Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Democracy is understood by many to be a government for the people by the people.
As far as academic or scholarly traditions are concerned however, this is a rather
populist depiction of the concept. According to the intellectual tradition, democracy is
such when a system of governance meets several conditions. For the purpose of this
study, the institutionalist tradition or theory of democracy which sees democracy as
being dependent on institutions of contestation (elections) and participation
(parliament) as well as others, is an important variable.
However, the very same theory on democracy is not limited to institutions as the sole
requirements for democracy. For the economic determinists, the point is that whilst
institutions are important for democracy, they are not sufficient. In order for there to
be such, favourable socio-economic conditions are important as well and these
include affluence amongst other issues.
The scientific orientation of this study being comparative, it seeks to take both the
institutionalist variable of elections and the economic determinist variable of
affluence as operational measures of the state of democracy in South Africa and
Zimbabwe. As an additional operationalisation, the issue of civil and political liberties
as per Freedom House classifications is also investigated in a similar comparative
manner.
The outcomes of the study show that at an electoral level, South Africa's model of
proportional representation in the seat allocation system gives minorities a voice as
opposed to Zimbabwe's fast past the post system based on the winner takes all
principle. It was also established that the electoral machinery in Zimbabwe is more
chaotically arranged and thus susceptible to abuse than in South Africa.
At a socio-economic level, conditions have also been found to be a lot more
favourable to the consolidation of democracy in South Africa than in Zimbabwe
because of a wide array of issues, the most serious one being the declining income
patterns for the average Zimbabwean as compared to the South African. Though the
issue of high income inequality in South Africa should be highlighted as a threat, it
should also be noted that in Zimbabwe, the apparent disrespect of the rule of law has
an added negative implication for Zimbabwe as Freedom House has highlighted the declining of the country from partly free of 3.4 in 1980 to a partly free of 6.5 in 2000.
The overall analysis comes to the conclusion that given the findings above, it seems
South Africa's democracy can still hold stronger given an accelerated equitable
distribution of wealth whilst for Zimbabwe, the revitalisation of democracy needs to
start from the re-engineering of institutions to the regeneration of the concept of
respect for the rule of law. Thus the comparison seems to show a democracy better
suited for consolidation than the other. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Demokrasie word deur talle verstaan as regering van die volk deur die volk. Hierdie is
egter 'n populêre voorstelling van die konsep. Volgens intellektuele tradisies, moet 'n
demokrasie aan sekere vereistes voldoen. Vir die doel van hierdie studie, word die
institusionele denke aanvaar wat die demokrasie as afhanklik van sulke instellings
soos mededinging (verkiesings) en deelname ('n parlement) beskou.
Dieselfde denke beklemtoon ook dat instellings nie die enigste vereistes is me,
byvoorbeeld vir ekonomiese deterministe, is instellings nodig maar nie genoegsaam
nie. Dit beteken dat gunstige sosio-ekonomiese toestande ook moet geld, spesifieke
relatiewe hoë welvaartspeile.
Die wetenskaplike orientasie van hierdie studie is vergelykend. Dit vergelyk sowel
ekonomiese as institusionele kriteria, asook twee state, Suid-Afrika en Zimbabwe. 'n
Addisionele saak word ook geoperasionaliseer, te wete burgerlike vryhede en
politieke regte. Hier word Freedom House se klassifikasies aanvaar.
Die studie toon dat op die vlak van verkiesings, Suid-Afrika se proporsionele
verteenwoordigingstelsel kleiner partye en minderheidspartye verteenwoordiging
bied, teenoor Zimbabwe se wenner-vat-alles-stelsel. Die Zimbabwiese stelsel was
meer vatbaar vir wanbestuur en onvrye en onregverdige verkiesings.
Op die sosio-ekonomiese vlakke is toestande vir die konsolidasie van demokrasie in
Suid-Afrika veel beter as in Zimbabwe, waarvan die vernaamste die afname in
welvaartspeile in Zimbabwe is. Hierteenoor is die styging van ongelykheidsvlakke in
Suid-Afrika 'n negatiewe faktor. In Suid-Afrika is vryheidsindekse van Freedom
House egter steeds op 'n hoë vlak, terwyl die Zimbabwiese vlakke drasties
agteruitgaan, byvoorbeeld vanaf 3.4 in 1980 tot 'n onvrye vlak van 6.5 in 2000 waar
'n punt van 7 totaal onvry is.
Die konklusie is dat demokrasie in Suid-Afrika konsolideerbaar is, terwyl Zimbabwe
ook instellings sal moet red van ondergang. Die herstel van regsoewereiniteit kan 'n
beginpunt wees. Die vergelykings wys dus uit dat Suid-Afrika veel beter daaraan toe
is as Zimbabwe.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/52740 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Nelufule, Maanda David |
| Contributors | Breytenbach, W. J., Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Science. Dept. of Political Science. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en_ZA |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 80 pages |
| Rights | Stellenbosch University |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds