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.
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 2
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.”
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 3
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. .
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 4
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 5
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,
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 6
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 7
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 8
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 9
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 10
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 11
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 12
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 13
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 14
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,
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 15
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 16
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 17
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 18
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 19
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 20
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.
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 21
“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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 22
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.
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 23
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 24
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 25
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 26
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!”
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 27
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 28
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.
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 29
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 30
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 31
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 32
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 33
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 34
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 35
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 36
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.
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 37
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 38
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,
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 39
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 --
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 40
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 41
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 42
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 43
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 44
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 45
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 46
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 47
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
Boyte, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 48
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, Constructive Politics, 11/12/03 49
Top Related