We should not berate politicians for listening to majority
There are many valid reasons to criticise this country’s politicians. That they take too much notice of what voters think is not one of them.
A common criticism of the ANC’s decision to change the constitution to clarify when land can be expropriated without compensation is that it did this as a ploy to win votes.
There are two problems with this claim. First, it isn’t accurate. Second, it blames politicians for doing what, in a democracy, they ought to do.
There is no evidence that changing the constitution will win the ANC votes.
This would be true only if we had clear signs that most voters want a changed property clause and that they are more likely to vote for a party that changes it. There are no such clear signs.
The public hearings organised by parliament do not tell us what most voters think. Only a tiny fraction of the population attends hearings and those who do are the most vocal and committed on all sides of the argument.
They often claim to speak for others but no-one bothers to check whether they do. Whatever purposes hearings might serve, they do not tell us what most voters want.
Nor is there evidence that voters will reward a party that changes the constitution. By-election results tell us that the EFF, which has been most vocal in its demands for change, has not increased its support. In areas where it made a showing in the 2016 elections it is remaining roughly where it was, and in new areas where it has fielded candidates it has made no showing.
If wanting the constitution changed — and claiming credit for making this happen — was a vote winner, we would expect the EFF’s vote share to be growing.
Reports also claim that a survey commissioned by the ANC found that land was an important concern for 40% of its voters.
This also means it is not a burning issue for 60%, almost two-thirds. And the fact that people think land is important does not tell us anything about what they want done about it, or whether they think it is important enough to influence their vote.
Given all these factors, and the fact that the change in the ANC position followed a meeting of its national executive committee, it seems likely that it reflected divisions and tensions within the committee, not the hope of winning votes.
But what if the ANC was acting because it knew this would win it votes? Is that not exactly what politicians are meant to do in a democracy?
The essence of democracy is the idea that elected officials are there to serve the people. This means doing what the people want.
Democrats ought to cheer politicians who do the public’s bidding, not sneer at them.
To insist that politicians should ignore voters “for the good of the country” raises an obvious question: who decides what is good for the country?
In democracies, most citizens decide that, not small groups who believe they are entitled to choose for others because, for some reason, they know better than everyone else.
This attitude also prevents people from asking an obvious question. If most citizens want something they don’t want, why is that?
If, for example, most people want economic changes that their self-appointed “betters” don’t want, this may well be because most people experience the economy differently to their “betters”.
This will be missed if we berate politicians for listening to the majority.
We don’t know what most South Africans want the government to do on land. If we did know, we should expect the government to try to do it, whatever those who claim to know more than others say.
Friedman is research professor with the humanities faculty of the University of Johannesburg.