One of the people who commented on my last post criticised my posting for lacking in insight and another assumed that I need some kind of political education. While I do not intend to defend myself on either charge, and being quite conscious that I do not pretend to be any kind of political analyst, I do feel it useful to perhaps explain the context in which I will on occasion share my perspectives on our political situation – apart from the fact that anyone has a right to comment on politics even if not a political commentator or analyst (or Helen Zille supporter!)
My purpose in writing my last posting was really to illustrate some of the ways in which politicians sometimes betray the trust of the electorate – by using trite slogans, trying to be on more than one electoral list at the same time, projecting image above policy, pretending to be what you are not etc.
And the reason the issue of trust in politicians is important, and related to this blog, is that trust in politicians is an aspect of social capital. Inasmuch as politicians set themselves up to be political leaders, trust in politicians goes to the core of how we see ourselves as a nation and what we want to become. In seeking our trust, and asking for our votes, politicians should be modelling and representing the social capital we need to create and invest in. Trust is therefore a vertical as well as a horizontal phenomenon, existing - or not existing – between people in communities and networks as well as between those who govern and aspire to govern, and those who are governed. (To read more about political capital, see Kenneth Newton's article 'Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy').
A healthy democracy is one in which significant numbers of people vote, and do so to make real choices about politics – policies and leadership. And to facilitate this process we need political parties and political leaders that are able to articulate a clear national vision and alternative choices that appeal to the people of our country on the basis of policies that rise above racial, tribal or sectarian divisions of the past.
Some further feedback I received on my previous posting is that I was surprisingly cynical and unappreciative! So I thought I would take up the challenge and point out various aspects that I do appreciate about the way the parties have conducted their election campaigns.
I am impressed with the moderation (in style and content) displayed by Jacob Zuma. He has been measured and calm in his rhetoric, and I believe this has helped to create a more peaceful atmosphere – important in the light of political tensions in KwaZulu Natal and the arrival of COPE on the political scene.
I am impressed by the DA’s commitment to working in coalition – this bodes well for the development of opposition politics in South Africa.
I guess I am impressed by the fact that COPE has just arrived on the political scene and has managed to conduct some kind of national campaign within a few short months.
I believe that the PAC has done well to come through its recent troubles and is presenting itself in a more coherent fashion to try and win votes.
The Independent Democrats have run a quite focused campaign and have also managed to project themselves as being slightly more than just a political machine for Patricia De Lille.
The ‘A’ party has done well to arrive on the political scene as a smart combination of smaller and minority parties that by themselves would not have been able to afford the deposit to run on the national list.
Well let me stop lest I am next accused of damning with faint praise! Considering that our democracy in South Africa is still less than 6,000 days old, and despite many reasons to be cynical or despairing, I believe that there are also quite a few positive signs that we are a steadily maturing political democracy.
Posts
