Solly Moeng: Our democratic institutions have drifted from their original promise

Key topics:

• SA democracy weakened by corruption, executive overreach, and party capture

• SOEs mismanaged, fueling fiscal strain and eroding public trust

• Civic engagement shallow; urgent reform needed in education and governance

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.

If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

By  Solly Moeng*

South Africa still seems to deliberately avoid some uncomfortable conversations it must engage in. Thirty-one years since our collective triumph over apartheid, our nation has a myriad of reasons to sit down – not in a politically hi-jacked and managed “national dialogue” – and to reflect. Such a reflection should shine the light into the deepening crevices and fault lines in our democratic institutions, state-owned enterprises, executive powers, and the levels of civic understanding among citizens.  This must be done to strengthen and shield our democracy from irreversible capture by forces in government and the criminal underworld. 

Our country’s march towards a truly accountable, participatory democracy depends on a willingness to honestly review and decisively reform the foundational structures which shape our society. If we hesitate, we risk surrendering our national future to entrenched interests, administrative lethargy, and criminal opportunists – all at the expense of the people this democracy was forged to serve. 

The advent of our post-apartheid democracy in 1994 heralded South Africa’s moment of hope. Institutions, both old and new, were reimagined to enable accountable governance, service delivery to all, and respect for our fundamental rights. Yet, the passage of three decades has exposed vulnerabilities that now threaten our democratic aspirations. Over the years, we have witnessed parliament, once hoped to provide robust oversight, too often emerging as reactive and slow to exercise its watchdog mandate. Key committees often lacked the political will, independence, or courage to challenge executive excess, or to bring rogue public officials to account. 

Read more:

Efforts to reform legislative practice and procedure routinely meet institutional inertia, leaving the door open for expedient, politicised decision-making. Meanwhile, the criminal justice system has weathered severe storms. Political interference, resource constraints, and systematic “capture” of agencies – most notably the National Prosecutions Authority, the Hawks, and the SAPS – has left South Africans staring at a landscape where corruption is rarely prosecuted and wrongdoing seldom punished. State commissions of inquiry, established at great expense, frequently investigate without consequence, further undermining public trust in democratic redress.    

South Africa’s SOEs are a yardstick for government competence and intent. Originally envisaged as engines of development and economic inclusion, entities like Eskom, Transnet, Denel, the PIC, Waterboards across the country, SAA, and several others have, over the past 20 years or so, morphed into battlegrounds for patronage and corruption. Institutional capture hollowed out boards, replaced technical expertise with political loyalty, and drowned operational discipline into opaque procurement practices often linked to aspects of black economic empowerment policies.  The results are plain to see – crumbling infrastructure, fiscal haemorrhaging that forces endless government bailouts at the expense of adequate funding for health, education, and other social services, as well as economic stimulation for sustainable growth and job creation.  

The persistence of corruption within SOEs and other arms of the state erodes public trust in government. It also weakens the very fabric of national development and social cohesion. 

No democratic system can thrive without a clear-eyed review of the power afforded to the executive, particularly the president. South Africa’s Constitution endows the President with sweeping powers – appointing key officials, shaping government priorities, and commanding substantial resources. While the intent might have been to craft strong, stable leadership, experience has shown that the concentration of power breeds opacity and great risk for our democracy. Presidential discretion is often exercised with minimal accountability, and checks on misuse are routinely bypassed, especially in times of political crisis or coalition flux. It gets worse when the president or those around him/her are the problem.

Recent events underscore the challenge: presidents may be pressured by internal party factions or opaque external interests, casting national priorities aside to accommodate narrow or short-term goals. The imbalance has undermined not only institutional independence, but also the principle that no individual should be above the law. 

No democracy is self-sustaining; it demands constant nurturing. In our case, meaningful citizen participation hinges on robust civic education, which is, regrettably, inconsistently delivered and insufficiently prioritised. Schools may touch on constitutional values and election procedures, but fail to cultivate a deep understanding of rights, responsibilities, and day-to-day mechanics of governance. Young people, especially in marginalised communities, lack exposure to democratic debate and advocacy skills.    

The result is widespread voter apathy, a shallow appreciation of democratic norms, and dangerous cynicism about the very idea of participation. Re-energising civic education must be a national priority. It means investing in curricula that teach critical thinking, democratic history, and practical activism – not merely the mechanics of voting in which hundreds of millions or rands often get invested, but the power of organising, engaging public officials, and asserting agency in everyday life.   

While essential in any democracy, periodic elections cannot be the sole mechanism for effective citizen voice. The space between elections often sees the public reduced to spectators, with meaningful consultation reserved for well-connected groups or political party loyalists. Existing platforms for public engagement – ward committees, parliamentary workshops, participatory budgeting processes – are frequently underfunded, rushed, bureaucratic, or inaccessible to ordinary citizens, at times because of inaccessible language. Too many South Africans experience democracy as something “done to them” rather than something they co-create. It has been turned into “something about them without them.” This must change.

To counter this, South Africa needs a far deeper, consequential, and richer array of channels for citizen consultation. Participatory democracy should be woven into routine governance – from village planning to national policy debates. A basket of digital tools can help, but only if supported by capacity-building and transparency. Public institutions must not only hear citizens but also demonstrate how their input influences outcomes. 

One of the starkest lessons since 1994 has been the drift of power into political parties, often at the expense of individual accountability. South Africa’s party-list electoral system encourages careerism, shields MPs from real public scrutiny, and fosters a disconnect with local concerns. Weak links between voters and elected officials have allowed parties to repurpose legislative seats for patronage, ideological rigidity, or personal gain. Elected officials fear the wrath of their party bosses more than that of the voters. This too must change.

To restore accountability, South Africa should urgently consider a shift to a constituency-based Electoral Act. Each community deserves an accessible, responsive MP personally answerable to local needs. The introduction of a minimum threshold – such as 3% of the national vote before a party can claim a parliamentary seat – could curtail the proliferation of tiny parties and focus on substantive issues. It is vital that reform does not further marginalise minorities, but it must ensure public representatives earn the right to serve and cannot simply trade party loyalties for power and personal gain.   

Just over three decades on, South Africa’s institutions are at an infection point. Our democracy faces both familiar and novel dangers – state capture and other forms of corruption, executive overreach, popular cynicism, and social exclusion. We must act not with nostalgia for the ideals of transition, but with a clear vision for the urgent reforms the present demands.

Read more:

This moment calls for honest introspection, deliberate structural change, and a recommitment to the constitutional promise of an open, just, representative, and accountable society. It is not enough to periodically elect our leaders; we must reconstitute the foundations of governance to make democracy real by reforming institutions, repurposing SOEs for public good, taming executive excess, reinvigorating civic education and, finally, reconnecting citizens to the everyday processes that shape their daily existence and future.

If we find the courage to act, South Africa can defy its critics, restore confidence in democracy, and build a society worthy of its founding vision. If not, history will record our failure not as a matter of fate, but of will. Time is increasingly no longer on our side.

 *Solly Moeng: Commentator and Brand Reputation Strategist