Voting behaviours based on ethnicity and other identity markers may be symptomatic of deeper societal concerns and rifts that, if left unaddressed, could further erode the bonds that hold our society together.
by DR FATIMA HENDRICKS
THE recent South African election results, where the governing African National Congress (ANC) party suffered a dramatic loss of its national majority vote share, falling to 40 percent, represents a pivotal moment of reckoning and accountability for the ruling party.
This significant shift in public sentiment reflects the growing frustration and discontent among South African citizens, who have felt pushed to the limit by the ANC’s challenges over the years.
The recent election results have sent a strong, unambiguous message to the ruling party, even if it be that votes were lost to parties with ANC origins as breakaway formations. The party now faces heightened pressure to respond to the electorate’s call for greater transparency, responsiveness, and tangible solutions to the country’s pressing problems.
The electoral outcome signifies a critical juncture in South African politics, one that will require the ANC to confront its shortcomings and engage in a process of self-reflection and reform if it hopes to regain the trust and confidence of the nation.
These election results also present a pivotal opportunity for the country to move forward in a constructive manner, but only if the newly formed coalitions can successfully coalesce and translate their electoral outcomes into effective governance.
The true test will be whether these coalitions can build past major partisan differences, construct consensus, and deliver tangible progress on the key issues facing the nation. Failure to do so risks squandering the potential of this hopeful momentum generated by the election and could further exacerbate societal divisions. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether these coalitions can rise to the occasion and steer the country towards a more generative future for all.
Ethnic mobilisation
However, when examining the media coverage of this milestone of 30 years of democracy, post 1994, the phrase making a renewed appearance (in meaning) since the early days of South Africa’s democracy, is ‘voting based on ethnic mobilisation’. The term is being used to analyse the performance of, in particular, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party, commonly referred to as the MK Party and the Patriotic Alliance (PA).
This notion is expressed by the commentary of Musi Maimane of BOSA, in his observation of the growth of MK, when he suggested ethnic mobilisation played a role in the ‘growth of MK – Zulu nationalism, PA… in a country that is polarising, that is moving in that direction, we need to restore the space of holding the centre’. Gwede Mantashe from the ANC in trying to explain the strong voter performance for the MK suggests that this is because the results are based on ‘Zulu tribalism and, I don’t think we should actually lock ourselves into Zulu tribalism…. tribalism is a backward form of politics…if that is a factor, I am not worried about it’.
The notion of ‘ethnic mobilisation’ (more accurately described as identity mobilisation) in the voting patterns of South Africa, where certain ethnic, racial or religious identity blocs appear to be aligning with particular political parties such as the Zulu community with the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK) with 2 344 309 votes (14.58 percent; 31 seats) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) with 618 207 votes (3.85 percent; 8 seats), the so-called Coloured community with the Patriotic Alliance (PA) 330 425 votes (2.06 percent; 5 seats), and the so-called White community with the Democratic Alliance (DA) 3 505 735 votes (21.81 percent; 42 seats) and VF Plus with 218 850 votes (1.36 percent; 4 seats) is an interesting, albeit oversimplified, proposition.
Parties with religious affiliations like Al-Jama-ah received 39 067 votes (0.24 percent; 2 seats) and African Christian Democratic Party received 96 575 votes (0.6 percent; 3 seats).
The ANC received 6 459 683 votes (40.18 percent; 72 seats) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) received 1 529 961 seats (9.52 percent; 17 seats).
Examining the underlying factors and motivations driving voting behaviours along ethnic, racial or religious lines could provide valuable insights into the complex interplay between identity politics, voter behaviour, and the overall state of South Africa’s democratic processes. This dynamic may suggest voting by tribal, linguistic, racial or religious affiliations for political gain blended with engagements of the substantive issues facing South Africans. Such a dynamic has implications for inclusive, issue-oriented governance.
Race
Historically, racial divisions and class tensions have been a pervasive and deeply entrenched feature of the electoral landscape, serving as a persistent basis for political mobilisation and organisation.
Many politicians, activists and community leaders continue to utilise a discourse heavily grounded in racial and class-based frameworks to advocate for their interests and mobilise their constituents. Yet, the notion of race is not grounded in biological realities, but rather exists as a social construct that has emerged as a byproduct of racism.
Race is not an objective fact, but rather an artificial construct that has been shaped and reinforced through the targeted application of racist ideologies and practices. The appearance or perception of race is an assemblage of characteristics and attributes that have been selectively emphasised and codified in response to specific instances of racism directed at populations sharing certain common traits.
Fundamentally, race is not a natural phenomenon, but rather an artifact of the racist structures and systems that have been built around it.
In elections, non-racialism and multi-racialism in South Africa represent divergent approaches to addressing the country’s complex racial dynamics and legacy of apartheid. This racialised and class-conscious rhetoric reflects the lived experiences and systemic inequities which continue to shape the political narratives and strategies employed by those seeking to address longstanding racial and socioeconomic disparities.
Non-racialism, as a principle, emphasises the idea of a unified, non-racial society, where individuals are not defined by socially constructed racial classifications. This vision seeks to transcend the historical divisions and inequities perpetuated by the apartheid system.
In contrast, multi-racialism acknowledges the distinct racial groups within South Africa and advocates for the recognition and inclusion of these diverse communities, often through targeted policies and programmes.
The tension between these two perspectives was reflected in the election rhetoric on the ongoing challenges in reconciling the country’s past and charting a path forward that promotes equity, justice and social cohesion for all South Africans.
Religion
The African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and Al-Jama-ah, as faith-based political parties, have experienced slight growth in their electoral support since the 2019 elections.
The prominence of faith-based discourse in the political arena can provide a platform for values-driven dialogue and action, allowing citizens to advocate for policies aligned with their moral and ethical convictions.
This can enrich the political discourse and potentially lead to policy decisions grounded in the concerns and beliefs of faith-based communities.
The mobilisation of religious identity within the political process can have both benefits through values-based decisions, but also detrimental effects, exacerbating social divisions through narrow, dogmatic interpretations that fail to account for the nuances of belief systems or contextual realities.
Fostering a vibrant, values-based discourse is a critical national challenge that requires an inclusive approach to policymaking and public dialogue that can be done within larger parties and/or specific faith-based parties. Shared values can be instrumental in promoting morally sound decisions within broader society.
Overall, the narrative of ‘ethnic mobilisation’ of the 2024 elections warrants further scrutiny and analysis to understand the potential implications for South Africa’s future.
Voting behaviours based on ethnicity and other identity markers may be symptomatic of deeper societal concerns and rifts that, if left unaddressed, could further erode the bonds that hold our society together.
This is a moment of time that evokes a complex mix of emotions; a moment brimming with both hope and trepidation.
For some there is a sense of disappointment and anxiety moving from what has been familiar for 30 years, whilst for others there is a sense of anticipation and possibility, a sentiment that positive change or progress may be on the horizon.
No matter where on the political spectrum, the hopefulness is tempered by an underlying feeling of uncertainty and apprehension, a recognition that the path forward may be fraught with challenges and obstacles. These sentiments, the coexistence of optimism and apprehension, creates a palpable tension, leaving South Africans with a profound sense of the gravity and significance of this current juncture of elections 2024.
- Dr Fatima Hendricks is an independent researcher.
