Qorina Qurrota ‘Aina Haura

1811011080
Management’18

1. Democracy in South Africa

The state – and health – of our democracy is probably the hottest topic in the South African
public sphere right now. This is as it should be, if the function of public deliberation is working
according to democratic norms. And the fact that South Africans can talk long and hard about
governance and power in multiple spaces (newspaper columns, book fair panels), could be
thought a definite sign of health. But all this talking has an edge of anxiety: as South Africans
look north to Zimbabwe (and feel the effects of that society’s disintegration through a flood of
immigrants), questions are raised as to whether this country can dare to be the extraordinary
exception in Africa, a post-colonial, peaceful democracy in which power can change hands as a
matter of course. There is also another source of creeping disquiet – just how free are South
Africans to speak their minds? Who gets a hearing in public? Who gets chastised for saying the
unspeakable? And who gets removed from the public broadcaster as a commentator for words
that are thought politically unpalatable?1

There is no doubt that in the nearly ten years of the Mbeki presidency of the ANC and the
country that our public space has been narrowing,2 and that certain voices have been silenced (or
have chosen silence). Weighing up one’s pedigree to speak out, and choosing where to speak and
what to say, have become complex matters. It is into this fraught situation that Xolela Mangcu, a
columnist for Business Day and now executive chairman of the Platform for Public Deliberation
at the University of the Witwatersrand, strides as a self-proclaimed public intellectual 3 and voice
of strident opposition to the ANC’s way of doing things in South Africa.

1
As happened at the SABC in 2006. The “blacklisting debate” and its implications for the containment of
public debate are discussed by Cowling and Hamilton (2008).
2
Hamilton (2006) calls this a “corralling” of voices and debate.
3
Mangcu’s assumption of this role is an unusual act, as Eleanor Townsley points out “…the ‘public
intellectual’ is not simply (or ever) a thing, a social role, a person, or a vocation. Rather, the ‘public
intellectual’ is always a relationship of attribution, involving at least two parties; the attributor of public
intellectual status, and the recipient, ie, the person, activity, or institution to which that status is being
attributed” (2006: 8-9).
In his book To the Brink: the State of Democracy in South Africa, Mangcu (in my estimation)
does two very interesting things. The first is to declare his pedigree to speak as a public
intellectual. This is important in the narrowing public sphere in which Mbeki has declared the
ANC, as the party representing the majority, to have the moral right to set the topics and tone for
public debate4. Mangcu declares himself a son of the Eastern Cape (with its syncretic heritage of
assimilation of missionary education and Xhosa tradition), an associate of Steve Bantu Biko (and
therefore inheritor of the Black Consciousness political tradition), an associate of several notable
African American intellectuals (Cornell West, Henry Louis Gates Jnr), and holder of a PhD from
Cornell University (which investigated the first African American mayor 5 of Chicago, and his
policy changes for that city). This gives him the platform on which to stand as a powerful
adversary to the ‘intellectual’ president, and to proclaim of Mbeki that, like other African leaders
before him, he has “developed a penchant for assuming the role of the philosopher-king and
reduce[ed] intellectual work to the incantation of the thought of the leader” (47).

The second is to put forward an analysis of the state of the nation – and an alternative. Mangcu’s
convincing analysis (because it has been thought through in conversation with some of South
Africa’s most perceptive critics, as is evident in the book) is that the ANC under Mbeki has
employed a “racial nationalism” (at points Mangcu strengthens this critique calling it “racial
nativism”) in both governance and attitude. While Mangcu sees the value in nationalism as a
liberation strategy, he finds that as an “instrument of rule” (37) it has serious flaws – chief of
which are to deny the pluralism of this new nation, and a failure to mobilise this pluralism as a
binding force. He cites a litany of policy mistakes (the attack on “disloyal” black intellectuals,
the stances on HIV/Aids and Zimbabwe, economic policy, corruption within government,
especially in relation to the arms deal) as evidence of this racial nationalism. Mangcu’s position
is that “democratic leaders cannot make up their own moral rules… They must live and be
judged by the same rules as everyone else” (quoting Michael Ignatieff); he argues that “this
demands that leaders do not hold to their ideas like the dogma. They must take the risk to be
wrong, and when proven wrong admit so openly” (59). Mangcu finds a pathological inflexibility

4
The debate was set out in the party’s weekly email newsletter as “…in South Africa the fight is really
about who sets the national agenda. Should it be the African National Congress (ANC) or should it be the
white elite?” ANC Today 5(3) 21-27 January 2005.
5
Harold Washington, the inspiration for Barack Obama’s style of politics (2008: 178-9).
and inability to admit wrong in the Mbeki government and to resort to a position that all criticism
of government is racially-based.

His alternative is to call for a state that takes seriously “the irreducible plurality – the differences
that cannot be overcome – of society. Ideological uniformity or blind racial solidarity can hardly
be instruments for nation building in a pluralistic society such as South Africa” (119). Mangcu
leans on the tenets of Black Consciousness to make this argument. He harks back to the early
days of adaptation to white colonialism, where survival and a dignified way forward were forged
through “syncreticism,” and suggests that the ANC needs to “rediscover non-racialism as its
language of life” (122). He reminds us that the ultimate aim of the liberation struggle was the
creation of a non-racial democracy, which was a “powerful generative metaphor for what kind of
society we could attain” (122). But this alternative includes the revitalisation of a vibrant civil
society, and addresses itself also to white South Africans to shrug off their defensive racial
solidarity and to show a similar flexibility in coming to terms with plurality.

But, ultimately, Mangcu also concerns himself with the health of our public debate: “Moving
forward as a nation will require the abandonment of the idea that some of us have more authentic
voices than others – on the account of the colour of our skin or participation in the revolutionary
struggle. This is the kind of racial nativism that has brought Zimbabwe to its knees” (121). So, as
our only self-confessed public intellectual and with an engaging hubris, he urges others,
particularly the young6, to do as he has done: look back to “that great intellectual tradition” he
himself calls on, and to insert themselves into public space and take up the role (or maybe task?)
of public intellectuals. It is a stirring call to any intelligent South African concerned about the
state of our democracy right now.

2. Democracy in United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is a democratic country with a liberal parliamentary system. This
understanding bases and prioritizes the broadest individual freedom. This British political system
was then widely practiced in Western European countries. The king or queen is a symbol of the

6
See his comments in the Daily Dispatch: “Criticised in some quarters for referring to himself as an
‘intellectual’, author-analyst Xolela Mangcu outlines his understanding of the term and the role of an
intellectual in society…” (“The Issue of Intellectualism”, 11).
greatness, sovereignty, and unity of the country which is always proud. Customs and traditions
are still held firm. Government power is in the cabinet (the prime minister and the ministers),
while the king or queen is only the head of state. Everyday, the government is run by the Prime
Minister, which is held by the party winning the general election. However, there is an
opposition party as a companion. Overall, they work for kings or queens. The parties fighting for
power in parliament are the Conservative Party and the Labor Party.
The British Parliament consists of two rooms (bicameral), namely the House House of Commons
chaired by the prime minister, and the House of Lords. The House of Commons is a people's
representative body whose members are elected by the people among candidates for political
parties. The House of Lord is a representative that contains nobles based on inheritance. The
House of Commons has greater power than the House of Lord. The cabinet is a group of
ministers headed by the prime minister. It is this cabinet that truly practices the government.
Cabinet members generally come from the House of Commons. The prime minister is the leader
of the majority party in the House of Commons. Cabinet tenure depends largely on the trust of
the House of Commons. Parliament has the power to dissolve the cabinet with a vote of no
confidence. The party that wins the election and the majority in parliament is the ruling party,
while the losing party becomes the opposition party. Opposition leaders made a kind of counter-
cabinet. If at any time the cabinet falls, the opposition party can take over the administration of
the government. Although in the form of a kingdom, democracy continued to grow in England
because of the change in absolute monarchy in Britain to become a constitutional monarchy. In a
constitutional monarchy system, the king or queen is given a place of honor, but no longer has
political power. Constitutional monarchy reduces the role of kings or queens in politics and
enlarges the power of the prime minister and parliament. The United Kingdom is known as the
pioneer of a parliamentary system. The British Parliament is elected by the people through
democratic elections. The system of government is based on an unwritten constitution or
convention. The British Constitution is not codified in one written text, but is spread in various
regulations, laws, and conventions. England is a unitary state called United Kingdom consisting
of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England in the form of a kingdom
(monarchy). Britain adheres to a decentralized system. The power of the regional government is
in the Council (council) chosen by the people in the region. Today, the UK is divided into three
regions, namely England, Wales, and Greater London
this year's UK election results illustrate that the political system in the UK has a number of
weaknesses that have not been taken seriously. The political system, first past the post based on
the constituents that are adopted now, makes the political system lead to the dwipartai. the
British political system always produces two parties that take turns in power, that is
Conservative Party and Labor Party. "There are not many opportunities that can be achieved by
parties outside of them to win the constituency and enter parliament at Westminster," only
a party that has a long and broad reputation that is able to build a network throughout the
country that gives hope of changing policies at Westminster. The failure of the Liberal
Democrats to send representatives, the sign of the two parties is still difficult to disturb and make
the British political system fixated on both. The failure of the Liberal Democrat Party also
marked the unbalanced representation of voters, where the number of party voters nationally
could reach 23 percent but only represented by 57 representatives or did not reach 10 percent of
the total 650 seats in Parliament. While the Conservative Party which only won 37 percent of the
total votes actually controlled 47 percent of parliamentary seats. Actually, it does not matter if
the parties are accustomed to carrying out coalitions. Although it has become a possible
provision, still the British political tradition is not familiar with the coalition tradition. Britain
only knew the history of the coalition in 1974 and it ended in failure to force a repeat election a
few months later just to ask the people who deserved to form a government and become prime
minister. This tradition seems to say that those who do not get the majority seat do not deserve to
lead the country. At this time, the Conservative Party which won the most seats was decided not
to get the full mandate from the people to become the prime minister. which makes the
parliament hang (hung parliament) is not the composition produced in this election, but the
system itself provides an opportunity for the situation to occur.

3. Democracy in Indonesia
After post-colonial Indonesian Democracy, we find the role of democracy increasingly
widespread. During the Soekarno era, we recognized several models of democracy. Nationalist
parties, Communists to Islamists almost all say that democracy is ideal. Even for them,
democracy is not only a means, but democracy will achieve something ideal. Free from
colonialism and achieving independence was the goal at that time, namely achieving a
democracy. Therefore, people increasingly like democracy.
The current democracy in Indonesia can now be said to be Liberal Democracy. In the electoral
system, the system of liberal democracy in Indonesia is as follows:
1. Multi-party elections followed by many parties. At least since the reforms, the Election was
attended by around 24 parties (2004 Election), most of which were 48 parties (1999 Election).
Free elections stand at will, as long as they fulfill certain conditions set by the KPU. If all parties
are permitted to participate in the General Election, hundreds or thousands of parties can emerge.
2. Elections other than electing board members (DPR / DPRD), elect members of the DPD
(senate). And this DPD member is almost useless and works, it also imitates the system in
America that knows the position of senate members (senators).
3. Direct presidential election since 2004. Not only the president, but also his vice president. For
the presidential election, the mechanism is almost the same as the party elections, only the
chosen object is a candidate pair. Sometimes, if there is no absolute winner in a presidential
election, and a second round of elections is held, to get the legitimacy of a strong vote.
4. Direct selection of bureaucratic officials (regional elections or regional head elections),
namely the election of governors, mayors and regents. Again, the pattern is exactly the kind of
Party election or the Presidential election. Only the selected figure & position level are different.
There is a selection of candidates, campaigns, election processes, and so on.
5. The existence of a special election organizing body, namely the KPU (General Election
Commission) as the committee, and the Election Supervisory Committee (Election Supervisory
Committee) as the supervisor of the election process. Not to mention an independent team of
observers formed independently. And here a separate bureaucracy is needed in holding elections,
even though basically the bureaucracy still depends on the Government.
6. Presence of survey institutions, pooling institutions, research institutions, and others. who
actively conducts research around the behavior of voters or potential voters in elections.
Including the existence of media that are active in monitoring the electoral process, pre-
implementation, implementation, and implementation.
7. Democracy in Indonesia desperately needs capital (money). There are a lot of costs that need
to be needed to win the election. Consequently, those who have a lot of money, they are more
likely to win elections, than idealists, but poor assets. Finally, the black and white politics
depends on the thick pockets of the politicians.
Therefore, the synchronization between democracy and national development must be in line,
not just the opposite, democracy that is enforced is only to fulfill the interests of certain parties
and groups. So, the democracy that we are applying now must refer to the joints of the
Indonesian people based on the nation's philosophy, namely Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

4. Democracy in United States

The view of the United States, including a democratic country, can be said to be a bit more like
that. This is illustrated by what constitutes three ways that show that one country is democratic
or not fulfilled, namely elections have been carried out freely and fairly where elections are
coordinated by an institution that is independent of the state and has provided freedom for
civilians to channel their voting rights. In addition, the good or bad way of governance all
depends on the running of the rule of law in the community and the people themselves who
determine their fate.

In addition, Dahl who stated about his democracy as a pluralist democracy with organizational
pluralism has also proceeded like many independent and autonomous associations and interest
groups from the state. This then shows that it has begun to be proportionally placed in what
constitutes minority rights both in racial terms and in the losing group in the election so that in
the United States it is not surprising that there are opposition groups.

The United States also clearly shows the country a country that adheres to liberal democracy.
This country does not want excessive power from the military either directly or indirectly. In
filling in public positions both in the bureaucracy and in the political sphere, the United States
always focuses on the individual's ability or one's capability towards the position to be filled.
This is because the United States has established a merit system in filling its public position. This
accountability is not only shown in the relation between the authorities and the people but also
between existing state institutions. In that sense, its accountability as an official does indeed have
advantages over the people he will lead as well as in institutional relations to conduct mutual
supervision and balance with other state institutions.
REFERENCES:
https://brainly.co.id/tugas/18579726#readmore
Lincemagriasti, 2009. Penerapan Demokrasi di Amerika Serikat
https://www.scribd.com/doc/193651814/DEMOKRASI-INGGRIS
www.academia.edu/download/31384109/GARMAN_Mangcu_190608_Rev.doc