The first brief in this pair discussed how the South African left evolved and some of the current issues facing it. This brief deals with the issues facing the right.
African nationalism draws a strong contrast between colonialism-segregation-apartheid, as a period of utter darkness, and post-apartheid South Africa, an era of light. The right in this narrative is represented as wishing to restore apartheid. This is a canard. The probability of a restoration of apartheid is precisely zero, and has been for the last quarter of a century. The circumstances in which it evolved have disappeared from the world, and they will never return. There are some who have a nostalgia for apartheid. But as the contemporary United Kingdom shows, nostalgia does not constitute a political programme. Moreover, it is impossible not to note that the post-apartheid light has dimmed a lot, especially over the last decade. As our eyes grow accustomed to the gloom, glimmers of light from before 1994 become more visible; had they been absent, a negotiated transition would have been impossible.
Still, the canard has been effective in inducing reluctance of the right to identify itself as such. The leader of the DA has been reported as saying:
We dare not pander to the left or right; we must occupy the centre[1].
But it is not clear who the right is to which the DA must not pander. One clearly relevant criterion for identifying the right is opposition to changing Section 25 of the Constitution. On 4 December 2018, the ACDP, COPE, DA, IFP and VF+ voted against adoption of the Constitutional Review Committee’s report on land expropriation without compensation. Unlike the left, the right on this criterion is not embedded in a nationalist movement. In political terms, Afrikaner nationalism is a spent force.
The right’s parliamentary representation since 1994 can be identified[2] as follows:
1994 |
1999 |
2004 |
2009 |
2014 |
2019 |
|
ACDP |
2 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
AEB |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
COPE (since 2014) |
|
|
|
|
3 |
2 |
DP/DA |
7 |
38 |
50 |
67 |
89 |
84 |
IFP |
43 |
34 |
28 |
18 |
10 |
14 |
NP/NNP |
82 |
28 |
7 |
|
|
|
VF+ |
9 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
10 |
Total |
143 |
110 |
95 |
92 |
109 |
114 |
Can one discern principles for the right which do not substantially cut across the positions of any of its components? The following are possible:
In general, the right should pay attention to Edmund Burke’s observation that a state without the means of change, is without the means of its own conservation. Conservatism does not imply standing pat, and it is not the case that nothing constructive can be done about land reform or the provision of health, or even macroeconomic stability from the perspective of the right. More coherent proposals by parliamentary parties of the right requires more investment. But it would pay off.
The consistent policy of the ANC- Nelson Mandela’s visit to Betsy Verwoerd notwithstanding - has been to marginalize the right and to represent it as being a permanent and ignorable minority. But African nationalism itself is under greater pressure than at any time since 1994, caught between a rock and a hard place. What it will do, and not do, has become unpredictable. In these circumstances, the influence of the right will depend on its development of three characteristics: panache, agility and courage. Panache comes from self-confidence, and projects it, agility is required by unpredictability, and courage is required not only to oppose the government, but to support it when it is right. What will not work is simple insistence that the right are good people, and will govern better. The electorate needs to know what it intends to do.
Charles Simkins
Head of Research
charles@hsf.org.za
[1]MmusiMaimane’s letter to the DA, Politicsweb, 14 May 2019
[2] The AEB (AfrikaanseEenheidsbeweging) is included in the 1999 results, the only election in which they gained a seat.
[3] There is a conceptual distinction between public goods and publicly provided goods. Public goods are non-excludable (by their nature, no-one can be excluded from enjoying them) and non-rival in consumption (A’s enjoyment of a public good does not preclude B’s enjoyment of the same good). Publicly provided goods are goods produced in the public sector. That they are not the same is acknowledged by the government which from time to time mentions the possibility of getting rid of non-core publicly owned entities, but never gets around to doing it.
[4] The most elegant way of dealing with pollution is to create property rights in it – the cap and trade approach. Thus the government decides on a tolerable level of pollution, auctions rights to produce it and allows holders of rights to trade them. This limits pollution to the desired level at the lowest cost, since there will be an incentive for entities which can abate pollution only at high cost to purchase rights from entities facing lower abatement costs.
[5] Public choice theory suggests that the preference which will count is that of the median voter, whose support parties compete to capture in order to win elections.
[6]National Treasury, Budget Review, 2019