The South African electorate seems smarter than its American counterpart in that for the most part, it rejected radical populism in the May 2024 elections. The majority voted for mainly centrist parties and turned against a party (ANC) that is widely seen as failing them by forcing a re-alignment of the political scene and pushing Zuma (MK: 14.6%) and Malema (EFF: 9.5%) and their fiery brand of populism to the opposition benches (for now).
In stark contrast, 72-million Americans (51%) voted for Trump and his populist approach that threatens to weaken liberal democracy in the country. Trump 2.0 will likely follow his well-worn strategy of attacking press freedom, revoking gun-safety policies and possibly rolling out a nation-wide abortion ban. He has promised to expel 20-million immigrants in mass deportations and raids and to attack LGBTQ+ rights. His administration will likely retard efforts to deal with climate change and withdraw support from multilateral institutions resulting in a period of foreign policy instability (to say the least).
While South Africa has its fair share of political, socio-economic and environmental challenges, the democratic fabric of the nation is not threatened in the same way. The South African electoral system has proved resilient and innovative in a way the US system seems incapable of. The US system effectively offers a binary, limited choice between two parties and two candidates. How can this narrow choice represent the length and breadth of the American electorate? In contrast, the South African system offers a plethora of choice (52 parties on the national ballot and three different ballots) thanks to recent electoral amendments that offer the electorate greater choice and increase the chances of public representation that mirrors a complex and diverse society. South Africa’s multiparty system means that smaller parties can establish a political presence and influence the political climate in a way that is just not possible in the US. South African voters were not trapped between only two “not great” choices but were rather inundated with choice. The majority (61.99%) chose two centrist parties who must now work together (albeit under difficult circumstances) to best represent the country’s interests.
South Africa has not yet fielded a female president; however, women make up 43% of the National Assembly and are a powerful force of political representation in the country. President Ramaphosa consistently champions women’s rights and actively supports women empowerment and representation in politics. It was clearly not possible for the US electorate to vote for a female candidate (flashback to the competent, capable Hilary Clinton beaten by Obama and then by Trump). The fact that Kamala Harris is also a woman of colour would have (astonishingly) proved a stumbling block for many voters.
Populism requires both a supply and demand to thrive. There are contextual differences in the USA and South Africa that affect the demand and supply of populism in each country. Trump’s supply of radical populism meets a growing demand among the US electorate based on his ability to tap into anti-immigrant sentiment, opposition to multiculturalism, dissatisfaction with democracy and government performance and economic disillusionment. While these issues also exist in South Africa, MK and the EFF have not (yet) been able to successfully manipulate them into massive electoral gains. The demand for radical populism among the electorate is (for now) limited and diluted by wider electoral choice. Malema’s angry, radical rhetoric has not appealed to a mass audience and the EFF has not grown its support base. Although MK benefitted from disgruntled ANC and EFF voters, neither party could sell themselves as a credible governing alternative to the ANC despite their populist style.
Demand for populist politics and policies from the electorate seem limited for now. Zuma was also held in check by the courts and ruled ineligible to stand for election due to his criminal record, unlike Trump who was not prevented from running for office despite criminal cases against him. Zuma was allowed to campaign and remain on the ballot paper – this is a key difference where the South African legal system acted as a gatekeeper, denying him the opportunity to be re-elected to parliament and formally re-enter politics.
Populism requires both a supply and demand to thrive
If MK and the EFF eventually merge it is possible that the supply of populism will be more concentrated and effective, but the Government of National Unity (GNU) has the potential to stem the demand for populist politics. There are likely to be intense leadership struggles between the Malema and Zuma factions which will inevitably weaken the influence of a focused populist movement. Trump 2.0 is largely unopposed and tightly controls the Republican Party in a much more dominant manner than in the 2016 US election. In South Africa, the GNU occupies the centrist political space, diluting radical elements on the left and right, and populist parties have less influence on policy. While there are many alarming similarities between Trump and Zuma/Malema, the centre holds for now, while in the USA it has fallen apart and populist interests with scant appreciation for liberal democratic norms will dictate policy for the next five years.
It is essential for our GNU to succeed to prevent the demand for populist politics and political candidates increasing in the country. The GNU should focus on combatting long-term influences of populist voting like government unresponsiveness, distrust in government and political institutions as well as economic insecurity if it wants to take the sting out of the populist’s tail.
Dr Helen Macdonald is a senior researcher with a PhD in Political Science. She has worked in the corporate, NGO and academic sectors across a range of projects dealing
with political behaviour. Dr Macdonald is also a part-time lecturer in Political Behaviour at Stellenbosch University.
