Recently, South Africa has reached a moment of self-reflection, primarily due to the ongoing BELA issue. If there is such a phenomenon like national existentialism, South Africa is experiencing it, for never has it been as necessary for the country to ask itself: What am I?
That a government led entirely by the ANC, whose members received Stalinist-Leninist training since the 1950’s, seeks to centralise power within itself should in reality not have come as too much of a surprise. Centralising power stands at the heart of both Lenin and Stalin’s Marxist interpretation, and those who were surprised by centralising measures between 1994 and May of 2024 simply did not bother to read ANC and SACP literature from especially the 1970’s and 1980’s (read: Slovo’s pamphlets). With the GNU firmly in power, a moment of optimism for democracy, and then a true, representative democracy, might have seemed like a fleeting illusion.
Public participation is, and has always been one of the cornerstones of the democratic system. For at least two and a half millennia, democracy has meant that the people, the masses, should have power, their will should be the final, the governing will. However, the will of the masses is of course not above reprieve, with controls and protections having been introduced over time to prevent excesses and discriminations. Historical lessons from Paris in the summers of 1789 or 1968 would underscore why such protections are essential.
Modern democracy demands more than periodic voting; it requires ongoing engagement and vocal participation. We speak our minds, and use the existing platforms to raise our voices. This is where DearSA and the ANC’s leftwing dream of BELA come into play. At DearSA we champion the idea that the public should be heard, that a democracy works at its best when the people, the masses, remain involved in the periods between drawing their crosses on ballots to the highest extent possible. This belief is enshrined in legal provisions such as Section 59(1)(a) of the Constitution, which mandates that Parliament must 'facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes' and Section 72(1)(a), which extends the same principle to the National Council of Provinces. Public participation is not an optional courtesy but a legal necessity.
We encourage voters to submit comments here, which we then collect and disseminate to the relevant bodies, to make sure that everyone is heard. Over all of our platforms, more than 89% of participants firmly opposed the BELA Act. South Africans coming from all over, both ideologically and geographically took one look at this and said: Aikona! Why? This discontent arises from a shared belief that parents are the primary custodians of their children's welfare, a responsibility being usurped by distant bureaucrats in Pretoria.
The centralisation of power under the guise of reform evokes memories of historical episodes where governments, professing to serve the people, instead consolidated control for their own ends. One might recall the French Revolution, where the lofty promises of liberty and equality gave way to a new form of authoritarian rule. Similarly, the BELA Bill represents a troubling shift towards centralized control that undermines the very essence of democratic governance.
Before the BELA Act, the decentralised power vested in school governing bodies was a departure from the rigid centralisation of the apartheid era, where national government dictated education policy with little regard for local needs. The apartheid system’s imposition of language policies on learners sparked the Soweto protests and highlighted the disconnect between central government decisions and local realities. The shift towards empowered school governing bodies represented a step towards local autonomy and responsiveness, aiming to rectify the injustices of a bygone era. The BELA Bill’s move back to centralised control threatens to undo this progress, placing decision-making power once again in the hands of distant authorities.
By ignoring public sentiment, the essence of democracy is disregarded. It is alarming that despite this overwhelming opposition, the Bill is still being driven forward, raising the uncomfortable question: Is South Africa turning into a unionocracy rather than a democracy? There is a concern that the backing of certain unions, despite the will of nearly 90% of South Africans opposing the Bill, suggests that the interests of powerful groups are being placed above the voices of ordinary citizens. The danger lies in creating a system where unions hold sway over public policy, bypassing the democratic process and silencing the will of the people.
We must scrutinise the nature of our democracy: Is it a façade of democracy where the GNU's rhetoric serves to attract investors and media attention, while the NDR’s agendas dictate policy in practice? The true measure of a democracy lies not just in the act of voting but in the continuous, genuine engagement of its citizens in shaping their governance. If we allow the will of a powerful few to override the voice of the many, we risk transforming our democratic institutions into mere instruments of an oligarchy, rather than champions of the people's will.
