"How deeply has democracy transformed the material lives and opportunities of the people who inherited the consequences of the past?"
34 Years Later: Has Democracy Changed the System — Or Only Who Governs It?
A 1971 book by Heribert Adam raises an uncomfortable question about South Africa's unfinished transformation.
By Noko Maleka
InsightJoziNews.org
My hands stumbled on this book.
Not in a library. Not while searching for some grand political theory. I simply found myself holding an old book whose title seemed almost deliberately provocative in the South African context: Modernizing Racial Domination: The Dynamics of South African Politics, written by sociologist Heribert Adam and published in 1971.
I stared at the cover for a moment.
1971.
South Africa was still deep inside apartheid.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned. Black South Africans did not possess the political rights that democracy would later establish. The architecture of racial separation and political exclusion was not merely history; it was the governing reality.
And yet, reading the title in 2026, more than three decades after the first democratic elections, produces an uncomfortable question:
What exactly changed — and what did not?
South Africa's first democratic elections took place in 1994, fundamentally changing the country's political order. The constitutional democracy that followed established principles of equality, human dignity, freedom and non-racialism.
That transformation cannot simply be dismissed.
The political order changed. The laws changed. The franchise changed. The composition of government changed.
But perhaps the deeper question is whether the architecture of economic and social power changed at the same speed.
The Book That Refuses to Remain in 1971
Adam's concern was not simply apartheid as a collection of racist laws.
He examined how racial domination operated as a political, economic and social system — and how such a system could adapt to the pressures of modernisation.
The title itself is revealing.
Modernizing Racial Domination.
It suggests a question that remains intellectually uncomfortable:
Can the political dismantling of a system happen faster than the economic dismantling of the inequalities that system created?
Perhaps that is one of the unresolved questions of post-apartheid South Africa.
We Changed the Government. Did We Change the Structure?
This is where the national conversation becomes uncomfortable.
It would be historically inaccurate to say that nothing changed after 1994.
A great deal changed.
Millions of South Africans gained greater access to electricity, housing, social grants, education and basic services. The legal system was fundamentally reconstructed. Political rights were extended to the entire adult population. Apartheid legislation was dismantled and replaced by a constitutional order.
But transformation is not measured only by legislation.
It is also measured by who owns, who earns, who has opportunities, who possesses assets, who controls capital and who inherits advantage.
And here the picture becomes much more complicated.
Research into South African wealth distribution has continued to show extremely high levels of concentration, with historical inequalities remaining deeply connected to contemporary economic outcomes.
This does not mean democracy failed.
Nor does it mean that every contemporary inequality can simply be attributed to apartheid.
It means something more complicated:
Political liberation and economic transformation are not necessarily the same process.
The Uncomfortable Possibility
Perhaps the greatest mistake would be to imagine that changing the occupants of political office automatically transforms every structure beneath them.
Governments can change.
Presidents can change.
Political parties can lose elections.
Parliament can pass new laws.
But wealth accumulated over generations does not disappear when the ballot boxes close.
Skills accumulated through privileged education do not disappear.
Property ownership does not disappear.
Business networks do not disappear.
Geographical patterns created over decades do not disappear.
Inherited advantage does not disappear.
Neither does inherited disadvantage.
This is why Adam's old book becomes interesting again.
Not because South Africa in 2026 is apartheid South Africa.
It is not.
The democratic South Africa of today is constitutionally and politically fundamentally different from the South Africa Adam was studying in 1971.
But perhaps his deeper lesson is that systems of power should not be understood only by examining who formally governs.
Where does power live when government changes?
A Black Government, a Transformed State — and an Unfinished Economy
There is another difficult conversation South Africa must have without reducing it to slogans.
A democratic government can inherit an unequal society.
It can attempt to transform that society.
It can succeed in some areas and fail in others.
It can even unintentionally reproduce some inequalities through policy, implementation failures or the way economic opportunities are distributed.
This means we should be careful with simplistic explanations.
"Black government is corrupt" is too simplistic.
But so is:
"Everything wrong with South Africa is simply apartheid."
The truth is considerably more demanding.
It requires us to examine history, policy, corruption, institutional capacity, private capital, education, land, ownership, employment, class and the decisions made by governments since 1994.
Perhaps the real question is not:
Who is to blame?
Perhaps it is:
Which structures continue to reproduce unequal outcomes — and why?
The Ghosts of a System Do Not Need the System's Name
That, for me, is the most provocative thought I take from finding Adam's book.
A system can disappear legally while some of its consequences remain socially and economically visible.
A law can be abolished.
A constitution can be rewritten.
A government can change.
But history has inertia.
The child born into a wealthy household does not begin life at the same starting line as the child born into poverty.
The family that inherited property does not experience the housing market in quite the same way as the family that inherited nothing.
The graduate emerging from a well-resourced school does not necessarily enter the labour market carrying the same opportunities as someone emerging from a historically disadvantaged educational system.
These differences are not automatically evidence of present-day racial discrimination in every individual interaction.
But they can be evidence of historical accumulation.
And that distinction matters.
So, 34 Years After 1994, Where Are We?
Perhaps the honest answer is neither triumph nor despair.
South Africa has undergone one of the most profound political transformations of the modern era.
But the country's economic transformation remains unfinished.
That does not diminish the significance of democracy. Rather, it challenges us to understand democracy as an ongoing project rather than a single historical event.
And perhaps that is the conversation South Africa should be having now.
Not:
"Who governs?"
But:
"Who owns?"
Not:
"Who has political power?"
But:
"Who has economic power?"
Not:
"Did democracy arrive?"
But:
"How deeply has democracy transformed the material lives and opportunities of the people who inherited the consequences of the past?"
A Book From 1971. A Question For 2026.
My hands stumbled on a book written more than half a century ago.
Yet somehow, its title still feels like a question addressed to the present.
Modernizing Racial Domination.
Perhaps the greatest challenge of our generation is ensuring that South Africa's transformation does not stop at changing the politics of domination, but continues until the structures that reproduce inherited inequality are themselves subjected to democratic scrutiny.
Because freedom is not only about changing who holds the keys to the state.
Sometimes, it is about asking who built the house, who owns it, who lives in it — and whether everyone was ever given a fair chance to enter.
Noko Maleka
InsightJoziNews.org
Comments
Post a Comment