Search results

Building on the work of economic historian Douglass North and Ugandan political scholar Mahmood Mamdani, Friedman argues that the difficulties besetting South African democracy are legacies of the past, not products of the post-1994 era.

Building on the work of economic historian Douglass North and Ugandan political scholar Mahmood Mamdani, Friedman argues that the difficulties besetting South African democracy are legacies of the past, not products of the post-1994 era.

Power in Action argues that South Africans, like everyone else, need democracy not only because it is the only system which can allow people to control their lives but also because it offers the tools needed to fight for a fairer and more equal society.

'What are democracies meant to do? And how does one know when one is a democratic state?' These incisive questions and more by leading political scientist, Steven Friedman, underlie this robust enquiry into what democracy means for South Africa post 1994. Democracy and its prospects are often viewed through a lens which reflects the dominant Western understanding. New democracies are compared to idealised notions of the way in which the system is said to operate in the global North. The democracies of Western Europe and North America are understood to be the finished product and all others are assessed by how far they have progressed towards approximating this model. The goal of new democracies, like South Africa and other developing nation-states, is thus to become like the global North. Power in Action persuasively argues against this stereotype. Friedman asserts that democracies can only work when every adult has an equal say in the public decisions that affect them. From this point of view, democracies are not finished products and some nations in the global South may be more democratic than their Northern counterparts. Democracy is achieved not by adopting idealised models derived from other societies - rather, it is the product of collective action by citizens who claim the right to be heard not only through public protest action, but also through the conscious exercise of influence on public and private power holders. Viewing democracy in this way challenges us to develop a deeper understanding of democracy's challenges and in so doing to ensure that more citizens can claim a say over more decisions in society.

This paper explores social policy-making role of supreme courts in India and South Africa. It argues that that both significantly shaped social policy. But neither imposed its will on elected government – both recognised that judicial power is limited and sought negotiation with the government and other interests to ensure compliance with rulings. Despite the difference between them, both courts promote and support collective action by the poor or their allies in civil society. The paper traces the institutional roots of the relative strength of the two courts and their relations with their governments and links their rulings to the political environment.