IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v39y1995i1p27-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The State, Civil Society, and Democratic Transition in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Hennie Kotzé
  • Pierre Du Toit

    (University of Stellenbosch)

Abstract

The presence of civil society is widely recognized as a crucially important component of the foundation of stable democracy. Divided societies can be expected to be lacking in this attribute. Yet claims have been made for the existence of a civil society in South Africa, which is usually typified as a leading example of a deeply divided society. The importance of this claim for the consolidation of democracy lies in the fact that negotiators were able to converge on a new set of constitutional rules of the game, to hold a founding election, and to establish a Government of National Unity to replace the apartheid state and regime. The question is whether these steps toward securing democracy after apartheid are buttressed by the presence of a civil society or are taken in its absence. If the latter applies, then the immediate task of the new government will have to be both to democratize the state and regime and to civilize society. This article addresses this question by reporting on data that bear on the attitudes of elites to the state and to a wide variety of civic bodies in South Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Hennie Kotzé & Pierre Du Toit, 1995. "The State, Civil Society, and Democratic Transition in South Africa," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(1), pages 27-48, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:39:y:1995:i:1:p:27-48
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002795039001002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002795039001002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002795039001002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Higley, John & Moore, Gwen, 1981. "Elite Integration in the United States and Australia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 581-597, September.
    2. Miller, Nicholas R., 1983. "Pluralism and Social Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(3), pages 734-747, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    2. Bernard GROFMAN & Joseph GODFREY, 2014. "Aspiration Models of Committee Decision Making," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2014-04-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    3. A. J. McGann, 2004. "The Tyranny of the Supermajority," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 53-77, January.
    4. Jan Sauermann, 2021. "The effects of communication on the occurrence of the tyranny of the majority under voting by veto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. David Knoke, 1993. "Networks of Elite Structure and Decision Making," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 22(1), pages 23-45, August.
    6. Sauermann, Jan & Schwaninger, Manuel & Kittel, Bernhard, 2022. "Making and breaking coalitions: Strategic sophistication and prosociality in majority decisions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    8. Krishna K Ladha, 2012. "Aristotle’s Politics: On Constitutions, Justice, Laws and Stability," Working papers 104, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    9. Tangian, Andranik, 2010. "Evaluation of German parties and coalitions by methods of the mathematical theory of democracy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 294-307, April.
    10. John Chamberlin, 1986. "Discovering manipulated social choices: The coincidence of cycles and manipulated outcomes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 295-313, January.
    11. Kyriacou, Andreas P., 2000. "An Ethnically Based Federal and Bicameral System: The case of Cyprus," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 251-268, June.
    12. Tangian, Andranik S., 2013. "2013 election to German Bundestag from the viewpoint of direct democracy," WSI Working Papers 186, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    13. Thomas H. Hammond, 2015. "A unified spatial model of American political institutions," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 11, pages 182-200, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Tangian, Andranik, 2006. "Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 12165, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Matthew C. Stephenson, 2013. "Does Separation of Powers Promote Stability and Moderation?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 331-368.
    16. Fujun Hou, 2022. "Conditions for none to be whipped by `Rank and Yank' under the majority rule," Papers 2208.05093, arXiv.org.
    17. Andranik Tangian, 2008. "A mathematical model of Athenian democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 537-572, December.
    18. Tangian, Andranik S., 2013. "Decision making in politics and economics: 5. 2013 election to German Bundestag and direct democracy," Working Paper Series in Economics 49, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    19. Tangian, Andranik S., 2010. "Representativeness of German parties and trade unions with regard to public opinion," WSI Working Papers 173, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    20. Hugh Ward & Albert Weale, 2010. "Is Rule by Majorities Special?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 26-46, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:39:y:1995:i:1:p:27-48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.