may be instrumental for leaders, but it rarely is for followers. How do we explain their behavior?

What is civil conflict?

• Examples: civil war, rebellions, insurrections, political revolutions, social revolutions, genocides.

• Definition: sustained armed conflict within a state that involves large numbers of people either as participants or as victims.

“State” versus “Society”

• Society: basic social forces and groups, the population at large and how it is structured and organized.

• State (review): the set of permanent institutions and structures of authority in a country.

“State” versus “Society”

• What is the relationship between them?

– State is a mirror that reflects society. Politics is a function of social forces alone.

– State is not just a mirror: it exerts an independent effect out outcomes. We can’t just look at society to understand politics! Have to look at state too.

Society-Based “Bottom Up”

• Misery breeds revolt: civil conflict is a function of the level of grievance in the population.

• Variants:– Ethnic group hatreds– Extreme poverty and deprivation– Unfulfilled expectations (economic crisis)

Political Entrepreneurs

• Grievance alone is insufficient to produce war. Politicians provide the spark that converts grievance into action.

• Motivations of politicians vary from idealism to personal gain.


• Articulate existing grievances, sometimes even accentuating them.

• May not be enough: collective action problems may prevent people with common grievances from acting together. Examples: free-rider problem, first-mover problem.

Free Rider Problem

• There are gains to collective action. • No one can be excluded from these gains,

even if they didn’t take part in the action. • High personal costs to taking part.• Individual rationality: don’t participate, don’t

pay costs, yet capture benefits. “Free-ride.”• Everyone free-rides, no collective action, no

collective benefits.

First Mover Problem

• Risks for collective action are highest for those who act first.

• Once everyone else is acting, then risks decline. “Safety in numbers.”

• But who will go first? An action may be highly desirable by everyone, but may never occur because no one is willing to take the first step.


• Politicians help people overcome collective action problems:– Provide selective benefits to participation (to

overcome free-riding problem)– Throw the first stones (to overcome first-

mover problem)

State Centric “Top Down”

• Grievances (even grievance organized by politicians) is insufficient for explaining civil conflict.

• State factors are key: are the state’s coercive organizations coherent and effective? If yes, grievances are never allowed to flower.

Strengths/Weaknesses

• Bottom-up approach

– Pros: explains why ordinary people might participate in conflict.

– Cons: Can’t explain why grievances persist for long periods of time without producing conflict.


• Political entrepreneurs approach:

– Pros: Better at explaining timing.

– Cons: Why do people follow politicians into war? When do politicians see war as a better option than working within institutions?


• State centric approach

– Pros: Can better explain incentives of political leaders.

– Cons: State weakness is insufficient for explaining violence. Many weak states never experience civil conflict.

south africa factors for and against democracy: –moderate level of development –highly unequal...

Documents