The Success of Economic and Social Reform in post-Apartheid South Africa - Essay Example

of The Success of Economic and Social Reform in post-Apartheid South Africa The very and idea of pre-1991 South Africa, for many decades, conjured up an image of widespread political repression, endless racial and ethnic conflict, and economic impoverishment, to say nothing of serving as a reminder of Europe’s colonial legacy across the whole of Africa. And yet even the most protracted political and social stalemate in Africa was eventually able to change. Today in 2009 it would be inconceivable to try and claim that South Africa has not dramatically changed since the first multiracial elections held in 1994 (South Africa 1998). Though the transfer and sharing of political power is long a matter of the past, the leveling of economic disparities among the non-White peoples of South Africa remains an elusive and as yet unrealized goal. Africa in general, though South Africa in particular, has in the last twenty years been a testing ground for a variety of programs and initiatives to heal racial divisions and remedy racial and social inequities. “At a more general level, there is Africa’s role in the broad redefinition of international morality and law. Africa, perhaps more than any other continent, has helped to make domestic racism in a particular society an issue of international relevance” (Mazrui 304). The paradox is such that though South Africa led the way in redressing the political wrongs left by colonialism, it has largely faltered in fixing the socio-economic ones. It is that disparity which stands before us here. The Union of South Africa was formed into a dominion of the British Empire in 1910, whereupon racial segregation and economic isolation became an institutionalized policy of the white-dominated government (South Africa 1998). Looking back, this was by far the decision which would have the greatest consequences upon the future of the country. Even if the ways and means whereby race-based economic disparities continued to plague South Africa’s black population throughout the 1990’s were as widespread as the disparities themselves, one area for which the country should receive praise is in the realm of literacy rates and infant mortality. By 2000 literacy rates had risen from their pre-1991 level of some 77% to approximately 88% of the population, a marked increase. This successfully solved the lack of basic reading skills in those members of the population who had until then been ignored or denied basic access to education. As well, infant mortality levels have dropped from 49% in 1990 to 46% in 2007, a change which can be directly attributed to the better level of care now available to the country’s rural black population (South Africa 2004). And yet if something as basic as literacy has for the most part been addressed, it seems strange that there remain in South Africa such glaring social and economic differences. In 1996 “a permanent multiracial democratic constitution was adopted” (South Africa 1998), a measure which surely went along way to erasing the more blatant signs of the old apartheid system. As bold as the constitution was, the economic policies followed by the government in the 1990’s, being neoliberal in nature, essentially assumed that the free market would help repair South Africa’s socio-economic disparities. The South African Constitution guarantees justiciable socio-economic rights such as the rights to access to housing; to sufficient food and water; to social security and health care services. This ‘transformative constitution’ is meant to help rid the country of legacies of apartheid such as huge economic inequalities and entrenched poverty. The government’s embrace of neoliberalism has, however, meant that these legacies have not only remained largely untreated but have also become entrenched. Poor communities have started organizing themselves in order to challenge the government’s neoliberal policies as well as marginalization from structures of governance. (Madlingozi 77) The facts demonstrate, however, that the South African government’s neoliberal policies of free trade and lessened regulation have not yielded the fruits that they were intended to bear. Fifteen or so years since the official end of apartheid “not much has change[d] for South Africans now grappling with unemployment that stands at around 40 per cent. Half the population is living below the poverty line and millions remain landless and ravaged by HIV and AIDS” (Madlingozi 78). How could this be in a country which in 1994 seemed to be so full of promise and energy? It seems clear now that though political realities may have been changed, much of the economic status quo has remained. Whites still hold and enjoy most of the wealth and blacks are still poor and seemingly without hope of a better future. To be sure, the South African government, throughout the 1990’s, attempted in a variety of ways to better the plight of blacks. One area which has met with limited success was the attempt to integrate public space. It was thought that if blacks could go to and enter all the same spaces as whites traditionally had, perhaps they would achieve some level of social and economic improvement. “The end of apartheid in 1994 signifies a considerable shift – not only in South African politics, but also in social relations….Social sciences have frequently used the South African case as a ‘laboratory case’ that allows theoretical issues to be tested and critical concepts to be assed in real societal conditions. As an intrinsically spatial regime, apartheid has always been a source of interest for critically inclined cultural geographers. The implementation of racist beliefs and policies shaped spaces at the national, regional, and city level, producing what could be described as typical geographies of (racial) classification and socio-spatial control. (Houssay-Holzschuch 351) The problem resided in the fact that under the apartheid system the space allocated to blacks was typically substandard and on the outskirts of the city. Now that the government was trying to integrate the society, problems arose. Even if after the end of apartheid blacks had social access to all places, they did not have an economic hold. They did not own the space as the white minority continued to do throughout the 1990’s (Houssay-Holzschuch 356). Neoliberal economic policy has long been seen by many academics as being at the root of the failure to eradicate or even slightly better racial-economic disparities. In the case of South Africa, the embrace of neoliberalism has led to policy-making that [is] aptly describe[d] as ‘relatively closed hierarchical and expert-driven….[making] it difficult for popular movements to participate.’ The centralized and closed manner in which important economic policies are being drafted run contrary to the ANC’s historic commitment to participatory democracy. (Madlingozi 78) Interestingly, in the time of apartheid, though capitalist, the South African economy was based on racism and subordination and was somewhat introverted. By ending apartheid and opening itself up to the global economy, the adoption of neoliberal economics by the government has done nothing but continue to favor the social and economic position enjoyed by whites. [O]ne of the most remarkable features of the post-apartheid political landscape in South Africa has been the rise of neoliberal thought and policy making…neoliberalism [defined] as an increase in fiscal austerity, deregulation, and privatization. These changes are accompanied by the state’s diminishing role and the transfer of competence to the private sector. (Holzschuch 357) The connection to be made here should seem obvious. The 1996 constitution put an official end to institutional and political racism and inequality. To be sure it was an historic event. Unfortunately, that measure was followed by a de-emphasized governmental role and an increase in the power of the private economy. Since much of the private economy was white-owned, the ability of blacks to better themselves socio-economically was greatly diminished. South Africa’s integration into the global economy meant that those with property and assets stood to most benefit. The “racial capitalism” of the apartheid years transformed into the “global capitalism” of the post-apartheid era. Years after 1994, South Africa’s unemployment rate was 40% and half of the country lived below the poverty line (Madlingozi 78). This might seem strange given that the GDP per capita growth rate was 1% during the 1990’s, as opposed to 0.1% in the period of 1970-1990 (South Africa 2004). Much of that growth, however, was only benefitting the wealthier elements of South African society. In a city like Cape Town, “private investment, both foreign and local, [was] regarded as a key factor, and [it] increasingly attract[ed] international firms (Holzschuch 357). In Cape Town, like many other of South Africa’s urban centers, there seem to be two opposing forces: socio-political change “linked to democratization and the end of the racial order” and a global outlook change linked “to the consequences of capitalism, neoliberalism, and economic globalization” (Holzschuch 357). The national government, during the 1990’s, attempted several economic programs aimed at fixing race-based economic inequities. In Durban for example, “the local government [was empowered] to attempt to break down the barriers of apartheid city through a program of public investment, intended to close the economic and infrastructure gaps between race groups…The problems the state faced, given the extent of Durban’s spatial hierarchy, were huge, and forces countervailing change were similarly powerful” (Schensul 292). The systemic resistance to change proved to be too great for the South African government. Despite ending political discrimination, economic differences continue, to this day, to trouble the people of South Africa. The international image of South Africa has greatly improved since its low point in the 1980’s. The names of Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela are known all across the world and are almost always associated with equality, justice, and overcoming adversity. And yet certain things in South Africa will take longer to change. The British colonial period still casts a long shadow over the country. The French-Belgian colonist Edmund Dene Morel predicted that the effects of establishing a racist regime in South Africa would be far felt. In 1909, decades ahead of his time and in stark contrast to the self-congratulatory mood around him, he wrote a trenchant warning of the ‘far-reaching consequences over the wider destiny, not only of South Africa, but of all Negro Africa’ that would flow from the fact that Britain had set up the new, independent Union of South Africa with an all-white legislature. (Hochschild 273) The fact that there are equal political rights in South Africa is something for which its people deserve praise. It is now time that they achieve economic equality as well. Works Cited Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998. Houssay-Holzschuch, Myriam. “A Mall for All? Race and Public Space in Post-Apartheid Cape Town.” Cultural Geographies 16:3 (2009): 351-379. Madlingozi, Tshepo. “Post-Apartheid Social Movements and the Quest for the Elusive ‘New’ South Africa.” Journal of Law & Society 34:1 (2007): 77-98. Mazrui, Ali A. The Africans: A Triple Heritage. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1996. Schensul, Daniel. “From Resources to Power: The State and Spatial Change in Post-Apartheid Durban, South Africa.” Studies in Comparative International Development 43/3/4 (2008): 290-313. “South Africa.” Oxford Encyclopedia of World History. 1st ed. 1998. “South Africa.” 26 Feb. 2004. Unicef (official Website). 21 November 2009 http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/southafrica_statistics.html#52. Read More