Democracy, traditional leadership and the International Economy in South Africa

The paper argues that in order to adequately analyse the development of postcolonial democracy - in this case South Africa - a theoretical model has to take into account the context within which that democratic experiment finds itself in. This context is shaped by the international political economy, the circulation of a democracy discourse at both the level of global and local political culture, and the history of state-formation. The paper explores what might explain the resurgence of purportedly 'traditional' modes of governance, symbolised by the 'chief' across several rural landscapes. It argues that the inability of the state to affect fundamental changes in the social, political and economic conditions of the rural hinterlands has created a situation in which local power holders are able to redefine traditional cultural values. In the process of doing so, these local power holders both shape and are shaped by a global discourse of what democracy might be and mean. The paper highlights the debate concerning notions of 'African' forms of democracy, embodied most starkly by some of Nelson Mandela’s writings, which hold that village level deliberation and chieftaincy based upon community consensus may be more appropriate models of democracy than western versions based upon the notions of electoral contestation. This argument stands in sharp contrast to conventional approaches to democracy which would suggest that traditional leadership is an anachronism of lesser developed countries and stands in contrast to western democratic norms and values.

Una teoría económico-política de partidos competitivos

RESUMEN:Los partidos políticos se dirigen a ciertos grupos sociales y distritos electorales a los que pretenden representar y de los cuales esperan obtener apoyo electoral en su búsqueda de votos y cargos electorales. ¿Por qué y cómo desarrollan preferencias en su política los partidos? En general, ¿cómo podemos explicar la racionalidad del partido en condiciones de incertidumbre y complejidad? El artículo desarrolla una teoría económico-política de comportamiento de partidos que sostiene que el análisis debería basarse solamente en los «actores» individuales. A partir del postulado de Demsetz que sostiene que la mejor forma de estudiar los partidos es considerarlos como proveedores de unos «beneficios colaterales», este estudio sostiene que las opciones electorales y de programa de un partido son el resultado de una coalición dominante intrapartido formada por individuos que consiguen imponer sus preferencias en el partido. «La racionalidad del partido» no se basa en factores sistémicos u opciones racionales generados por la organización misma sino por grupos de actores dentro del partido que compiten no sólo con otros rivales dentro del mismo partido sino también con otros partidos. ABSTRACT:Political parties target certain social groups and constituencies which they claim to represent and from whom they hope to obtain electoral support in their quest for votes and electoral office. Why and how do parties develop policy preferences? More generally, how can we account for party rationality under conditions of uncertainty and complexity? The article develops a «political economy» theory of party behavior which maintains that individual actors ought to be the only focus of analysis. Building upon Demsetz's argument that parties are best studied as providers of «amenity potential», the study contends that a party's electoral and policy choices are the product of a dominant intra-party coalition of individuals who are able to impose their preferences on the party. «Party rationality» is not shaped by systemic factors or rational choices by the organization itself but by groups of intra-party actors who are in competition not only with other intra-party rivals but other parties

Democracy, traditional leadership and the international economy in South Africa

The paper argues that in order to adequately analyse the development of postcolonial democracy – in this case South Africa – a theoretical model has to take into account the context within which that democratic experiment finds itself in. This context is shaped by the international political economy, the circulation of a democracy discourse at both the level of global and local political culture, and the history of state-formation. The paper explores what might explain the resurgence of purportedly ‘traditional’ modes of governance, symbolised by the ‘chief’ across several rural landscapes. It argues that the inability of the state to affect fundamental changes in the social, political and economic conditions of the rural hinterlands has created a situation in which local power holders are able to redefine traditional cultural values. In the process of doing so, these local power holders both shape and are shaped by a global discourse of what democracy might be and mean. The paper highlights the debate concerning notions of “African” forms of democracy, embodied most starkly by some of Nelson Mandela’s writings, which hold that village level deliberation and chieftaincy based upon community consensus may be more appropriate models of democracy than western versions based upon the notions of electoral contestation. This argument stands in sharp contrast to conventional approaches to democracy which would suggest that traditional leadership is an anachronism of lesser developed countries and stands in contrast to western democratic norms and values

Democracy, traditional leadership and the international economy in South Africa

The paper argues that in order to adequately analyse the development of postcolonial democracy – in this case South Africa – a theoretical model has to take into account the context within which that democratic experiment finds itself in. This context is shaped by the international political economy, the circulation of a democracy discourse at both the level of global and local political culture, and the history of state-formation. The paper explores what might explain the resurgence of purportedly ‘traditional’ modes of governance, symbolised by the ‘chief’ across several rural landscapes. It argues that the inability of the state to affect fundamental changes in the social, political and economic conditions of the rural hinterlands has created a situation in which local power holders are able to redefine traditional cultural values. In the process of doing so, these local power holders both shape and are shaped by a global discourse of what democracy might be and mean. The paper highlights the debate concerning notions of “African” forms of democracy, embodied most starkly by some of Nelson Mandela’s writings, which hold that village level deliberation and chieftaincy based upon community consensus may be more appropriate models of democracy than western versions based upon the notions of electoral contestation. This argument stands in sharp contrast to conventional approaches to democracy which would suggest that traditional leadership is an anachronism of lesser developed countries and stands in contrast to western democratic norms and values

Globalization and governmentality in the post-colony: South Africa under Jacob Zuma

This paper addresses two twin questions - what accounts for the deep political and economic crisis in South Africa? The answer this paper develops is that both desired outcomes - a thriving capitalist economy and a solid democracy - were based on Western models and assumptions about the South African developmental trajectory that did not take into account the fact that few of the prerequisites for either outcome existed. By critically applying the work of Partha Chatterjee, I make the argument that around 60 per cent of South Africa's population is marginalized from both the capitalist economy and its democratic processes. As a result, this large population views both democracy and capitalism with disdain and mistrust. The "politics of the governed", as Chatterjee refers to it, is about access to scarce government-controlled resources and based on rules of exception where those who protest in the most effective (often violent) manner obtain access whereas those who occupy less strategic positions are ignored and forgotten. The politics of the governed takes place in a global setting in which the state is no longer economically sovereign and less able to distribute resources to achieve public goods. The combination of a large political society governed in a more or less democratic system and an open, capitalist economy produces a distinctive style of populist politics, corruption and violence

Ecology, Economy and Empowerment: Eco-Tourism and the Game Lodge Industry in South Africa

An extensive game lodge industry operates across Southern Africa. Many of these lodges market themselves as 'eco-tourism destinations' where wildlife protection, community development and the maintenance of bio-diversity are supposed to be central values of the business model. This article deals with the tensions that arise for the management of such enterprises between a multiplicity of local and global interests around land use pertaining to conflicting motivations of profitability and capital-intensive development, protection of bio-diversity and enabling community empowerment. The article illustrates the interplay between these competing interests, preferences and claims surrounding the use to which the land these lodges occupy is used. It examines a set of cases in South Africa with special reference to the Sabi Sand Private Game Reserve.

Social Capital in Emerging Democracies

Theorists have linked the creation of social capital to the development of the kind of robust civil society that underwrites the well formed and stable democracy. This understanding raises the problem of what is social capital in specific national contexts. A critical issue is whether and to what extent a model of social capital moulded to the EuroAmerican experience is applicable to the new democracies. Three arguments are made in the context of a review of the works of Putnam and Touraine. First, the question of social capital foundationally concerns not only the production of institutions and values but the conditions of production. Analysis thus needs to grasp not only the specifically social process of its creation, distribution, and institutionalization, but the political culture and economy that serve as its foundation. Second, theories of social capital created in the context of nation-state based production-centered political economy do not capture what is going on in an increasingly globalized and circulatory political economy. And third, theories of social capital centered on the United States and Europe are only partially applicable to the emerging democracies of Africa and the postcolony generally.Les théoriciens ont démontré que la création du capital social du développement d’une société civile robuste garantit le bien-fondé d’une démocratie stable. Cette compréhension soulève le problème de la nature du capital social dans des contextes nationaux spécifiques. Un problème critique est de savoir si et dans quelle mesure un modèle de capital social façonné sur l’expérience euro-américaine est applicable aux nouvelles démocraties. Trois arguments sont faits dans le contexte d’une revue des travaux de Putnam et Touraine. Tout d’abord, la question du fondement du capital social concerne non seulement l’établissement d’institutions et de valeurs mais aussi les conditions de la production. Ainsi, l’analyse doit prendre en compte non seulement le processus social spécifique de sa création, la distribution et l’institutionnalisation, mais la culture et l’économie politique qui sert à son fondement. Ensuite, les théories du capital social dans le contexte de l’État-nation, basées sur l’économie politique et centrée sur la production n’ont pas de prise sur ce qui se passe dans une économie politique globalisée et circulatoire. Enfin, les théories du capital social inspirées de celles des États-Unis et de l’Europe sont seulement applicables partiellement à l’émergence de démocraties en Afrique et la post-colonisation prise d’une façon générale.Theoretiker haben die Bildung von Sozialkapital mit der Entwicklung der Art von robuster Zivilgesellschaft verbunden, die die wohlgeformte and stabile Demokratie garantiert. Dieses Verständnis wirft das Problem auf, was Sozialkapital in bestimmten nationalen Zusammenhängen darstellt. Eine kritische Frage ist, ob und zu welchem Umfang ein Sozialkapital-Modell, das nach der europäisch-amerikanischen Erfahrung geformt ist, auf die neuen Demokratien anwendbar ist. Drei Argumente werden im Zusammenhang mit einer Rezension von Werken von Putnam und Touraine vorgetragen. Erstens, die Frage von Sozialkapital betrifft grundsätzlich nicht nur die Herstellung von Institutionen und Werten, sondern auch die Herstellungsbedingungen. Deshalb muss eine Analyse nicht nur den speziell sozialen Prozess seiner Herstellung, Verteilung und Institutionalisierung sondern auch die politische Kultur und Ökonomie, die als Grundlage dienen, erfassen. Zweitens, die im Mittelpunkt der politischen Ökonomie stehenenden Theorien von Sozialkapital, das im Zusammenhang mit Produktion auf nationalstaatlicher Ebene gebildet wird, erfassen nicht, was in einer zunehmend globalisierten und umlaufenden politischen Ökonomie passiert. Und drittens, Theorien von Sozialkapital bezogen auf die Vereinigten Staaten und Europa sind nur teilweise auf die aufstrebenden Demokratien in Afrika und die Nachkolonialzeit im generellen anwendbar.Los teóricos han asociado la aparición del capital social con el desarrollo del tipo de sociedad civil madura que es la piedra angular de una democracia estable y consolidada. Esta idea origina el problema de qué es capital social en contextos específicos nacionales. Una cuestión crítica es si un modelo de capital social adaptado a la experiencia euroamericana es aplicable a las nuevas democracias. Se plantean tres argumentos en torno a la revisión de las obras de Putnam y Touraine. En primer lugar, la cuestión de que el capital social concierne principalmente no solo a la producción de instituciones y valores, sino a las condiciones de producción. Así, los análisis necesitan abordar no solo el proceso específicamente social de su creación, distribución e institucionalización, sino la cultura política y la economía que le sirve de base. En segundo lugar, las teorías del capital social aparecidas en el contexto de una producción basada en la nación-estado, centradas en la economía política, no captan lo que sucede en una economía política cada vez más globalizada y circular. Y en tercer lugar, las teorías del capital social centradas en los Estados Unidos y Europa son solo parcialmente aplicables a las democracias emergentes de África y las antiguas colonias en general.理论学家们将社会资本的创造与建立强大的民间社会以保障健全与稳定的民主政体联系起来。这一理解引发出一个问题,即社会资本究竟处在哪种特定的国家宏观环境之下。问题的关键在于照搬欧美经验而制定的社会资本模式能否,以及能在多大程度上适应新型的民主政体。本文以普特南和都兰为例,剖析并归纳了三大论点。其一,社会资本的问题不仅从根本上涉及各实体的生产与价值,同时还涉及生产条件这一要素。故而不仅有必要具体分析社会资本的创造、分配和制度化等社会进程,同时还需要分析其政治文化和经济基础。其二,社会资本的理论是在集中的政治经济与国有化生产体制的大背景下建立起来的,尚未体现当前日益全球化与流通化的政治经济体制的需求。其三,社会资本的理论主要以美国与欧洲的经验为范本,整体而言,仅在一定程度上适用于非洲与后殖民地区新兴的民主政体。理論家は社会資本の構築とよく形成された安定した民主主義を支持する強健な市民社会の発展とを関連づけている。これは特定の国家における社会資本とは何であるかという問題を提起する。果たして欧米の新民主主義に当てはまるか、そして新民主主義が社会資本の型にどこまで適用されるかという重要な問題が提起される。パトナムとトゥレーヌの研究を検討すると3つの議論が生じる。まず社会資本の問題は基本的に組織の価値と形成だけではなく形成状態に関与する。そのため分析する際は、形成、分配、制度化の明確な社会的な過程だけではなく基本的に役立つ政治風土や経済を理解する必要がある。第2に、民族国家に基づく生産中心の政治経済学における社会資本の理論はさらにグローバル化する循環型の政治経済学においては発生しない。第3に、一般に米国とヨーロッパを中心とする社会資本理論はアフリカや脱植民地国家に現れる民主主義に部分的にのみ適合する。الباحثون في الجانب النظري ربطوا بين خلق الرأسمال الإجتماعي وتنمية مجتمع مدني من النوع القوي الذي يتعهد بديمقراطية شُكلت جيداً و مستقرة. وهذا الفهم يثير مشكلة ما هو الرأسمال الإجتماعي في سياقات وطنية محددة. المسألة الحرجة هي ما إذا وإلى أي مدى نموذج الرأسمال الإجتماعي التي تم تشكيله في التجربة الأوروبية الأمريكية ينطبق على الديمقراطيات الجديدة. ثلاثة نقاشات تمت في سياق مراجعة أعمال بوتنام (Putnam) وتوراين (Touraine). أولاً، مسألة القلق من أساسيات الرأسمال الإجتماعي ليس فقط إنتاج المؤسسات و القيم لكن ظروف الإنتاج. التحليل يحتاج لفهم ليس فقط على وجه التحديد الإجراء الإجتماعي لإنشائها، التوزيع، وإضفاء الطابع المؤسسي، لكن الثقافة السياسية والإقتصادية التي تكون بمثابة أساس لها. وثانياً، نظريات رأس المال الاجتماعي التي أنشئت في سياق الدولة القومية القائمة على الإنتاج تركزت على إقتصاد سياسي لا يستميل الذي يجري بتزايد في الإقتصاد السياسي الدوري. وثالثاً، نظريات الرأسمال الإجتماعي التي تركزت في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وأوروبا ينطبق جزئياً عموماً على الديموقراطيات في أقريقيا وما بعد المستعمرة

Economic policy diffusion and the international financial system: The case for an international Keynesian coalition

This article illustrates how the international financial markets influence socio-economic policy decisions taken by emerging market economies. These markets determine the value of an emerging market economy's currency and have brought about increasing currency volatility. In order to bring some form of regulation to these markets to reduce volatility, an international coalition is essential as these are global markets operating on a global scale. This article suggests that a coalition of emerging market economies may not be sufficient to bring about such regulation as some of these economies (particularly India and China) are beneficiaries of the new financial regime. If countries such as Brazil and South Africa are seeking an international coalition for regulation, then the social democratic movements of Western Europe may be more appropriate coalition partners than the regimes of India and China

Cultures of Circulation and the Urban Imaginary: Miami as Example and Exemplar

is a professor of anthropology at the University of Miami special-izing in the character of globalization and its implications for politics and culture. He is the author of (2000) and the coauthor (with Benjamin Lee) of (2004) and the forthcoming (with Thomas Koelble). , a political scientist, teaches in the Graduate School of Business at the University of Cape Town and studies economic globalization, democratic theory, and traditional leadership in South Africa. His publications include (1991) and (1998)