Republican Constitutionalism: Reviving South African Democracy

Occasional Paper 14/2025

Click here to read as PDF

Copyright © 2025

Inclusive Society Institute

PO Box 12609, Mill Street

Cape Town, 8010

South Africa

235-515 NPO

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission in writing from the Inclusive Society Institute.

D I S C L A I M E R

Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the  Inclusive Society Institute or those of their respective Board or Council members.

OCTOBER 2025

Dr Klaus Kotzé

BA Social Dynamics, BSocSci Honours Political Communication, Master in Global Studies, PhD Rhetoric Studies

Abstract

Thirty years into South Africa’s democratic project, the constitutional promise of participatory governance remains largely unrealised, because whilst the 1996 Constitution enshrines equality, accountability and public involvement, democratic practice has stagnated. Power has become concentrated within political elites and party structures, while citizens have retreated into passivity, thereby reducing democracy to episodic elections. This paper introduces republican constitutionalism as a normative and practical framework to revitalise South Africa’s democracy by re-centring authority in the country’s citizenry. Moreover, by building on transformative and participatory constitutionalism, republican constitutionalism insists that sovereignty should not be a static legal status, but rather, it should be an active, lived practice, which calls for a vigilant, engaged citizenry that demands justification for state action and participates in shaping public life.

This paper diagnoses the systemic failures, centralisation of executive power, weakened institutions and civic disengagement within the South African context. It situates these deficiencies within the historical patterns of exclusion and elite dominance and then goes on to explore how republican constitutionalism can operationalise constitutional ideals through concrete measures, such as the strengthening of local autonomy via subsidiarity, the reforming of the electoral system to introduce constituency-based representation and the institutionalising of public-private partnerships that serve to enhance governance capacity, but in a way that it does not undermine accountability within the governance system. By drawing on historical precedents from the Afrikaner and Black republican traditions, the paper argues for an inclusive and contemporary republicanism, which should be rooted in the country’s constitutional values and ubuntu, which it does by reframing democracy as a shared ethical and political responsibility, with the decentralising of power and the embedding of accountability at every level of governance.

Keywords: Republican constitutionalism, Participatory democracy, Transformative constitutionalism, South African Constitution, Democratic renewal, Electoral reform, Local autonomy, Ubuntu, Citizen engagement, Decentralisation of power

Introduction

After three decades of South African democracy, the citizenry has become detached and estranged from the active civic role the constitution anticipates. Elections have come to represent the only real channel of democratic engagement. The daily work of interrogating and shaping public life has largely been usurped, or left to, political elites. As a result, South African democracy has become unresponsive and unaccountable to the majority of citizens, who are left alienated and disempowered to influence the decisions that affect them.

This position paper proposes republican constitutionalism as a theoretical approach to recentre power to the citizen and revive democracy. As a contemporary expression of people’s power – directed not against  but through the state – it offers a corrective measure to overcentralised, party-centred politics. Given that the democratic order has tended to concentrate power within parties and the executive, a republican constitutionalist approach argues that citizens must practice and embody democracy in their daily lives. This approach reclaims political participation beyond the confines of episodic elections. It holds that power is not merely distributed but claimed and exercised collectively.

The Constitution is South Africa’s lodestar. Yet too little is being done to give expression to its ideals. Rather than waiting for state actors, citizens must employ the constitutional framework to assert their role in public life and demand openness, accountability and justification. Republican constitutionalism, as presented in this paper, proposes a pathway to embrace the Constitution as a living document. It promises to catalyse a people-centred politics that does not see citizens as rights takers, but as active players in reviving democratic energy.

Failures: Centralisation and citizen inaction

• Democratic Stagnation

South African democracy faces myriad challenges. Instead of strengthening and expanding, South Africa’s democratic gains have plateaued following the transition. Though formally established and functioning in many respects, South Africa’s democracy has not given expression to the Constitutional goals. It has not escaped the deep-seated legacies of the past.

Professor Steven Friedman explores the causes for and nature of South Africa’s democratic stagnation. South Africa’s political and economic institutions are deeply influenced by the past (Friedman, 2021). There is a path dependence in that patterns of exclusion, inequality, power relations and social structure persist from apartheid and colonialism. The negotiated settlement which brought equal rights has not led to the major economic and cultural reforms needed to give effect to democratic ideals. It has not sufficiently challenged existing hierarchies. Persisting structural inequality severely limits the extent to which society can transform. Furthermore, due to economic exclusion and spatial inequality, many South Africans remain outsiders in their own country. They do not have the influence, nor the voice, to effectively participate in the political process and thereby contribute to democratisation (ibid).

The Constitution established democracy. It put in place the ideas and ideals to which to strive. But while procedural democracy established the rule of law and civil liberties, it has not substantively addressed the myriad disparities. To do so would require substantial political as well as societal will.

The elite power, social norms and values formed under apartheid remain dominant. Democracy did not sufficiently change the institutional structure in South Africa. Many of the old institutions remain with minimal transformation. This continues to serve the privileged. The lack of substantive democratisation - adding real layers, meaning and culture to the democratic spirit and giving it substance and character - has resulted in formal but not practical democratic freedoms. The result is that in practice most people cannot exercise their rights; they cannot participate meaningfully or have their voices heard. To Friedman, South Africa has not developed the mechanisms to attend to the inherent tensions between the demands for social justice and existing hierarchies. When these tensions accumulate, they do not get addressed; rather the old patterns are reinforced (ibid).

South Africa remains a bifurcated society. Rather than expanding the meaning of democratic citizenship, pre-existing structures of power and economy endure. Some see this as a constitutional failure. Instead, it is the failure of the state and its citizens to implement what is needed. Democratic stagnation has set in. To escape this impasse, a new debate is needed to rekindle democracy and empower citizens.   

• State failures

South Africa’s democracy has been dominated by political elites and mediated through party structures, with little space for citizen participation. Weak political parties and fragile institutions have undermined state capacity and fostered inertia. The politicisation has become an instrument of party power, creating dependency.

Ivor Chipkin notes that weak capacity is systemic and often results from the politicisation of the bureaucracy. Inconsistent standards in hiring and performance, as well as poor service delivery and oversight, reveal both a suspicion of competence and a lack of accountability. Weak institutional capacity and inadequate institutional machinery explain why so much of the state functions as a box-ticking exercise. Why so few take responsibility beyond procedure (Chipkin, 2023).

There is a clear gap between what policies and laws demand and the state’s capacity to deliver. Much like the Constitutional aims, laws and policies prescribe lofty tasks where the state simply does not have sufficient technical ability. Formal democratic institutions have become detached from the lived realities of citizens.

The government’s response to failures has typically been to consolidate power. The crises at State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and the state capture scandal clearly illustrate excessive power centralisation. Roger Southall, in Liberation Movements in Power: Party & State in Southern Africa (2013), examines how liberation movements in Southern Africa have typically seen themselves as the legitimate embodiment of the state. This leads to the centralised authority within the party, conflating party and state. Once in power, parties marginalise grassroots democratic movements and privilege loyalty over accountability. According to Southall, the ANC’s claim to authority as the liberation movement has been used to resist criticism and narrow the democratic space (Southall, 2013.)

Under the Zuma presidency, executive authority was concentrated in the presidency. The president controlled the appointment of ministers and SOE boards. By bringing the State Security Agency and Hawks under his direct control, it meant that investigations into corruption were selectively pursued or blocked.

The cabinet offered little check on presidential power, while Parliament functioned largely as a party loyalist body rather than a watchdog. The Nkandla scandal, in which state funds were illicitly used to unduly benefit Zuma’s homestead, exemplifies Parliament’s failure to hold the president accountable. It refused to act on the Public Protector’s findings. The extensive failures of MPs to investigate irregularities at SOEs such as ESKOM and SAA, now part of the State Capture saga, shows how executive excess went unchecked.

Centralisation of power is not unique to Zuma. Apart from President Mandela, who diffused power, ANC presidents have moved to consolidate power. The ANC’s cadre deployment committee has long run a parallel process for filling senior positions (Matiwane, 2022). The party has also taken de facto control of other state appointments. This undermines the principle of a professional, impartial civil service (Section 195 of the Constitution), hollowing out of state capacity.

While presenting himself as a reformer, President Ramaphosa has continued this trend, centralising power beyond the post-1994 settlement’s vision. He has amplified and expanded his presidential powers by involving the presidency in nearly every policy area; effectively creating a super presidency by establishing parallel structures, such as the Presidential Climate Commission. These structures often bypass his own ministries. Justified as a means to address state capacity, this consolidates power without adequate accountability.

Rather than practicing cooperative governance, the ANC has entrenched a top-down power command structure. Citizen participation is largely symbolic, not decisive. This elevates politicians above citizens, limiting transparency and accountability. In times of crises or incapacity, the response is to close ranks rather than open governance.

The concentration of power at the top has led to local government failures. Though municipalities are supposed to be autonomous, they are very often dominated by provincial and national party structures. Local decision-making is stifled, and accountability is weakened.

State failure goes beyond corruption and incompetence. It is actively reinforced by excessive concentration of political power in the executive and ruling party. A weakened Parliament, hollowed state institutions, and an incapacitated public service have contributed to democratic stagnation.

• Citizen acquiescence

It is insufficient to blame South Africa’s democratic shortcomings solely on politicians. The citizenry has failed to maintain and to deepen democracy. The post-transition period has seen broad civic passivity, apart from protests largely driven by lower-income groups. Whereas the anti-apartheid struggle was largely powered by people’s power (unions, churches, youth movements), the post-apartheid South Africa has seen civic engagement decline. This is partly due to the ANC’s initial legitimacy following liberation and weakening of civic structures, leaving few channels for participatory, bottom-up democracy.

The Chapter 9 institutions, established as democracy-supporting institutions or a fourth arm of the state to empower citizens, have not been sufficiently engaged. Voter loyalty has maintained the ANC in power despite poor governance and poor service delivery.

While South Africans possess an many mechanisms for participatory power, very few use them in practice. Awareness, knowledge, and skills to engage meaningfully remain marginal. Instead, dependency on the state has become the norm. The Constitution provides for spaces like ward committees and public hearings, yet these are often seen as symbolic; with political parties seen as the real the domains of influence.

The influential community organisations of the 1980s and 1990s have declined or disappeared. Some have migrated into the NGO sector without strong foundations. Citizens continue to struggle to achieve political ends outside formal party structures. Rather than organising collectively, many withdraw from political engagements. Or they rely on the courts. While judicial action is important, legal dependency neglects the power of citizen movements. Courts are slow, costly, and reactive

Solutions: Recentring power to the citizen

If the democratic order’s systemic breakdown lies in concentrated power among political elites, then its renewal lies in power’s diffusion. 

Direct citizen participation, the bottom-up democracy of the UDF’s approach, must find renewed expression today. Whereas apartheid’s illegitimacy was a clear target, contemporary grievances are more diffuse. Corruption, inequality, and unaccountability are all single vectors, not a systemic whole. Strategically, the focus should shift from opposition to affirmation. The legitimacy of the democratic state, its founding, institutions and ideals must be actively pursued. Actively lobbied. The constitution is the lodestar. 

South Africa is not merely a state. It is a Republic, from the Latin meaning “concern of the people” or “belonging to the people.” As the term “citizen” implies belonging to the city, so too the Republic belongs to the people, and the people to the Republic. This citizen-centred order gives republicanism contemporary relevance as an expression of people’s power.  Republicanism is about enacting freedom. It demands an active and vigilant citizenry to enact legitimacy, to pursue accountability. It rejects passive dependence on political elites.

Drawing from the grassroots democracy of the anti-apartheid movement, republicanism envisages people claiming power, not opposing the state. It calls for a bottom-up democratic order where institutions are solicited, checks and balances prevent power concentration, and politicians held accountable. Republicanism rejects the government as the sole locus of power. Instead, power is dispersed across legislative bodies, the judiciary, civic institutions and local communities. The focus only on political offices is itself an aberration of the constitutional state.

These republican ideals are found in South Africa’s constitutional design. For several reasons (party dominance, party ideology, political centralisation) republicanism remains unrealised. Here the constitution must find expression.

Previous republicanisms

A strategic turn to republicanism promises to activate South Africa’s constitutional principles. To chart a path forward, it is useful to reflect on earlier republican iterations in South Africa. Doing so offers a rare opportunity to reconcile disparate historical experiences. Building a united, contemporary approach. Afrikaner republicanism and Black republicanism were both responses to existing power structures, were pursuant of principles, and were determined towards civil empowerment. Both were also reactions to changes in power relations in a new political reality. Both offer relevant insights for today.

• Afrikaner republicanism

(White) Afrikaner republicanism emerged in the 19^th century. Fusing European republican and self-rule ideas in a distinct settler colonial context.  Developed as a reaction to British colonial rule, Afrikaner republicanism sought civic empowerment from British rule; they actively pursued their own interests.

Loyal to a collective identity and in pursuit of Calvinist theology and mythology, Afrikaner republicanism was conceptualised as a religious duty to protect and advance their own. It expressed itself in the desire for self-determination; independence from imperial interference (Giliomee, 2003).

This vision found concrete expression in the independent Boer republics, the Transvaal and Orange Free State, where interests were consolidated into a coherent state ideology, an active expression of independence.

• Black republicanism

Black republicanism sought a political order grounded in black self-determination. Similar to Afrikaner republicanism, it started as a response to misgovernance and exclusion. Earlier expressions of black republicanism can be traced to African intellectuals hailing from mission-educated circles. Politically mobilising in a principled pursuit for self-expression, it resisted race-based exclusion and persecution. Leaders such as John Tengo Jabuva and Pixley ka Isaka Seme articulated Pan-Africanist views. Positing that Africans both have the right and the capacity to govern themselves. (Lodge, 1983).

Freedom as non-domination, true popular sovereignty, was their central goal. The approach later became guided by the black consciousness movement, which emphasised psychological liberation as a precondition for civil freedom. Whereas Afrikaners had the means and liberties to build civic institutions, black republicanism, which was morphed into a broader democratic republicanism pursuing inclusive terms under the Freedom Charter, was driven by mass democratic movements such as civic associations and trade unions. While its realisation remains lacking, black republicanism found concrete expression in the new constitutional order which recognised the people as sovereign. 

• Towards a contemporary republicanism

Republicanism today exists in a space. Some opinions focus on the legal constitutional dimensions, others stress autonomy, while still others rally around grassroots organisations. The different views do not preclude a unified approach.

The debate has largely moved on. Equality, inclusivity and representation have been enshrined in the Constitution. The challenge is to turn form into function. To move beyond procedural democracy and make constitutional ideals real. To enact true, experienced transformation.  

Transformative constitutionalism remains one of the most influential concepts in South African legal scholarship. Former Chief Justice Pius Langa championed this teleological framework for a just and equitable future. He explained how the constitution should serve as a tool for ongoing economic, social and legal transformation (Langa, 2006). Broad-based transformation, through reconciliation and access to justice should be made real. Not only procedural. This approach, as guided by the injunction of the constitution’s preamble to “recognise the injustices of the past…heal the divisions of the past” (South African Government, 1996) establishes transformation as a permanent, ongoing ideal.

Langa held that constitutional culture cannot simply be about obedience to the law – passive and unengaged. With a sovereign citizenry, state authority cannot summarily be imposed. Power must be justified, with reference to constitutional values. The work of Etienne Mureinik on the power of justification is at the heart of Langa’s framing of transformative constitutionalism. To Mureinik, every law and every act must substantively serve the citizenry. All power must be explained, must be justified. In South Africa, the power of justification is transformative (Mureinik, 1994). It establishes an ongoing relationship between the citizenry and the state.

Not only must power be justified, but it also requires an interrogating citizenry. If the government is to justify its decisions and actions, the citizen must have a meaningful opportunity to participated and deliberate. This is the participative democracy that the constitution makes requirements for under Sections 59, 72 and 118 (South African Government, 1996).

Participation is essential. Landmark judgments such as Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly (2006) and Matatiele Municipality v President (2006) confirm that public participation must be substantive. Participatory constitutionalism animates the culture of justification.

Substantive engagements between citizens and their representatives promise to shift democracy from episodic elections to an everyday practice where people participate on an ongoing basis. Justification promises accountability.  

Republican constitutionalism

Republican constitutionalism builds upon the transformative and participatory frameworks. Mamphela Ramphele writes that too many South Africans treat democracy as if it were delivered by the state. Citizens wait for the state and consider episodic voting as their sole democratic duty (Ramphele, 2012). Yet, citizenship is not about entitlements. Citizens are not the clients of the state but co-rulers. They must actively exercise their responsibility and participate in shaping society (Ramphele, 2012).

Republican constitutionalism extends beyond liberal rights, which define citizenship merely as a legal status. It envisions a model where a republican ethos of vigilance, insistence on justification, and active involvement in governance prevails. At its core, a people-centred approach that stresses popular sovereignty. 

The capture of the democratic project by party politics is a betrayal of the Constitution’s vision. The republican approach, whereby citizens reclaim their political subjectivity, is an assertion of autonomy from party-political or governmental control.

Republican constitutionalism offers a response to the failures of the democratic project. It provides a credible way to give expression to the Constitution’s aspirations. A contemporary, inclusive republicanism need not pursue only negative freedoms, as seen in Afrikaner and Black republicanism. Its pursuit should not only be limited to constraining executive dominance but should focus on broadening democratic life. With the Constitution as lodestar, republicanism can be reframed as an active process, one that pursues positive freedoms in everyday life.

Such an approach extends beyond formal institutions. It draws from Afrikaner republicanism's insistence on independence and unites it with Black republicanism’s emphasis on universal suffrage to establish an inclusive sovereignty. In so doing, it decentralises power: each citizen becomes a node of accountability, collectively opposing the arbitrary exercise of authority.

Pursuant of principles, constitutional republicanism moves the debate from form to function, focusing on governance, participation and accountability. Whereas earlier republicanisms opposed the system and viewed democracy as something to be won, democratic culture today must be practised in the present through shared leadership. It must be built through justification and oriented toward the common good. Instead of a single Volk, the republican identity is rooted in the constitutional values such as equality and dignity.

Republicanism insists that no one rules alone. The devolution of power, understood as relational between individuals, is a true expression of ubuntu. Ubuntu is grounded in mutual recognition, care and solidarity. It affirms the individual’s inalienable connection to the community. Ubuntu sees participation not as a duty imposed from the outside, but as an ethical response to belonging to a community. Shared life is the basis of political legitimacy.

South African democracy needs revitalisation through ubuntu, not only through elite bargains. While many fora and community initiatives are establishing laudable civic-driven solutions, such as fixing potholes or supporting local clinics, these should be driven by ubuntu, not captured by private or business interests. Initiatives that respond to state failure by serving private interests alone (e.g. private security) do not offer equitable or sustainable solutions to democratic stagnation. They fail to address the consolidation of power and public disillusionment. Such examples of elite capture avoid the root causes of democratic decay and risk precipitating systemic socio-political collapse.

Walking away from the state is not an option. Nor is it outsourcing agency and responsibility to private actors. The state will be empowered when the citizenry is collectively empowered. 

Active citizenry: Giving expression to constitution

Active citizenry is more than symbolic. It is the most direct way to make the Constitution come alive in everyday life. From reporting issues to standing for public office, there are many ways to substantiate public life.  The Constitution provides for involvement in Parliament, provincial legislatures, and municipal councils. Community-based organisations such as school governing bodies and ward committees are spaces where citizens co-govern.

Citizens should not wait for the government to enact public participation processes. They must actively engage political process, including by pursuing:  

• Greater local autonomy

Subsidiarity is the principle that demands decisions to be taken closest to the people. While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, subsidiarity is an important concept in the constitutional design. Read together, Sections 151(3) and 151(4) of the Constitution entrench municipalities right to govern their own affairs, subject to national and provincial oversight only where necessary (South African Government, 1996).

Too often, municipal authority is undermined and usurped by higher spheres of power. Local decisions are overridden or stalled by provincial departments. Party politics lead to local interference, and capacity issues are used to justify top-down control. These actions erode accountability and obscure responsibility, leaving citizens in the dark.

Local authority can function better by reinforcing municipal self-government. Clearer limits on provincial oversight will create the conditions for genuine autonomy. An autonomy that depends on the requisite local skills and resources. It is critical to invest in local government training and retain professional skills locally. Communities can also develop frameworks where national government, universities and the private sector second professionals into the municipal systems.

When local governments are empowered, public participation becomes more practicable. When the chain of contact is shortened, when citizens see their inputs driving local decision-making, trust and cooperative relationships can grow.

Citizens should become directly involved in the business of politics. They must seek active involvement in ward committees, ratepayers’ associations and other fora to strengthen local oversight. Municipal budgets and service-delivery plans can then be monitored, and integrated development plans influenced to reflect community priorities. Such actions drive accountability from the lowest point possible. 

A third, hybrid approach combining public and private participation is already developing in South Africa. This approach emerges where citizens step into vacuums left by the state. Filling potholes, forming community policing forums, or drilling boreholes where taps have run dry. These initiatives show civic energy and innovation.

However, at the risk of deepening inequality and establishing unaccountable structures, it is critical that these initiatives work with the state, not against it. Every effort must be made to institutionalise public-private partnerships with municipalities. The example of Business for South Africa (B4SA) offers a successful example for municipalities to emulate. B4SA has raised private sector funds for targeted initiatives, supporting technical experts and helping to solve acute problems.

When citizens commit to and invest in local public-private initiatives – beyond private services benefitting only themselves - they give effect to local autonomy and strengthen local governance capacity. For example, citizens can help municipalities improved procurement and service-tracking systems, thereby enhancing transparency and reducing undue provincial interference.

• Electoral reform

Appropriate reform of the electoral system stands to significantly move authority closer to the citizenry. The Electoral Reform Consultation Panel (ERCP) was established by Parliament in 2023 to study possible reforms, consult the public, and make recommendations for a more legitimate and accountable electoral system. Established in accordance with the Electoral Amendment Act of 2023, the ERCP is the most authoritative electoral reform panel to date.

On 18 September, the ERCP reports were tabled before Parliament. The panel submitted both an original as well as an alternative report. The key difference lies in their recommendations. Whereas the original report explicitly recommends reform that will give expression to greater political accountability, the alternative found that the current system, with minor tweaks, could be maintained. Parliament should now be lobbied to reject the latter.

The original report aligns with the arguments made in this paper. It makes a compelling case for reviving citizen-centred democracy in South Africa. It “strongly recommends that Parliament consider electoral reform to strengthen the relationship between voters and their representatives” (Home Affairs, 2025). It proposes that South Africa adopt a hybrid electoral model that retains proportional representation but introduces constituencies -  either with smaller multi-member or single-member constituencies (ibid). The recommendations are proposed “in light of the findings and concerns emerging from public consultations … we heard the same concerns over and over again. Across provinces, languages, stakeholder groups, rural and urban locations – the lack of accountability was the common theme” (ibid, 120 and 112).

The report presents a foundation for a republican-constitutionalist future. Not only is it influenced by public participation, but it also seeks to address democratic weaknesses by moving the political power closer to the citizen.  Constituency-based reform would not merely tweak representation but could help revive democracy along republican lines.

Under the current purely proportional representation system, voters do not directly elect Parliamentarians. Representatives are accountable upward to their parties, not downward to the voters. This arrangement fuels alienation. Parliament, controlled by parties, is distant and unresponsive to local concerns. Citizens thus become passive participants in episodic elections. Party centralism leads to power accumulation at the top, to party structures and to the government’s executive.

Constituency-based electoral systems promise to decentralise power. Giving effect to greater citizen involvement in public life. When Parliamentarians are directly elected by and therefore held accountable by citizens, power flows to (and from) the citizen, not to the party. A candidate’s electability will be determined by their reputation among voters. Party bosses will rely on local candidates, rather than the other way around.

The bottom-up power structure creates arenas in which citizens can substantiate public life. While municipal elections already function in this model, South Africa’s politics is dominated by the national level. Constituency offices and town-hall meetings, where Parliamentarians provide a direct link to national decision-making, could re-energise civic engagement at the municipal level. 

When Parliamentarians derive their legitimacy from voters, they will be required to constantly justify and defend their decisions. Stronger deliberation will help revive and mobilise community-based politics. Disillusioned citizens, those who have withdrawn from politics due to corruption or unresponsiveness, may once again see politics as a shared public space. Skilled potential leaders, currently deterred by party dominance, could be drawn back into public life. Beyond leadership renewal, citizens themselves may feel empowered to organise and engage when representation is directly tied to where they live. Constituencies, therefore, not only promote pluralism but promise to breathe life into a new era of active citizenry.  

Conclusion

This paper has proposed republican constitutionalism as a pathway to revive South African democracy. Thirty years after 1994, the promises of the Constitution remain largely formal. The substance of the constitutional project, its accountability and participatory spirit, has been undermined by weak institutions, political centralisation and the withdrawal of citizens from public life. As an effect, democracy has been hollowed out, reduced to a procedural politics revolving around elections and dominant parties. The top-down power structure treats citizens as bystanders rather than active participants. 

Reviving democracy and giving real expression to the Constitution will empower citizens as sovereign. They must once again become the active subjects of political power, demanding openness, justification and accountability. Republican constitutionalism seeks to decentralise authority through greater local autonomy, reforms that empower citizens, and public-private partnerships that strengthen, rather than counter the state. Republican constitutionalism expands upon the participatory and transformative constitutionalist approaches to reactive civic culture and to restore the constitution as the lodestar of public life.

Republican constitutionalism responds directly democratic stagnation. It recognises that democracy cannot simply be left to the elites. It must be enacted, defended and lived by citizens themselves. Only through this active, shared engagement can South Africa reclaim the spirit of the Constitution and renew its democratic life.

References

Chipkin, I. (2023) South Africa: An Agenda for Reform. Policy Brief, 1(1). Johannesburg: New South Institute.

Friedman, S. (2021) Prisoners of the Past: South African Democracy and the Legacy of Minority Rule. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

Giliomee, H. (2003) The Afrikaners: A Biography of a People. Cape Town: Tafelberg.

Home Affairs (2025) Electoral Reform Consultation Panel: Original Report. Department of Home Affairs. Available at: https://www.dha.gov.za (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Langa, P. (2006) ‘Transformative Constitutionalism’, Stellenbosch Law Review, 17(3), pp. 351–360.

Lodge, T. (1983) Black Politics in South Africa since 1945. Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Matiwane, Z. (2022) ‘Minutes show ANC ran “parallel process” to fill top government jobs: DA’, Sowetan Live, 5 January. Available at: https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2022-01-05-minutes-show-anc-ran-parallel-process-to-fill-top-government-jobs-da (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Mureinik, E. (1994) ‘A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights’, South African Journal on Human Rights, 10(1), pp. 31–48.

Ramphele, M. (2012) Conversations with My Sons and Daughters. Johannesburg: Penguin Books.

South African Government (1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Available at: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/constitution-republic-south-africa-04-feb-1997 (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Southall, R. (2013) Liberation Movements in Power: Party and State in Southern Africa. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute

The Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) is an autonomous and independent institution that functions independently from any other entity. It is founded for the purpose of supporting and further deepening multi-party democracy. The ISI’s work is motivated by its desire to achieve non-racialism, non-sexism, social justice and cohesion, economic development and equality in South Africa, through a value system that embodies the social and national democratic principles associated with a developmental state. It recognises that a well-functioning democracy requires well-functioning political formations that are suitably equipped and capacitated. It further acknowledges that South Africa is inextricably linked to the ever transforming and interdependent global world, which necessitates international and multilateral cooperation. As such, the ISI also seeks to achieve its ideals at a global level through cooperation with like-minded parties and organs of civil society who share its basic values. In South Africa, ISI’s ideological positioning is aligned with that of the current ruling party and others in broader society with similar ideals.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za