Received: 5 March 2018 Accepted: 14 March 2018

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1713

ACADEMIC PAPER

South Africa's transition to democracy and democratic

consolidation: A reflection on socio‐economic challenges
Tshepo Masipa

University of Limpopo, Sovenga, South Africa

Correspondence
Tshepo Masipa, University of Limpopo, Private
bag x1106, Sovenga 0727, South Africa.
Email: masipatshepo@gmail.com
This article uses South Africa as a case of study to reflect on socio‐economic
transformation challenges confronting the country within the context of democratic
consolidation. It argues that although the 1994 democratic project has made consid-
erable strides to enhance the well‐being of the society, socio‐economic challenges of
unemployment, poverty, and inequalities still persists in the contemporary South
Africa—hence South Africa's governing party mantra of radical socio‐economic trans-
formation. Citizens often demonstrate their discontent through acts of civil disobedi-
ence: protests. The last decade has increasingly pockmarked South Africa as a theater
of social unrests. The article argues that this is the manifestation of democratic
distemper rather than consolidation. In other words, democratic consolidation in
South Africa should not, as many do, be understood merely as conceptual fiat but
rather as a precondition towards alleviating the socio‐economic challenges
confronting the nation. If this does not happen, democratic distemper is spawned.
The manifestation of this is civil unrest. A democratic project ought to be about, also
more importantly, enhancing the economic opportunities of the citizens. This should
result in creating jobs and reducing inequalities. For this to happen, socio‐economic
policies should be restructured in a way interrelated with the economic policy. This
is important to advance the well‐being of the society.

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N the country's state of democracy, including the extent of its consolida-

The end of colonialism and apartheid in various parts of the world
has led scholars to direct their attention and energies to concepts
such democratic transition and democratic consolidation. They have
increasingly become more pronounced and prominent since the
advent of democracy in most African states, including South Africa.
As Przeworski (1991) explains, the nature of the transition determines
the democratic success or failure of a nation. Munck and Leff (1997)
make a very important point, related to this. They say that the degree
and mode of transition from apartheid to democracy explains the type
of a democratic society the country will inherit and its ability to con-
solidate such democracy. Wieczorek (2012) identifies factors such as
poverty, inequality, and crime as indicators to determine whether
tion or distemper. In South Africa, the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa underscores the significance of healing the divisions of
the past and establishing a society based on democratic values, social
justice, and fundamental human rights. The Constitution laids a foun-
dation for the establishment of the fundamental principles of democ-
racy. However, the extent to which such principles are achieved
remains a contested subject. The Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa is one of the most celebrated in the world because it
underscores the importance of democratic principles that protects
among others, human rights, citizenship, and public participation (Con-
stitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996).
The notion “radical” socio‐economic transformation owes its rise
in the political and social landscape as a result of a rise in

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2018 The Author. Journal of Public Affairs published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1713. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1 of 6

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1713

2 of 6
unemployment, poverty, and inequality over two decades since the
dawn of democracy in South Africa. Masipa (2016) argues that the
democratic South Africa inherited the country with the triple chal-
lenges of unemployment, poverty, and inequality. Majority of black
South Africans became or are still the victims of such inheritance,
and they usually demonstrate their anger and discontent thorough
protest action, which for the past decade painted South Africa as a
theater of social unrest. Hicks (2005) notes that the growth of poverty
and inequality in South Africa makes citizens to become skeptical and
distrustful of the political parties and institutions entrusted with pow-
ers to change their lives. The widening gap between citizens and state
institutions result in what Hicks (2005) calls “diminished democracy.”
Huntington (1991) points out that democracy is compromised by the
effects of poverty and inequality.
Twenty‐one years after the promulgation of the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa, the question is: What are the fundamen-
tal factors that make democracy fragile? In other words, what causes
its distemper? In considering these questions, the article reflects on
the socio‐economic economic ills of unemployment, poverty, and
inequality that the country contends with as the function of consoli-
dating democracy. In a way, the article engages the African National
Congress'(ANC) mantra of “radical socio‐economic transformation.”
At the outset, concepts used to structure the argument of the article
are explained.
2 | D E M O C RA C Y A N D D E M O C R A T I C
CONSOLIDATION: A CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
Schedler (1998) defines democracy, as “a way of governing a country.” In
a democratic society, the citizens are presented with an opportunity to
choose their representatives to represent them in government and to
run the affairs of the state on their behalf. Schmitter and Karl (1991)
describe democracy as, “the rule by the people.” He substantiates this
by arguing that in a democratic state, the citizens have an opportunity
to choose their public representative. They do this during free and fair
elections. Dahl (1971) views democracy within the context of freedom
of speech, of press, and the respect for basic civil liberties.
Leftwich (2001) explains democracy within the context of
leadership. He argues that leaders must abide by the rules and during
elections, losers must accept the outcomes of elections.
As for Schmitter (1995), democracy means that public represen-
tatives are elected fairly and accountable to the people who voted
for them. The fundamental principles of democracy include public
participation, equality, tolerance, accountability, transparency, regu-
lar, free and fair elections, accepting the results of elections, eco-
nomic freedom, controlling and preventing the abuse of power,
human rights, multiparty system, and the rule of law. Ginsburg
(2008) used Philippines as a case of study to demonstrate the
country's ability to resist an attempt of military coup in 2003 as well
as the rejection of President Gloria Macapagal‐Arroyo to extend her
term in office. In the context of this article, it is worth noting that
the word “transition” and “democracy” are closely related. This is
because Przeworski (1991) echoes that one cannot be used in
14791854, 2018, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.1713, Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MASIPA
absence of the other, as transition directly affect the prospects for
democratic survivability.
According to O'Donnell (2013) democracy is consolidated only
when the power is shared between the rivals. Schmitter and Karl
(1991) define democratic consolidation within the context of social
relations, arguing that social values become regular social occurrence
and autonomous to the internal functions of the society. Przeworski
(1991) interprets democratic consolidation as the “only game in town,”
where no citizens can act outside the democratic values and practices
of the society. In his book, “Concepts of Democratic Consolidation”
Schedler (1998) points out that the term “democratic consolidation”
presupposes that democracy exists from the beginning to the end of
the process; hence, democracy is a crucial starting point to achieving
consolidated democracy.
In his analysis, Schedler (1998) distinguishes between “consolidat-
ing” and “consolidated” democracy. Consequently, he posits that con-
solidating democracy involves eliminating the threats to democracy,
on the contrary, consolidated democracy means striving to achieve
or achieving high democratic standards and principles. Though for
decades, political scientists have attempted to describe what the term
“democratic consolidation” entails, the definition however remains
seldom understood. Subsequently, Mottiar (2002) equally argues that
there is no clearly identifiable benchmark of what democratic consol-
idation means. It is worth noting that the concept “consolidated”
democracy is a historically contested term.
Huntington (1991) states that democracy can be viewed as consoli-
dated if a party that accents political power during transition loses subse-
quent free and fair elections over time. In the context of South Africa, one
can agree with Huntington (1991) notion, particularly looking at the 2016
local government elections, whereby it became apparent that the ANC is
losing its political dominance. It is however important to note that the
term democratic consolidation may vary from one nation to another,
depending on the democratic principles each country wishes to achieve.
This may serve as a benchmark for nations to determine whether their
democracies are consolidated or not.
3 | T H E D A W N OF D E M O CR A C Y I N S O U TH
AFRICA
The momentous occasion that took place on April 27, 1994 brought
hope, aspirations, and opportunity to the historically oppressed,
excluded, and disadvantaged black South Africans to practice their
democratic tight for the first time in their lives. This presented an
opportunity for the majority of South Africans to vote for a leader of
their choice, who they probably believe will provide leadership in
transforming the country from the apartheid regime to a democratic
state (Wittenberg & Pirouz, 2013). The dawn of democracy in 1994
envisaged a notion that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it.” This
meant that black and white populations had to live hand in hand to
build a new society enshrined by democratic principles (Fikeni, 2012;
Munck & Leff, 1997; Nkondo, 2016; Wieczorek, 2012; Wittenberg &
Pirouz, 2013).
In recognizing the past injustices, the government established the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1995. The aim of the

MASIPA
Commission was to “uncover” the past brutalities of the apartheid
regime and establish the truth about the crimes against humanity
(Fikeni, 2012). The public hearings at the Commission mirrored and
disclosed the dehumanization and gross violations of human rights
committed against majority of blacks during the apartheid era
(Nkondo, 2016; Suttner, 2004; Wieczorek, 2012; Wittenberg &
Pirouz, 2013). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was
established in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconcil-
iation Act, 1995 (Act 34 of 1995; Ross, 2003). It comprised three com-
mittees: Human Rights Violations, Reparation and Rehabilitation, and
Amnesty Committee. The fundamental principle of these committees
was to restore the dignity and encourage the spirit of forgiveness
between the victims and perpetrators (Mamdani, 2002; Ross, 2003).
Arguably, the Commission was deemed as the crucial component of
the transition to democratic South Africa. Suttner (2004) emphasizes
the importance of democratic society. He argues that democracy is
not only a manifestation of pluralism, but rather, its meanings extend
to the clause enshrined in the Freedom Charter formally adopted in
June 26, 1955, which states that “the people shall govern.”
As indicated above, in its preamble, the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa outlines its purpose as being about healing the divisions of
the past and establishing a society based on democratic values, social jus-
tice, and fundamental human rights. It lays the foundations for a demo-
cratic and open society, where government is based on the will of the
people and every citizen is equally protected by law, and improving the
quality of life for all citizens. As prescribed in the Constitution, the broad
parameters for the protection of the democracy are regular elections and
protections against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity,
religion, and sexual orientation. Embedded in Section 7 of the Bill of
Rights are the rights of all people, protection of human dignity, freedom,
and equality. South Africa's constitutional democracy affirms the nation's
commitment to achieve a nonracial, nonsexism, and promoting unity in
diversity (African National Congress, 2012). This is inseparable to the
nation's quest to promote a “rainbow nation.” Alexander and Mohanty
(2013), however, argues that to this day, the “rainbow nation” project is
yet to be embraced fully by all South Africans.
To defend and protect the human rights, the government established
the Constitutional Court to advance human rights through the South Afri-
can Human Rights Commission and the Public Protector. These arms of
State are tasked with the responsibility of enhancing human rights and
the public interest within the ambit of the law and without any fear, favor,
or prejudice. Twenty‐three years into democracy, some believe that cele-
bration of Human Rights Day continues to be an illusion to many poor cit-
izens whom over the last two decades have not seen or experienced any
change in the quality of their lives since democracy in 1994. As Gumede
(2013) put it, Human Rights Day has and continues to lose its significance
to many poor communities, blacks in particular who most of them experi-
enced little or no actual social change in the democratic South Africa.
4 | SO UTH A FRI CA 'S QU E ST F OR SOC I O‐
E CO NO M I C TR A N SF O RM A TI ON
The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa's (2013) reports
show that Africa's failure to design and implement a successful
14791854, 2018, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.1713, Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3 of 6
democratic project is undermined mainly by internal and external fac-
tors: poor economic management capacity, poor planning, macroeco-
nomic and political instabilities, and limited investment in social and
economic infrastructure. According to the United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa (2011), the delay of transformation agenda is
because Africa's growth is largely non‐inclusive due to its limited influ-
ence on employment creation and overall improvement in the living
standards of people. In South Africa, the concept of socio‐
economic transformation has received considerable attention as a
result of the country's current socio‐economic ills. The emphasis of this
concept is underpinned by the word “radical,” which is used mainly as
campaigning tool by political parties. In order to transform society,
Mkandawire (2001) calls for a “collective interventions directly affecting
transformation in social welfare and social institutions.”
There is a general consensus among academic practitioners, poli-
ticians, and the public in general that South Africa's socio‐economic
challenges of unemployment, poverty, and inequality stems from the
structural and systematic disparities that are as a legacy of colonialism
and apartheid. This is reiterated by the Institute for Justice and
Reconciliation (2015) barometer. The report cited socio‐economic
inequalities as the primary source of social division in South Africa.
Since the adoption of the “ready to govern” policy document in
1992, the ANC led government introduced extensive policy reforms
in an effort to transform the South African society. These include poli-
cies such as Reconstruction Development Programme (RDP), Growth
Employment and Redistribution Strategy, Accelerated and Shared
Growth Initiative for South Africa, and the recently developed National
Development Plan. However, the transitional phase to a democratic
state brought together formidable challenge to transform both the state
and society. The quest to transform the society was first captured in the
RDP. The RDP was aimed at improving the well‐being of the society
through infrastructural investment programmes (Khosa, 2000).
According to Mbeki (1998), the main objective of the transforma-
tion is to establish a society characterized by equality and racial bal-
ances. Since 1994, one can argue that the country has made some
commendable strides to achieve the democratic project than most
countries on the African continent. Moreover, the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa, which is admired globally as earlier
stated, has been drafted to promote and protect human rights and
provide for citizenship rights. However, the country is still grappling
with socio‐economic ills of unemployment, poverty, and inequalities.
Scholars such as Kapstein and Converse (2008), Bermeo (2009),
Bhorat (2015), and Masipa (2016) equally note that the consequence
of high levels of unemployment, poverty, and inequality have harmful
consequences to the social stability and the sustainability of the
country's democracy. Ramaphosa (2013) similarly argues that the
problem is not only that unemployment exists in South Africa but it
is so severe that it directly causes poverty and social instabilities. Since
1994, the official rate of unemployment has increased from 17% to
over 27% in the last quarter of 2016. In the first quarter of 2017,
unemployment was reported at 27.7% and GDP contracted to at
0.7%, which is less than the desired 5% annual growth (StatsSA, 2017).
In terms of poverty, the report released by Statistics South Africa
in 2014 shows that approximately 20.2% of the population lives below
the food poverty line. This translates into roughly 23 million people

4 of 6
living below the upper‐bound poverty line (Statistics South Africa,
2014). As for inequality, Bhorat (2015) argues that South Africa is
one of the most unequal society in the world. According to Bhorat
(2015), inequality is high in South Africa due to wage disparities and
the gap between the employed and unemployed. Leibbrandt, Finn,
and Woolard (2012) conducted a study on National Income Dynam-
ics and found income inequality has increased since 1993 but has
decreased between race groups. Their data further reveal that in
2008, the wealthiest 10% earned 58% of the total income, and the
top 5% earned 43% of the total income (a 5% increase since
1994) in South Africa. Turok, Chang, and Ferraz (2011), on the other
hand, emphasize the need for skills enhancement. They argue that
socio‐economic development and transformation tap into areas of
education (skills enhancement), investing in agriculture, development
of small enterprises, attraction of foreign investment, and designing
better policies. However, when one analyzes all these proposals, it
is doubtful as to whether these are the kinds of interventions
required to deal with structural constraints of a social and economic
order that has been laid down decades ago. Figure demonstrates the
trends of income distribution between the rich and the poor in
South Africa.
The Gini coefficient is a globally used measure of inequality and
distribution of income among the citizens or between the rich and
poor. If the coefficient is zero, which indicates perfect equality, imply-
ing that everyone has the same income, if the coefficient is 1, it means
that only one person has the income, and all others have none (Black,
Calitz, & Steenekamp, 2012). Figure 1 shows that the South Africa's
Gini coefficient has been increasing since the democratic dispensation.
This implies that the gap between the poor and rich in terms of income
distribution has increased by over 0.10% from 1993. This means that
the Gini coefficient value has increased by 0.17%. This should be a con-
cern for the government as it indicates that the gap between the rich
and poor is widening. This is despite various interventions to create
job opportunities. Figure 2 reports some of the initiatives introduced
by the South African government to create employment opportunities.
Considering all the policies implemented with effort to create
jobs, the rising unemployment has become a source of concern for
policymakers. In addition to these interventions, the government has
introduced the youth job subsidy bill in 2011. The overall goal of the
bill is to accelerate job creation for the youth in South Africa. A total
of 3.2 million youths between the ages of 15 to 35 are unemployed,
FIGURE 1 Gini coefficient: Income inequality in South Africa
14791854, 2018, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.1713, Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MASIPA
FIGURE 2 Government efforts to create jobs
and this age group accounts for 72% of all unemployed people. The
bill is designed to provide tax incentives for employers to employ
young people earning a salary of between R2,000 and R6,000 per
month (South African Reserve Bank, 2013). Despite this, youth unem-
ployment in South Africa remains a ticking time bomb. Over 20 years
into democracy, South Africa is lagging behind in terms of socio‐
economic development and transformation. Fundamentally, the prob-
lems are structural and systematic.
Although the 1994 democratic project has made considerable
strides to enhance the well‐being of the society, socio‐economic chal-
lenges of unemployment, poverty, and inequalities still persists—hence
South Africa's governing party mantra of radical socio‐economic trans-
formation. This is the policy accent of the ANC, as underscored in its
54th Conference, following the emphasis of the same in its 5th policy
conference. ANC is aware of the extent of the socio‐economic chal-
lenges facing the country and the pernicious consequences of these
on the country's stability. This is so because citizens often demon-
strate their discontent through acts of civil disobedience: protests.
The last decade has increasingly pockmarked South Africa as a theater
of social unrests. This is the manifestation of democratic distemper
rather than consolidation. In other words, democratic consolidation
in South Africa should not, as many do, be understood merely as con-
ceptual fiat but rather as a precondition towards alleviating the socio‐
economic challenges confronting the nation. If this does not happen,
democratic distemper is spawned. The manifestation of this is civil
unrest. A solution to this lies in policies. A democratic project ought
to be about, also more importantly, enhancing the economic opportu-
nities of the citizens. This should result in creating jobs and reducing
inequalities. For this to happen, socio‐economic policies should be
restructured in a way interrelated with the economic policy. This is
important to advance the well‐being of the society. Beyond the
mantra of the ANC's socio‐economic transformation, there is a need
for all stakeholders to form a social pact that will enable them to
properly diagnose, prescribe remedies, and apply such remedies to
the country's socio‐economic challenges (ANC, 2012). Moreover,
there is also a need to increase youth involvement and participation
in public discourse. It is young people who are inevitably going to
inherit this country whose future is depended upon the choices that
are made today. In the same vein, young people must also invest in
their intellectual capacities in order for them to imagine a future they
wish to realize. Democratic consolidation is a function of socio‐eco-
nomic transformation, not the ritual of each 5 years South Africans
going to the polls. Democracy is not only about elections but also
the realization of the socio‐economic rights as enshrined in the Con-
stitution of the Republic of South Africa.

MASIPA
5 | C O N CL U S I O N A N D
RECOMMENDATIONS
This article reflected on South Africa's transition to democracy and the
state of that democracy with particular focus on socio‐economic chal-
lenges of unemployment, poverty, and inequality confronting the
country. For the last decades, these socio‐economic crises often result
in social instabilities as the citizens resort to the streets to demon-
strate their discontent. From the analysis, the article argues that
although the 1994 democratic project has made considerable strides
to enhance the well‐being of the society, challenges still remain in
South Africa. Issues of human rights violations as seen in Marikana,
high levels of inequality, poverty, and unemployment that is reported
to be at 27.7% (Stats SA, 2017) still persists in the post‐apartheid
South Africa. South Africa's democratic consolidation depends largely
on the promotion of the principles of democracy as enshrined in the
Constitution. This requires protection of human rights and addressing
the socio‐economic ills confronting the country. Therefore, to address
the socio‐economic challenges, the article calls for a need to adopt a
multipronged policy instrument that would grow the economy sub-
stantially and create the much needed jobs, which in in turn reduce
poverty and inequality. It recommends that any democratic project
must be designed in manner that enhances the economic opportuni-
ties of the citizens which in turn will create jobs, reduce inequalities,
and ultimately improve the living standards of the citizens.
ORCID
Tshepo Masipa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3863-643X
RE FE R ENC E S
African National Congress (2012). 52nd conference resolution on eco-
nomic transformation. Policy Discussion Document. March 2012
Alexander, M. J., & Mohanty, C. T. (Eds.). (2013). Feminist genealogies, colo-
nial legacies, democratic futures. Routledge.
ANC (2012). The second transition? Building a national democratic society
and the balance of forces in 2012. A discussion document towards the
National Policy Conference, Version 7.0 as Amended by the Special
NEC 27 February 2012.
Bermeo, N. (2009). Does electoral democracy boost economic equality?
Journal of Democracy., 20(4), 21–35.
Bhorat, H. (2015). FactCheck: Is South Africa the most unequal society in
the world. The Conversation, 30.
Black, P. A., Calitz, E., & Steenekamp, T. J. (2012). Public economics (5th ed.).
Oxford: Cape Town.
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fikeni, S. (2012). FrankTalk dialogue (Free Speech v.s Hate Speech), Biko
Foundation. [online] available at http://www.wapmon.com (accessed
20 May 2017).
Ginsburg, T. (2008). Lessons from democratic transitions: Case studies
from Asia. Orbis, 52(1), 91–105.
Gumede, V. (2013). Social and economic transformation in post‐apartheid South
Africa—Policies, Progress and Proposals. Vusi Gumede Academy. http://
www.vusigumede.com/pages/acpapers.Html (accessed 13 July 2017).
Hicks, J. (2005) Assessing the effectiveness of community‐based involve-
ment, paper presented at trade conferences international conference
‘community‐based planning through ward committees’, September,
Johannesburg http://www.cpp.org.za/main.php?include=docs/com-
munity.html%menu=_menu/pubs.html%title=Documents (accessed 12
July 2017).
14791854, 2018, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.1713, Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5 of 6
Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late 20th
century. pp. 266–267
Institute for Justice and Reconciliation. (2015). SA reconciliation barometer
2015. Briefing Paper: National Reconciliation, Race Relations, And
Social Inclusion. [online] available at http://www.ijr.org.za/uploads/
IJR_SARB_2015_WEB_002.pdf%sa (accessed 20 June2017).
Kapstein, E. B., & Converse, N. (2008). Why democracies fail. Journal of
Democracy., 19(4), 57–68.
Khosa, M. (Ed.) (2000). Empowerment through service delivery. Pretoria:
Human Sciences Research Council.
Leftwich, A. (2001). States of development: On the primacy of politics in
development. Cambridge: Polity.
Leibbrandt, M., Finn, A., & Woolard, I. (2012). Describing and decomposing
post‐apartheid income inequality in South Africa. Development
Southern Africa, 29(1), 19–34.
Mamdani, M. (2002). Amnesty or impunity? A preliminary critique of the
report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa
(TRC). Diacritics, 32(3), 33–59.
Masipa, T. S. (2016). South Africa's pursuit for a national minimum wage: A
double edged sword, SAAPAM Conference Proceedings, pp 313–319.
Mbeki, T. (1998). The African Renaissance: South Africa and the World
(Vol. 9). United Nations University.
Mkandawire, T. (2001). Social policy in a development context. Social
Policy and Development Programme Paper 7. United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development, Geneva.
Mottiar, S. (2002). Democratic consolidation in South Africa democratic
consolidation in South Africa. Politics, 32(4).
Munck, G. L., & Leff, C. S. (1997). Modes of transition and democratization:
South America and Eastern Europe in comparative perspective.
Comparative Politics, 29, 343–362.
Nkondo, M. (2016). Law & policy in advancing transformation. University
of Limpopo: Black Management Forum Student Chapter (BMFsc).
O'Donnell, G. (2013). Democracia, desenvolvimento humano e direitos
humanos. Revista debates, 7(1), 15.
Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic
reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University
Press.
Ramaphosa, S. (2013). Fixing SA, job by job. City Press, 15 September
2013, p.23. Johannesburg
Republic of South Africa (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa, Act 108 of 1996. Government Gazette, 378.
Ross, F. C. (2003). Bearing witness: Women and the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.
SARB (2013). South Africa Reserve Bank Annual Economic Report, South
African Reserve Bank. http://www.resbank.co.za/Reports/Docu-
ments/ (accessed 11 July 2017).
Schedler, A. (1998). What is democratic consolidation? Journal of
Democracy, 9(2), 91–107.
Schmitter, P. C. (1995). Organized interests and democratic consolidation
in Southern Europe. The politics of democratic consolidation: Southern
Europe in comparative perspective, pp. 284–314.
Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is... and is not. Journal
of Democracy, 2(3), 75–88.
Statistics South Africa. (2014). Quarterly employment statistics. September
2014. Pretoria: Government printer.
Statistics South Africa (2016). Income and expenditure of households
2015/16. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa, http://www.stassa.gov.za/
publications/P0100/P01002016.pdf. (accessed 13 July 2017).
Statistics South Africa (2017). Quarterly employment statistics. April 2017.
Pretoria, Government printer.
Steyn, L. (2012). Job creation still key, but the figures do not tell the story.
Mail and Guardian. 24 Feb. 2012, p.4. Johannesburg.

6 of 6
Suttner, R. (2004). Democratic transition and consolidation in South Africa:
The advice of ‘the experts’
Turok, B., Chang, H. J., & Ferraz, J. C. (2011). Development in a divided
country. Jacana Media.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (2013). Economic trans-
formation for Africa's development. UN Economic Commission for
Africa. Macroeconomic Policy Division. Washington D.C.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African (2011).
Economic report on Africa governing development in Africa—The role
of the State in economic transformation. Addis Ababa.
Wieczorek, R. (2012). ANC dominance and democratic consolidation in
South Africa. Penn State University Journal of International Affairs.
Wittenberg, M., & Pirouz, F. (2013). The measurement of earnings in the
post‐Apartheid period: An overview. Southern Africa Labour and
Development Research Unit.
14791854, 2018, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.1713, Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MASIPA
Masipa Tshepo is an academic, currently pursuing his PhD in Dr.
of Philosophy at University of Limpopo. His research interest
and expertise are in development economics, macro‐economics,
governance, corruption, and public management. He is also
responsible for teaching micro‐ and macro‐economics.
How to cite this article: Masipa T. South Africa's transition to
democracy and democratic consolidation: A reflection on
socio‐economic challenges. J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1713.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1713