When South Africa became a democracy in 1994, the world applauded. The country was hailed as a miracle: a peaceful transition, a liberal constitution, and the promise of shared prosperity after decades of racial injustice. Thirty-two years later, that optimism has curdled into disillusionment. South Africa now faces a grim reality of state-driven decay, economic stagnation, and institutional collapse—largely the result of policy choices made under African National Congress (ANC) rule.
The numbers tell the story. After respectable growth during the Mandela and Mbeki years, the economy has endured nearly two lost decades since 2007, averaging barely 1 percent annual growth. The rand has lost 77 percent of its value against the dollar since 1994, making imports dramatically more expensive. Official unemployment has risen from 20 to 32 percent, while youth unemployment approaches an astonishing 60 percent. Roughly half the population depends on state welfare. Only 16 percent of municipalities receive clean audits. In the criminal justice system, just 8 percent of violent crimes lead to convictions. What went wrong, and can it still be fixed?
The ANC’s first strategic error was ideological. Its guiding star was closer to the Russian Revolution than Japan’s Meiji Restoration. To this day, ANC policy is officially framed as a “National Democratic Revolution,” marketed domestically as radical transformation. The goal was a developmental state modeled loosely on China, driven by state-owned enterprises and enforced through “cadre deployment” to ensure party control over key institutions.
The result has been catastrophic. State monopolies in electricity, rail, and ports have collapsed under mismanagement and corruption. Cadre deployment hollowed out institutional capacity and made reform nearly impossible. Instead of catalyzing development, the state became the principal obstacle to it.
Second, the ANC has operated more as a movement for equality than for freedom. Rather than combating poverty through growth, it prioritized redistribution and equal outcomes. Too often, the emphasis was on making the rich poorer rather than the poor richer. As growth stalled, the party doubled down on its socialist instincts by expanding state control over land, minerals, water, education, and the broader economy. Elections remain largely free and fair, but individual and economic freedoms have steadily narrowed.
Third, the ANC attempted to govern a geographically and culturally diverse country—one with 12 official languages—as a centralized unitary state rather than a federation. Federalism is resisted because it would limit power. The outcome is a country fragmented into five realities: well-governed regions such as the opposition-run Western Cape; poorly governed ANC-controlled areas; ungovernable zones; vast rural areas that are barely governed at all; and private enclaves that effectively govern themselves. South Africa does not merely have a governance problem—it has a systemic design problem.
The fourth error was the exclusion and alienation of the Afrikaner minority. Four years after World War II, the Allies treated Germans as partners in rebuilding Europe. Yet more than three decades after apartheid, the ANC still governs against Afrikaners. Race-based regulation under the banner of redress, along with violations of constitutional protections for schools and universities, has driven skills, capital, and taxpayers out of the country. South Africa’s largest export today is human capital. Concerns about shrinking freedoms are routinely dismissed as nostalgia for apartheid, further deepening mistrust.
Fifth, foreign policy has been shaped by ideology and history rather than national interest. South Africa’s entry into BRICS in 2010 signaled a pivot toward China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, accompanied by deteriorating relations with the U.S., Israel, and other democracies. This alignment has brought little economic benefit while increasing geopolitical risk.
These outcomes were not unforeseeable. In the early 1990s, political scientist Francis Fukuyama warned that South Africa’s constitutional democracy risked becoming “a foreign body sitting on top of a society that’s not modernized in other respects.” He cautioned that socialism embraced by the ANC and its communist allies would likely obstruct modernization rather than advance it. History has largely vindicated that warning.
Yet there is still hope. While recent reforms have been tentative and overdue, they suggest an awareness that the status quo is unsustainable. What is needed now is a decisive break.
First, the economy must be liberated. The state’s role should be reduced, and the private sector unequivocally embraced as the engine of growth. A growing economy remains the most effective job creator and the fastest path out of poverty.
Second, South Africa must shift from the illusion of a “developmental state” to the reality of a developmental society that invests primarily in people, skills, and incentives rather than bureaucratic control.
Third, centralism should give way to federalism. Real democracy, freedom, and effective governance require devolved power and accountability closer to communities.
Fourth, foreign policy should be grounded in national interest, rebuilding strong relations with the U.S., and remaining at least nonaligned rather than ideologically committed.
Finally, Afrikaners and other minorities must be treated as partners in rebuilding the country. A formal cultural accord that respects constitutional rights would stem the skills exodus and rebuild trust.
South Africa’s miracle was real. Its decline is not inevitable. But only bold, structural reform can prevent the country from sliding further into the past. The United States can play a decisive role by re-engaging South Africa as a strategic partner, supporting market-oriented reforms, protecting groups like Afrikaners, and anchoring the country firmly within a community of democratic, growth-focused nations.
Read the full article here
