Constructive politics in Africa -- The story of Idasa

CONSTRUCTIVE POLITICS The contributions of the Institute for Democracy in

South Africa (Idasa)

Produced for the World Movement for Democracy ConferenceDurban, South Africa, February, 2004

Harry C. Boyte

Introduction: Idasa’s ‘Unconventional Radicalism’

In the spring of 2003, the Institute for Democracy in

South Africa was often in the South African news. Take back

your money, ANC in Western Cape tells developers, read the headline in

ThisDay, November 28. The subhead continued: Parties must disclose

who their funders are, says Idasa. “The ANC has returned the

donations to ensure that due process can be followed without

any hint of impropriety or conflict of interest,” explained

Lynn Brown, treasurer of the African National Congress party

(ANC) in the Western Cape province. “The [ANC] statement was

released,” reported ThisDay writer Angela Quintal, “on the

day the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)

launched its court action to compel parties to disclose the

names of donors of R50,000 or more.”

Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 1

Such public interest advocacy has been a hallmark of

the organization since 1994, when the first democratic

election in South Africa, open to all the nation’s citizens,

marked the end of the apartheid regime. In early December,

the Mail and Guardian spotlighted another Idasa activity,

present from the very beginning, the creation of what co-

founder Van Zyl Slabbert terms a “politics of negotiation”

among bitterly divided groups. Indeed, the politics of

negotiation animated Idasa’s formation in 1987 as an effort

to create space for engagement across the increasingly

polarized ideological and racial divides of South African

society. In the present case, the article reflected Idasa’s

expanding work across the continent in bringing together

divided parties. Signs of shift in South Africa’s stance on Mugabe, read

the headline, reporting on an array of meetings and

consultations that sought to overcome bitter clashes among

pro and anti-government forces in Zimbabwe, a process to

which Idasa has been increasingly drawn through its work

with citizen groups in that country.


The Institute for Democracy in South Africa, Idasa, is

a large, non-governmental organization operating nationally

from offices in Pretoria and Cape Town, with a growing

presence in a number of other African nations as well. It

has played a vital role in the democratic transition and the

process of democracy building in South Africa since 1987. It

has extensive working relationships with government at every

level, civil society groups, business, and higher education.

Its mission is to promote a sustainable democracy by

building democratic institutions, educating citizens, and

advocating social justice. The mission is expressed through

the strategic objective of “building of capacity for

democracy in civil society and government.”


Since the beginning, Idasa has often worked behind the

scenes to facilitate encounters among divided parties or to

deepen knowledge that contributes to democracy building. For

instance, in a little known effort of great importance,

Idasa organized five high level trips for drafters of the

new South African constitution to England, Switzerland,

Portugal, the US, Canada, India, and Australia, in 1994 and

1995, with a group drawn from all the major parties.

Yet Idasa also has a high profile in South Africa. It

often helps to frame the debate on key issues, as political

party reactions to the contribution disclosure case suggest.

This profile has led to criticisms from the beginning, from

both left and right. .


On the left, some charge that the organization is

remote from the people. “The only strong NGOs appear to be

the elitist ones such as Idasa, which do not deal with the

grassroots and do not handle issues affecting people on the

ground,” said the government minister of Social Development,

Zola Skweyiya, in an interview with the Mail and Guardian on

November 7. Others on the left make more sweeping

accusations. In a 2002 article by political scientist Ian

Taylor in the academic journal Politikon, “South Africa’s

transition to democracy and the ‘change industry’: a case

study of IDASA,” Idasa is portrayed as taming the mass

radical movement and directing it away from anti-capitalist

struggle. In Taylor’s account, Idasa helped to create what

he calls “a polyarchical form of democracy” focused on

process not participation. Such democracies, according to

Taylor, “are not about promoting democratic input into the

everyday life of citizens, but rather have become a useful

mechanism to soothe social and political pressures.”

Critics on the right have often been even more

scathing. “Traitors!” declared the Afrikaner Weerstands


Beweging, a conservative Afrikaner group after the Idasa-

organized meeting in Dakar in 1987, bringing together for

the first time a large number of Afrikaner and other white

leaders with leaders of the banned ANC. South African

President P.W. Botha accused Idasa of “undermining the

state” and announced a parliamentary committee of inquiry to

investigate its activities.

Idasa has never been afraid to take risks or to spark

controversy. Idasa’s efforts stir things up across

boundaries of government, civil society, and business, and

in different arenas and levels of public policy – in regions

like the Southern African Development Community, in the

national Parliament, with the executive branch, with

provincial governments and local governments across South

Africa.

Different areas of work often result in different

languages, differing emphases in its programme areas, as

well as some cultural differences between the Idasa offices.

The Cape Town office, in a large building just around the

corner from Parliament, is known as more research-oriented,


publicity-conscious, and attuned to the operations of

national government. The Pretoria office is housed in the

Kutlwanong Democracy Centre, surrounded by a wall crafted by

sculptor Neels Coetzee to symbolize the diverse building

materials and fences of different racial and cultural groups

in the nation. It has a “grassroots” reputation. In the

training and meeting areas downstairs at Kutlwanong, one

sometimes sees local government officials, brought together

by the Local Government Centre; sometimes one hears sounds

of township participants singing after lunch (a South

African tradition) or the role plays and public speeches

practiced to develop public skills.

For all of Idasa’s public profile and work at the

highest levels of policy, critics’ charges of elitism

suggest obliviousness toward the grassroots commitments of

the organization. Idasa has always been involved with ground

level training programmes, action projects, and other

efforts in partnership with groups and communities.

In the run-up to the elections scheduled for April,

2004, the Idasa-authored newspaper supplement for all 2,000


high schools in the nation illustrated both its reach and

its philosophical orientation toward grassroots democracy.

Entitled Youth Vote South Africa, undertaken in association

with the Ministry of Education and the Independent Electoral

Commission, the project consists of 20 weekly supplements in

the chain of Independent newspapers across the nation.

“Democracy in its strongest form is really about citizens

actively shaping their world, not just thinking about it and

talking about it but getting out and doing something about

it,” read the issue on “Our Picture of Democracy.” It

continued with many examples and stories for young people to

get active in “the public work of democracy, ” some drawn

from its own partnerships, as in an organizing campaign

about the issue of xenophobia in a township outside of

Pretoria. “Regular elections and the freedom to vote are

usually seen as the most basic criteria for determining

whether a country and its government are democratic or not,”

said the Idasa Supplement #4. “But elections alone are never

enough to guarantee democracy, whether it is in a country, a

community or a school…How citizens participate in public


life and how government exercises its power are more

important tests of democracy than elections alone. The real

test is whether citizens are able to act and help to shape

what happens in society on an ongoing basis.” The colored

supplement urged young people to “remember the roots of the

word democracy…’people’ (demos) and ‘power’ (kratos).”

Idasa is often misunderstood for the same reasons that

it is effective: it crosses boundaries in its activities --

government, civil society, business, the press, higher

education. It works at different levels. It is practical,

not ideological , committed to a philosophy of democratic

change, social justice, and empowerment of those without

standing in conventional public affairs. To the

consternation of ideological partisans who would exclude

whole categories of people (whether racial, cultural,

partisan, economic or other) from public life, Idasa sees

democracy as an ongoing work in which the talents and

contributions of everyone are needed and are to be valued.

“Our whole philosophy is that everyone needs to be included

in the work of democracy,” says Paul Graham, current


executive director. “You can’t exclude this group or that

group because you think they’re bad. You can’t legislate

them away. The people who are excluded will come back to act

like the social problem you expect them to be.”

Its philosophy also contrasts with those who see

politics as a zero-sum struggle of oppressed against

oppressors. Questions of social and economic justice are

burning ones in a society where, as of 2003 according to the

researcher David Everett, between 45 and 55 percent of all

South Africans – some 18 to 24 million people – live in

conditions of poverty. Idasa expresses its commitments to

social and economic justice in a variety of ways, from

support for the Chapter Two advocacy network, helping

citizens advocate for social and economic rights guaranteed

under the new constitution, to its “pro-poor” budget

analysis that highlights how government allocations affect

the poor, children, and other disadvantaged communities. Its

training programs also help poor communities develop their

capacities to organize and seek justice themselves. But

Idasa combines a focus on the distributive side of politics


with what I would call an emphasis on the productive, public

wealth-generating, problem-solving, and culture creating

aspects of politics.

This working philosophy has created an organization

best characterized not along the conventional political

spectrum of left to right wing. Rather it is perhaps most

usefully described as radical, in the unconventional but

etymological sense of the word, going to the “root.” Idasa

aims at the foundational work of building democracy. This

requires, in its view, developing the public, political, and

institutional capacities of South Africa and its people to

engage in the work. Where this vision, identity, and set of

practices come from and how they have evolved over time is a

fascinating story.

The politics of negotiation

Most dramatic day in white politics, read the banner headline in

the Sunday Star, in early February, 1986. P.W. Botha’s reform

programme lies in tatters. The article continued, “Dr. Frederick

van Zyl Slabbert resigned as Leader of the Opposition

because he had reached the end of his tether in trying to


promote negotiation politics with the National Party. In

announcing he was to quit, Dr. Slabbert delivered the most

telling thumbs-down to the Government that has ever been

witnessed…”

For Slabbert, the last straw was the betrayal he felt

in late 1985 when Foreign Minister Pik Botha assured him

that South African military forces were no longer involved

in the “destabilization effort” against the anti-apartheid

government of neighboring Mozambique. “I went to Maputo (the

Mozambican capital), and the minister went over their files,

detailing all the South African destabilizing activities.

The minister told me that two weeks before, he had showed

Botha the same file.” But the frustration of Slabbert and

his colleague Alex Boraine, Chair of the Federal Council of

the largest anti-apartheid party, the Progressive Federal

Party, at the seeming irrelevancy of the Parliament had been

growing for several years. The government’s “reform policy”

of a tri-cameral parliament rhetorically removed the

apartheid system in exchange for what was called “a unitary

state system.” But it seemed to both a form of “co-optive


domination,” through which the white minority sought to

maintain control.

In the middle of 1986, Van Zyl Slabbert and Alex

Boraine created The Institute for a Democratic Alternative

in South Africa. Idasa was not founded as a political

party, not as an advocacy group nor as a popular movement.

Its aim was to generate discussion and engagement – “the

politics of negotiation” -- across a highly polarized

society, and to work with forces for change towards the

ultimate goal of a non-racial democratic South Africa.

Idasa held that it was crucial that the country find a

viable, nonviolent, nonracial and democratic alternative for

South Africa, yet such a prospect was increasingly dim,

against the background of growing violence from the state

and, increasingly, ideological politics and calls for

violent revolution from the oppressed black majority.

According to Slabbert, “it is my conviction that there are a

vast number of South Africans willing to work for freedom

and democracy... they are more than willing to oppose

repressing and co-option, but that they drift into a state


of immobilized confusion if told that the only way to

implement freedom is through violence…”

Slabbert’s understanding of politics had always

involved much more than the formal institutions of

government. “I went into Parliament with the conviction that

Parliamentary politics alone could never solve the problems

of a country like South Africa,” he explained. Slabbert

agrees with the arguments of the British political theorist

Bernard Crick, whose classic 1962 work, In Defense of Politics,

sought to rescue the concept of politics, in an older,

Aristotelian sense, from its “enemies” such as ideological

zealotry, mass democracy, and technocratic modes of thought.

In Crick and Slabbert’s view, politics is “a civilizing

activity,” the way that people of diverse interests and

views in heterogeneous societies negotiate across lines of

difference to solve problems and live together. Against

conventional usages Frederick Van Zyl Slabbert had argued

vigorously in Parliament for a “politics of negotiation,”

different than protest politics, or the politics of the

status quo, or narrowly partisan politics. “One thing is


certain,” Slabbert wrote in The Last White Parliament. “If the

Establishment ideology of siege and the anti-Establishment

ideology of violent liberation become the main protagonists

in the field of ideas in South Africa, the politics of

negotiation will decline and disappear.”

South Africa of the 1980s was a highly polarized and

violent society. It was also characterized by vast ignorance

on the part of the white population about the situation of

the black majority and its political organizations,

including the ANC, PAC, Inkatha, and AZAPO. Most whites

unthinkingly accepted the government description of the ANC

as “a terrorist group based in Lusaka with no constituency

and a commitment to violence at all costs,” as Alex Boraine

put it. More generally, the everyday lives, concerns,

talents and oppressive conditions of blacks were almost

entirely invisible. Idasa’s first years were marked by

milestone meetings to create conversations and spaces for

engagement and dialogue, sometimes in full public view,

often behind the scenes, that would break down stereotypes

and educate South Africans about each other across racial,


economic, and ideological lines. Dakar, a meeting organized

by Idasa between the ANC and white South Africans in July,

1987, reverberated around the world.

The New Voortrekkers

“There were some very nervous Afrikaners sitting in the

Air Afrique aircraft as it turned low over the lights of

Dakar and approached the runway,” reported Max Du Preez, a

leading South African journalist who made the trip with 61

white South Africans. The group included leading scholars,

business, political and church officials – the first large

meeting of South African whites, mostly Afrikaners, with the

outlawed African National Congress. “Only a handful of them

had had any contact with the ANC before, and they were

struggling to contain their subconscious prejudices before

the first contact,” Du Preez observed. Abdou Diouf,

president of Senegal, along with Danielle Mitterand, wife of

the French president, hosted the meeting. Diouf welcomed the

“New Voortrekkers” who risked the fury and retaliation of

the apartheid government. He made an eloquent argument that

Africa sees Afrikaners as white Africans, and are prepared


to welcome them as soon as they get rid of apartheid. Thabo

Mbeki, Director of Information for the ANC, brought down the

house when he walked into the room, smiled, and said, “My

name is Thabo Mbeki. I am an Afrikaner.”

In an intense three days of meetings, the two sides

exchanged views, debated questions such as the role of

violence in the anti-apartheid struggle, and, on the most

elementary level, got to know each other. On the ANC side,

the realization grew that Afrikaners were not intrinsically

hostile to the black majority. “I discarded preconceptions

about the Afrikaner people. I was able to see people of

great courage,” said Barbara Masekala, ANC secretary for

Arts and Culture. Mac Maharaj, leader in the ANC

underground, explained that “I had known Afrikaners only in

terms of an abusive and oppressive face. It brought me face

to face with the human aspect of the Afrikaners.”

On the white side, realizations came in different

forms, but with often enormous impact. Beyers Naude, the

first major white Afrikaner leader to speak out against

apartheid, who had left a position as moderator in the Dutch


Reformed church in 1963, described the end of many years of

feeling radical isolation. “The Afrikaner community seemed

monolithic,” he said. “It was very painful. You had to learn

to live without a community around you.” For many more

conservative Afrikaners, the realization that the ANC

leaders were reasonable, dedicated to an end to violent

conflict, and committed to democracy came as both an

intellectual and an emotional epiphany. “Dakar was a

remarkable experience,” said Andre du Pisani. “Not only did

it broaden my own restricted palette of the ANC, but the

fervent patriotism and intellectual prowess of its

leadership with a searching eye for debate impressed me

deeply.” Willem van Vuuren described, “Idasa’s meeting with

the ANC helped to expose the Total Onslaught myth in terms

of which the government relates to the ANC and justifies its

retrenchment of emergency rule.” Dakar also created an

enormous sense of new political possibility. As Vuuren put

it, “…Dakar proved the possibility of a responsible peace-

seeking debate on the root causes of insecurity, and these

conditions are certainly not created by Moscow.” Du Pisani


argued that “The Afrikaners that went to Dakar can never be

restored to the bosom of the National Party.” For Max du

Preez, “it ended the loneliness of being out there as an

Afrikaner thinking differently than the rest of the tribe.”

Dakar was followed by a number of meetings of similar

purpose, to create new levels of engagement, conversation,

and learning between whites and blacks. These included high

level conferences such as the ‘Freedom Charter Conference”

(September, 1988), intended to acquaint South African

leaders with the ideas of the Freedom Charter; the

“Strategies for Change Conference” (November 1988), which

included a broad range of political viewpoints. They also

included sectoral conferences such as the Lawyers Conference

in Harare ; the Women’s Conference ; and the Writers

Conference .

In 1990, when Nelson Mandela was released and the ANC

was unbanned, the organization built on these meetings of

exchange. It worked to interpret, encourage, and build wide

support for transitional mechanisms and procedures, as well

as to articulate needs and interests of citizens to the


negotiating partners. Idasa organized discussions between

the military forces on both the ANC and SA government side

(1990). It also created forums for different sectors to

consider their role in a new democracy -- Educators (1990);

the Media; Youth (1992); Police (1993). Idasa also continued

to organize a variety of face to face human contacts, such

as Mandela’s face to face discussions with business leaders

in the Orange Free State in April, 1992.

All of this was partly a simple human process. Ivor

Jenkins, an Idasa director, describes Idasa’s philosophy in

those years as “based on the belief that the future of the

nation is written in the bar at night, after the formal

sessions, when people get to know each other.” It was an

educational process as well, especially aimed at the white

population, to counter a systematically imposed ignorance.

Finally, it was also an explicitly political process. Idasa

stressed the strategic importance of involving the white

community in the struggle for non-racial democracy out of

their self-interests in change, not mainly by moral

exhortation. Acknowledging the isolation of white South


Africans, Idasa sought to bring whites out of their

insulation to create a commitment to the non-racial

democratic goal. Through Township Tours, Student Retreats

and other meetings between the white and black communities,

white South Africans were shown the reality of life for the

majority of South Africans and the reality of the democratic

movement.

Idasa’s work across during the 1980s and early 1990s is

sometimes slighted in historical interpretations which focus

on “the Miracle” of a peaceful transition to majority rule.

“The coming of South African democracy wasn’t a miracle,”

Paul Graham argues. “It was a lot of hard work.”

The Politics of Consolidation

From 1993 to 1995, Idasa worked to educate millions of

voters, including the military, and to create nonpartisan

spaces that would build legitimacy for the electoral

process. It also began to develop a sustained and

continuing focus on grassroots citizen education through a

new Training Centre for Democracy, launched in 1992.


“Central to Idasa’s work method has been the belief

that people learn best about democracy through practicing

it,” explained the Centre’s brochure, headed “Back to school

for all to learn ABC of democracy.” “We have developed

programmes which enable ordinary people and community

leaders to practice democracy.” The goal was to “use

nonformal and continuing education strategies to foster and

strengthen a culture of democracy in South Africa,”

including an extended course for community leaders from all

parts of the country.

Paralleling the growing emphasis on citizen education,

Idasa also began to organize new courses for emerging local

government leaders. “When Port Elizabeth became the first

city in South Africa with a nonracial Transitional Local

Council (TLC), Idasa was called in to provide training for

those members of the new council without experience in local

government,” read an article in The Star.

Idasa also played a key role in enlisting dissenting

groups into the election


Taming the Tiger

“There is an urgent need for a new understanding of the

right wing. Superficial political ridicule or moral

indignation serve no purpose,” said Braam Viljoen, an Idasa

staff member whose brother, Constand Viljoen, was a former

military hero in the apartheid government and became leader

of the Freedom Front conservative Afrikaner group. The

Freedom Front and other conservative Afrikaner groups were

threatening armed warfare against change. In response, Ivor

Jenkins and Viljoen developed a project, funded by the

Dutch, to open a dialogue with conservatives.

The project conducted workshops and meetings with

Afrikaner farm groups and councilors. A key opening appeared

in July, 1993, when Ivor Jenkins and Braam met with Constand

Viljoen. “We said we think we can organize a secret meeting

with Mandela,” recalls Jenkins. “Constand Viljoen said, ‘go

ahead.’”

The Mandela meeting was followed by a second meeting

between four white generals and Mbeki, Modise, Zuma, and

other leaders of the ANC, and then a series of discussions.


They resulted in an explicit attention to the concept of

protection of minority rights. An Idasa-led delegation to

Belgium and Switzerland looked at procedures for protecting

minority rights.

The threat from the right wing was tamed.

The Politics of Construction

In 1993 and 19944 Slabbert and Boraine stepped down

from leadership of Idasa. Slabbert took on an organizing

role in the new Open Society Foundation, funded by the

democracy philanthropist George Soros. Boraine, building on

a series of conferences under the name “Justice in

Transition” organized by Idasa in 1993 which had featured

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was appointed with Tutu to the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC. Tutu chaired

the TRC. Boraine served as the vice chair.

Wilmot James, an eminent young black sociologist, took

on the job of executive director. In James’ view, the

organization needed to develop new institutional platforms

“to engage in politics without involvement in partisan or

party politics.” James, who had studied in the United States


and who was impressed with the monitoring and public

interest roles nonprofit groups could play, founded a Public

Information Centre in Idasa.

Strengthening the capacities of public institutions

IDASA prided itself on an ethos of collaboration

between civil society and government stakeholders.

Programmes such as the Parliamentary Information and

Monitoring Service and Budget Information Servicein Cape

Town and the Local Government Centre and Community Safety

Programme in Pretoria worked to increase patterns of

communication and transparency across the government –civil

society boundaries. But the work was not always easy.

“Judge us by our work”

The ANC Whip of the Senate Office, 13 September, 1995

“The room fell silent. The ebullient greetings stopped in

their tracks,” recalls Richard Calland, for many years

director of PIMS. “‘So, Mamphela, from under which rock

have you now crawled to return to us?’, asked the Reverend

Arnold Stofile, ANC Chief Whip in the National Assembly.”

The question was directed to Mamphela Ramphele, former


leader in the Black Consciousness movement, one of the

indisputable heroines of the anti-apartheid struggle now

directing the newly formed Public Information Centre of

Idasa. The meeting had been called to discuss a

questionnaire distributed by the Parliamentary Information

and Monitoring Service, asking about financial assets,

backgrounds and other items. Stofile’s question stunned

almost everyone in the room. Wilmot James and Calland looked

away, nervously. Bulelani Ngcuka, ANC Senate Whip, Baleka

Kgotsitsile, Chair of the ANC Parliamentary Group, and

Stofile looked at her. Mamphela stared back for several

seconds. Then, Calland reports, “She let rip an ear-piercing

laugh and the meeting began.” The early months of the

Parliamentary Information and Monitoring Service, one of the

building blocks of Ramphele’s Public Information Centre,

were full of challenge and attack to the legitimacy of such

a group. “Who are you to demand of us?” Calland remembers as

the underlying text. In the meeting with the Parliamentary

group, Stofile pointed to Calland. “Who are you accountable

to? Where is your mandate? Who do you report to?” To Mamphela


Ramphele, he answered. “Who does she report to?” To Wilmot

James. “Who does he report to?”The board of trustees. “And

them?” To God, Calland joked, but the underlying question of

legitimacy was not answered that day, nor for some time.

Over time, however, an answer did emerge, resting on a

conception of democracy as a work in progress in which many

are needed. The motto of PIMS became, “judge us on our

work.” And despite continuing tensions and conflicts, many

have come to appreciate the role of such monitors, prods,

information sources and watchdogs. “PIMS slogan is ‘good

ethical governance,” said Kader Asmal, a leading ANC member

and now Minister of Education at the publication of the

second Register of Members Interests. “This matches our

commitment to maintain high ethical standards within

government. It is a credit to Idasa that it unleashed the

sometimes relentlessly critical attention of PIMS…as our

democracy was born. Such attention can be tiresome, even

onerous, to public representatives. But in a democracy, it

is necessary. Long live PIMS!”


Through PIMS, based in a new Cape Town office, Idasa

began to make regular submissions to parliamentary

committees on policy matters relating to transparency,

accountability and democratic process in general. It also

instituted or supported litigation to ensure compliance with

constitutional principles. At the executive level, Idasa

staff began to serve as consultants in departmental policy

making processes in the organisation’s areas of expertise.

It was also contracted to facilitate public participation

processes such as public hearings for the Constitutional

Assembly and hearings on proposed legislation and policies,

such as the White Paper on Safety and Security.

PIMS engages in legislative analysis. Over the years,

these efforts have included trenchant analysis of complex

and highly charged issues such as the controversial

Strategic Defence Procurement Package. An expanding set of

programs also have served to analyse government performance

and provide information to nonprofit organizations and

others. Thus, for instance, the main aim of the Budget


Information Service (BIS), a complementary programme to

PIMS, was to analyse budgets from a “pro-poor perspective.”

Through the Cape Town office, Idasa also became closely

associated with efforts to improve service delivery. Idasa’s

capacity building model emphasised both delivery of state

services and constitutional obligations, and appropriately

articulated and organised citizen demands. Programmes such

as the Budget Information Service and the Local Government

Centre promoted “pro-poor” service delivery through analysis

of government spending, technical assistance to government

agencies and capacity building for public participation in

prioritising, planning and monitoring of service delivery.

Idasa was a partner in the Public Service Management

Development Programme. The Public Opinion Survey (POS)

conducts highly regarded attitude surveys to guage citizens’

views of public institutions and political parties and the

state of democracy. Its Afrobarometer surveys now are

conducted in more than a dozen African nations.

All these efforts have to do with developing capacity

for effective, open work on the part of public institutions.


The organization has also seen the constructive politics of

democracy-building as involving increasing capacities of

citizens, community organizations, and other nongovernmental

organizations.

Strengthening civic capacities

Idasa’s areas of work called the All Media Group (AMG)

and the Citizen and Community Empowerment Programme (CCEP)

both are infused with a strong commitment to developing the

knowledge, skills, and confidence of citizens to be co-

creators of democracy, as well consumers of its benefits.

For instance, Idasa’s Democracy Radio Unit, part of the All

Media Group based in Cape town, reflects its robust view of

civic agency and its role in strengthening citizens voice

and capacities by the use of the term “stakeholders,”

citizens rather than customers or consumers. “Since Idasa is

a non-profit organisation, the concept of stakeholders is

more useful than that of a market,” writes Brett Davidson,

the Radio Unit’s director. “It serves as a reminder that as

an organisation seeking to serve the public good, Idasa

ought to regard service to its stakeholders as an end in


itself. In contrast, service provided to a market in a

commercial context is provided as a means to the end of

realising profit. [Moreover] ‘stakeholders’ are more active

and empowered than a ‘market’ in their relationship with the

organisation.”

The Democracy Radio Unit defines its stakeholders “as

ordinary, unorganised citizens, reached and served through

the medium of radio.” Its mission “is to provide citizens

with the education and information they need to make

informed choices,” through fifteen minute shows, sent to

radio stations across the nation. “Through providing

information and education the Unit also seeks to empower

citizens to participate in democratic life on an ongoing

basis (as opposed to doing nothing but vote once every five

years),” the Radio Unit explains. “By providing training and

programming to community broadcasters, the Democracy Radio

unit seeks to build their strength and sustainability. The

reason for this is that we believe the community radio

sector plays an important role in a democracy by

contributing to a vibrant and open public sphere.” Surveys


show that community radio listeners are often young, and the

radio stations themselves are often centers of community

life. The Democracy Radio Unit places special emphasis on

stories about ordinary people, their struggles and

successes. It also helps to train announcers and other

community radio listeners.

The Citizen Leadership Programme, a part of CCEP and a

direct descendant of the Democracy Education Centre

established in 1992, teaches community organizing skills and

an everyday, nonpartisan politics to residents largely from

townships, informal settlements, and rural areas. The idea

that politics is not only “party politics” comes as a

surprise, but is seen by most as a potent and exciting

resource for making change. “Politics is our everyday life

whether we like it or not. It shapes the future of

everyone,” said one participant from Winterfeldt, a township

outside Pretoria. “I will be more responsible in my

community. I will no longer sit around and complain about

how government does nothing,” said another. “I was so


ignorant about politics,” said a third. “Now I eat, talk and

sleep politics. I see the importance of it.”

Just before Zola Skweyiya leveled his criticism of

Idasa in the Mail and Guardian interview, a group called the

Ekurhuleni Community Networking Organization, ECNO, issued a

statement. Made up of alumnae of Idasa’s Citizen Leadership

Programme, which teaches community organizing skills over a

twenty day period to people in townships and informal

settlements, ECNO announced its plan to “research, inform

and sustain community development for the betterment of our

communities.” ECNO displayed all the newly found public

confidence that I have often observed among the participants

in Idasa’s grassroots training efforts. It pledged “to “use

the skills we have acquired from IDASA” in order to “work

tirelessly in a holistic and democratic manner to address

matters that affect and infect our communities,” on

practical issues such as identity books, as well as more

intangible questions such as the “dignity of our people.”

Finally, Idasa has continued and expanded its projects

to spread the “politics of negotiation” through deliberative


practices. Often these address bitter and explosive

controversies, with considerable political skill.

The song that created an explosion (adapted from a case study by Marie-Louise Ström)

The Durban area in South Africa, in the province now

known as “KwaZulu-Natal,” is famous for palm trees and

beaches, tropical climates and Gandhi’s famous nonviolent

protests against discrimination directed at the Indian

community, in the early 20th century. It also has a long

history of conflict between the Indians and the Zulu

peoples, who had lived in the area since about 300 AD. The

mushrooming anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and 1980s

saw some solidarity between Blacks and Indians. Yet

underlying economic and cultural tensions continued, and

worsened, in the view of many, after the pivotal election of

1994. Many Indians – and some among the Black community –

have continued to see economic advancement, while the

majority of the Zulu community experienced stagnant or even

worsening economic conditions. With up to 70 percent of jobs

in the Durban Metropolitan Council occupied by Indians many


Blacks feel excluded. Some say they wonder why they fought

and died for freedom, why they bothered to vote. This was

the background for the explosion in the spring of 2002.

In the spring of 2002 tensions between Indians and

Blacks exploded over a song, AmaNdiya (“The Indians”)

written and performed by Mbongeni Ngema, a popular Zulu

singer and playwright. The song expressed long simmering

anger felt toward Indians by many Blacks, who had long felt

victimised by Indian merchants and landlords, and underpaid

in the textile industry by Indian factory owners.

The Dialogue

Idasa decided to take action in this context to create

a dialogue in order to address the bitter divides between

the two communities. Nhlanhla Mtaka was the key Idasa staff

person on the ground involved in organising the Dialogue. He

grew up in Cato Manor, an integrated area. Although the

violence that erupted between Blacks and Indians in January

1949 happened long before he was born, he knew the date and

the time by heart. “It is an event that everyone from Cato

Manor knows about. It is deeply etched in everyone’s


memories. There is still a lot of anger. We heard so many

stories,” he recalls. “I grew up with people who grew up

next to Indians. I know the stereotypes”.

Mtaka recounts that one of the most difficult things

for him was to balance principles of dialogue and his

friendship with Ngema, an old friend. The singer was very

involved. The two men talked and strategised throughout.

There were a great many preliminary discussions with diverse

groups. Idasa had to clarify that the aim was not to

support Ngema, but to focus attention on a bigger problem.

A lot of effort went into establishing the context for the

Dialogue. “Everything hinged on the Constitution,” explains

Mtaka. “It’s all in the Preamble. I prepared a document

highlighting that the Constitution acknowledges the past,

and builds a bridge from the past to the future.” The South

African Constitution calls for “a future founded on the

recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-

existence.”

As plans for the Idasa-sponsored and church backed

dialogue in Durban took shape, rumblings against the


initiative grew louder. Moreover the political leadership

in the province was divided. Many Indian leaders in the

province, including some who were associated with the ANC,

were deeply angered by the song. Many people argued that

Idasa should condemn the song, rather than organise dialogue

around it. Frustrated by all the contesting claims on the

dialogue process by political parties, Idasa approached the

Zulu king, and asked him to open the conference. Mtaka met

with the king, and asked him for “protection against the

politicians.” The king immediately accepted. “I told him

we had to create a space where the politicians didn’t

dominate,” said Mtaka. Bringing in the king would create a

different tone. It also altered perceptions of the Dialogue

in the province. As the Dialogue approached, Idasa together

with Bishop Rubin Philip worked hard to prevent the media

from treating this as an inflammatory event, but rather to

play a role in creating the climate for dialogue. Paul

Graham and Mtaka arranged a lunch briefing with editors and

journalists, challenging the press to think about a positive

role they might play.


The dialogue conference took place in Durban from 26-27

June 2002, with diverse civil society leaders presiding.

“We wanted contributions that could get people thinking and

talking. People from both sides,” said Mtaka. A journalist

from the South African Broadcasting Corporation spoke about

freedom of expression from the point of view of a

journalist. Two “ordinary people,” well-respected, were

asked to give their views simply as citizens, not from any

professional perspective. They were Khaba Mkhize and

Anglican bishop Philip, an Indian. “My instruction to all

the speakers was to take their gloves off,” commented Mtaka.

“It was an invitation to give frank input. That is what

they did”.

To keep the dialogue citizen-centered, a series of

exposure tours were organized, with Indians and Zulus going

into each others’ communities. Mtaka negotiated with the

city bus company to provide bus transport for free, for the

purpose of the tours. The tours turned out to be eye-

openers. They dispelled the idea that all Indians are rich.

Zulus realized there was Indian poverty too. Many Indians


had never set foot in African townships before. During the

exposure tours, dialogue happened along the way. People

talked as they travelled. Even Ngema, the singer, went to

Phoenix, a poor Indian community. People were able to talk

to him.

About 400 people participated in the conference, more

Blacks than Indians, with a number of working groups. Ben

Cele chaired the working group on education at the

conference. Cele said many issues were raised, especially

relating to quality. “I had to allow the airing of

stereotypes,” Cele said. “Eventually people looked at each

other and laughed”. Religious, civic and political groups in

Natal in partnership with Idasa have created an ongoing

initiative to address the divisions and conflicts and work

on solutions.

Across Africa

Idasa has always forged strong connections with other

countries in Africa – its signature event, the Dakar

conference, held in Senegal with strong support from its

president, was a vivid example. In the last several years,


Idasa has become increasingly involved in assisting

democratic processes in other African countries, as well as

projects that cross borders. For instance, the Southern

African Migration Project (SAMP), founded in 1996, addresses

a highly controversial flow of migrants and refugees in many

Southern African countries. SAMP is a network of

institutions in eight countries in the SADC region, with

Idasa the partner institution in South Africa. It includes a

research program on migration, and also has helped to

organize an international forum in which migration officials

from all the Southern African countries meet with each other

and with immigration advocacy and research groups. The new

Governance and AIDS Project (GAP), in another case,

organizes on the premise that the impact of HIV and AIDS

poses a serious threat to democratic consolidation. It seeks

to organize political leaders across the Southern African

region to act collectively, as legislators.

One of the challenges is to avoid what the Democracy

Radio Unit – another of the strands of international

expanding work, especially in the Southern African region --


calls a “big brother” approach which assumes that South

Africans have the answers.

As Idasa has expanded its work in the rest of Africa,

it has also has taken on an increasingly self-conscious

“African” identity and perspective on what democracy means.

Recent work in Nigeria illustrates.

What is democracy? The story of the Nigerian election

Idasa, with two other partners, won a tender from USAID

in 2002 for a two year project in Nigeria known as “the

Programme for Civic Empowerment (PACE)”. The aim of the

programme is to strengthen and build the capacity of

Nigerian civil society in areas of electoral support,

constitutional reform, transparency and peacebuilding. An

Idasa office opened in Abuja, Nigeria, with a three person

staff directed by Derrick Marco, a seasoned veteran of

democracy work across the continent. The first effort was to

analyze, monitor, and respond to the threats of violence

that could threaten the 2003 election.

Idasa is one of the few democracy organizations working

in the continent, according to Marco, “that have as the


basic point of departure country-based initiatives.” This

meant, in particular, that Idasa worked in partnership with

churches and trade unions to establish a 600 person

“Alternative Information Network,” aimed at constantly

gathering information from communities, disseminating

information, and working to develop strategies to minimize

violence. The Idasa angle of vision differed sharply from

election observers from the European Union , according to

Marco. Idasa’s “angle of vision was pan Africanism, and the

commitment to make the democratic project on the continent

work.” According to the EU observers, questionable practices

in some regions after the first round of voting meant a

failed election. But Idasa’s template was fundamentally

different. It asked questions such as “what is minimally

needed to make the democratic process move forward?” “Is

there progress in controlling violence?” “Do people feel

involved?” Idasa was able to release a statement soon after

the polls closed that the election, while not perfect, was

definitely an advance. Idasa’s judgment had large impact on

international opinion about the election’s credibility. It


could well have been the key factor in the government’s

holding of the next round of elections.

The Idasa Approach

Idasa’s strategic phrase is that it “builds capacity

for democracy.” Capacity means the capacity of government

and the capacity of citizens and civic institutions (such as

NGOs, CBOs, schools, the press). It also includes the idea

of “democratic governance,” which has to do with the quality

and culture of the citizen-government interaction.

Democratic governance involves a culture of accountability,

transparency, responsiveness, and permeability of government

and civil society boundaries.

Essential government capacities should involve, in

Idasa’s view, not only the ability to generate private

development, but also, most importantly, the capacity of

government and others to generate public development. This

means the creation and delivery of public goods – quality

education, health care, water, and other services which

people can use to lift themselves out of poverty, as well as


a clean environment, vibrant public institutions like the

courts and Parliament and local government, and healthy

organizations of civil society such as a free, independent,

and responsible press. An explicit attention to public-

wealth-development may not be unique, but it goes against

the grain of the current language of privatization, popular

around the world.

The creation of public institutional capacity is

closely tied, in the Idasa approach, to “building citizen

capacities” This means, for Idasa, developing the skills and

leadership of ordinary people to advocate their rights and

interests – to demand that government deliver on its

promises.

It also means developing people’s skills and abilities

to engage with others across lines of racial, cultural,

economic, or ideological differences to accomplish public

tasks such as conflict resolution or problem solving. These

capacities are developed through deliberation and public

work. This emphasis represents an older understanding of

politics, present from Slabbert’s initial conception, as


negotiation among a plurality of interests to accomplish

some public task. Idasa adds a clear accent on the

productive and horizontal dimensions to politics.

Politics, for all its bad reputation around the world

at the beginning of the 21st century, is nonetheless the

master language of decision making, goal setting, engagement

of interests, and power wielding in complex, diverse

societies. When politics becomes increasingly

professionalized – the property of professional politicians,

activist lobbies, or ideological mobilizers of “the people”

– most people are shut out of the serious work of deciding

about and creating the world. Citizenship becomes thinned

out, sentimentalized, or reduced to righteous demands and

complaints.

Idasa respects the mandate of government, the

convening, legislative, and moral role of political leaders,

the responsibilities of public institutions. But it shifts

from a state-centered view of democracy and politics to an

understanding of democracy as involving the rhythms,

patterns, and cultures of the broad array of institutions


and communities in society – democracy as a way of life, not

simply periodic elections.

Perhaps most novel and important in a world where

professionals increasingly dictate the terms and frameworks

of politics, Idasa has from the beginning sought to retrieve

this different, nonprofessional understanding of politics.

In Idasa’s view, politics belongs to the people. “The world

politics…comes from the Greek word politikos , which means ‘of

the citizen,’” read the Idasa-authored Youth Vote South

Africa Supplement #5, November 4, 2003. “Originally

politics had nothing to do with parties or politicians. It

meant the public relationships between citizens themselves.

Politics was about the ways in which ordinary citizens

engaged each other, across lines of difference, on matters

of public or common interest. Citizens can reclaim the real

work of politics and make it their own by remembering the

history of the word.”

Idasa’s approach to philosophically democratic and

constructive politics has been informed by a quest, perhaps

increasing in emphasis, to find its roots in African


traditions and experiences, not models imported from Europe

or the United States. “If we deepen our definition of

democracy to include the ongoing public work of citizens,

then there are [many African] traditions we can draw upon,”

read the Youth Vote South Africa Supplement. “Active

citizenship is not about sitting back and waiting for

government to deliver the goods. Nor is it about letting

government off the hook and taking over its work. To protect

and promote democracy, citizens need to work together with

government, holding it accountable but also proving energy,

intelligence, talent and resources to create things that are

of value to the whole community.”

Idasa’s practice of a deprofessionalized, constructive

politics has parallels elsewhere in the developing world.

For instance, a similar view of politics as about democratic

empowerment, horizontal relations among citizens, and the

negotiation among diverse interests, groups, cultures, and

perspectives, animates the highly effective education reform

effort Hakielimu (quality education), in Tanzania. Hakielimu

organizes across government, civil society, and community


and other borders to involve citizens in school reform and

governance structures in Tanzania, while it also impacts

national policy. An explicit attention to nonpartisan

politics that empowers citizens is also apparent in the

faith based organizing networks developing among low income

church communities in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port

Elizabeth, Durban, and elsewhere. This approach has deep

roots in older South African struggle traditions that

emphasized the everyday work of organizing, developing local

leadership, and creating public goods like clinics and

cooperatives, such as the Black Consciousness Movement of

the 1970s.

What makes Idasa distinctive is the boldness,

largeness, and multidimensionality of its political approach

for the 21st century. Constructive politics of the sort

Idasa pioneers challenges “politics as usual” across the

world. We live in an era when increasingly large problems

confront humanity which can’t be solved without government,

but which governments alone can never solve. Idasa has

understood from the beginning a crucial truth of democracy


building in our age: To create flourishing democracies and a

global environment hospitable to such democracies will

require deep respect for the interests, talents, and

intelligence of all.

Author’s afterward: This booklet is the product of an ongoing research effort called “Lessons from the Field,” an examination of the distinctive contributions that Idasa’s experiences have generated over the sixteen years of its history. I aman outside observer, someone who has not participated directly in this history and, though highly sympathetic to Idasa’s work, someone with critical distance. Lessons from the Field is based on the premise that Idasa is not simply “implementing” democracy but also generating a considerable body of theoretical insight about what makes democracy work and what core concepts such as democracy, citizenship, and politics mean. The analytical approach here seeks to surface Idasa’s underlying understandings of core political concepts, sometimes but not always explicit in the work of the organization This is partly because Idasa’s conceptual framework seems to me a largely overlooked key to its success and warrants far more explicit recognition, discussion, and debate

The research method here, of sympathetic but critical engagement, reflects one of the ongoing research methods of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship (CDC) at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute. The CDC builds grounded theory about democracy, citizenship, and politics from direct practices in our partnerships and also from observation and analysis of other democracy-promoting efforts.

Dr. Harry C. Boyte is co-director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship (CDC), a senior fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute, and a graduate faculty member of the College of Liberal Arts. Boyte’s latest book, Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life, is forthcoming in 2004 from the University of Pennsylvania Press. From 1993 to 1995, Boyte coordinated The New Citizenship, a nonpartisan confederation of universities and civic groups that worked in coordination with the White House Domestic Policy Council to analyze the citizen-government gap and to propose remedies.


Boyte wishes to express appreciation for the research assistance of Eric Kramon, an Idasa intern in the winter of 2003


Constructive politics in Africa -- The story of Idasa

Documents

Transcript of Constructive politics in Africa -- The story of Idasa