Today, Freedom Day marks not only the birth of a democratic nation but stands as a testament to the unwavering commitment of South Africans to justice, equality, and human dignity, in the hopes of building a better, more inclusive future for all. Freedom is not simply a date in the history books. It is a continuous and ever-changing process that is prevalent within the day-to-day struggles for justice and equality, not just in South Africa, but across the African continent.

At the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, we believe that true freedom is incomplete without justice and reconciliation. Our work supports those across South Africa and the continent who are still fighting for their freedom, whether it be economic, social, political, environmental, or psychological. Through our research and various engagements and initiatives, we equip policymakers, civil society and citizens, with evidence-based strategies to address systemic inequalities.

This year also marks 25 years since the IJR was founded, a milestone that deepens our reflection on what freedom means in practice. Born out of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the IJR has spent the last quarter century advancing human rights, justice, and reconciliation throughout Africa. Guided by tools like our South African Reconciliation Barometer (SARB), we track societal progress and amplify citizen voices in national debates.

In these times of growing uncertainties, the work of justice and reconciliation is more pressing than ever. We must continue to safeguard the freedoms that so many fought for not only for ourselves but for generations to come. We remain steadfast in amplifying community led dialogues that turn tension into collaboration, ensuring that reparations and reconciliation are not abstract ideals but lived realities.

As we commemorate this anniversary, we remain steadfast in our mission to foster social cohesion, promote healing, and shape societies where all people can thrive.  May this Freedom Day be a moment not just of remembrance, but of recommitment to a more just and free society where liberty is shared, protected, and respected by all.

Happy Freedom Day, South Africa!

Reconciliation Day marks an important moment in South Africa’s ongoing journey toward healing, unity, and transformation. It symbolises the nation’s unwavering commitment to fostering harmony and embracing a shared and inclusive future. This day invites us to reflect on our history, honour contributions to justice and freedom, and to celebrate the strides we have made together.

The IJR’s mission is deeply intertwined with the values that Reconciliation Day represents. Established in 2000, in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we remain dedicated to building fair, inclusive, democratic and peaceful societies across Africa and beyond. Through research, dialogue, advocacy, and capacity building, we tackle inequality, dismantle the legacies of oppression, and advance transitional justice, reconciliation, social cohesion and democracy.

South Africa is once again embarking on a process of national introspection through the National Dialogue. It represents an opportunity for restoring hope and for renewal of the commitments to “heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.”

On this Reconciliation Day, let us reflect on the shared history that binds us, acknowledge the challenges that persist, and renew our commitment to inclusion, equity, and justice as well as think deeply what we would like to achieve through the National Dialogue. As Desmond Tutu reminded us: “Someday we will realise our dream of a fair, democratic, and inclusive Africa.” Together, we can continue to build the bridges that bring us closer to that dream.

Findings like these do provide a broader context to the challenge that the recently-formed Government of National Unity (GNU) will have to respond to in coming months and years. Not only will it have to rebuild and service economic infrastructure that was neglected in the years of state capture to give the economy a fighting chance, it’s success will also be measured against the extent to which it succeeds in resurrecting the country’s ailing democratic infrastructure that fell victim to the exploits of those that leveraged key public institutions at the expense of South Africans. After all, the former was enabled by the complete systemic failure of the latter.

This is not a matter of conjecture. In 2017, the Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament, the country’s apex legislative institution, patently failed in its oversight of the executive in the matter pertaining to the use of state funds for the renovation of former president Jacob Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal. What was to follow, proved that this incident was only the top of the iceberg. The six volumes of the Zondo Commission into State Capture, which were published in the course of 2022, laid bare that Nkandla was not an outlier, but an exemplar of a broader culture of looting enabled by passive and, in some instances, complicit democratic institutions.

The Afrobarometer findings between 2011 and 2022 show that not even the “New Dawn”, associated with the ascendance of current President Cyril Ramaphosa, managed to stem the negative tide of opinion towards democracy in South Africa. In fact, between 2018, when he assumed office, and 2022, approval for the functioning of democracy in South Africa fell by 17%. While it has to be acknowledged in all fairness that Ramaphosa’s task was complicated by the scale of  the Zuma administration’s disastrous aftermath, the perceived lack of urgency in dealing with these, as well as perpetrators responsible for the pillaging of the state, did not do his government favours.

Viewed against this backdrop, the result of the 2024 general elections marked the end of an era, where the only uncertainty in the crafting of policy and legislation related to positions taken by factions within the ruling party. It also provides an opportunity to reset. The absence of a completely dominant governing party opens the door for greater oversight and accountability and less sanctioned impunity for those in the legislative and executive arms of the state that do not put the interest of South Africans first. It also places a greater burden on opposition parties that will now become more influential in shaping the South African policy agenda.

Democracy has not failed us over the past decade; our leaders, as custodians of the system, have. In light of this, the framework of the GNU creates the potential for shaping a new political culture that puts the interests of South Africans first. The balance of power has ever so slightly shifted from away party leaders to ordinary people. This is good for democracy. This is good for South Africa. In these early days, where the impulse to revert to old habits that exploit the country’s historical divides to polarize rather than unite may be strong, it would be critical for all parties to remain aware of the greater national imperative to restore democratic culture in the way of a lost decade and a half.

In light of the above, the proposed national dialogue should, in theory, be welcomed. For such an initiative to work in practice, however, it would be critical that it is citizen-led and not dominated by government agenda-setting and voices. It requires legislators that listen; that strive to serve. The crisis of democracy in Africa, and also in South Africa, is one where agency belongs to those in power and is legitimated by the theatrics of representation. The Afrobarometer findings show that citizens are not fooled by this. South Africa now has the opportunity to change course. Will it rise to the occasion?

Zusipe Batyi is a Senior Communications Officer at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.

The event highlighted the media’s powerful influence in shaping public opinion, informing citizens, and holding power accountable, especially in regions grappling with political instability and conflict. Ng’anjo opened the session by emphasising the complexities of Africa’s diverse media landscape, touching on challenges like press freedom, media ownership, and misinformation.

Kate Lefko-Everett, Senior Project Leader for the South African Reconciliation Barometer at IJR, underscored media freedom as vital for peace and democracy. She presented survey results on media trust and the role of civil society in South Africa.

The panel featured:

• Adam Alqali, Editor of African Newspage, who spoke on conflict-sensitive reporting in Nigeria, particularly in regions affected by Boko Haram.
• Baboloki Semele, Media Professional from Botswana, who discussed the portrayal of women and youths in media.
• Charles Mangwiro, Senior Editor at Radio Mozambique, who highlighted media freedom issues in covering Cabo Delgado and upcoming elections.
• Nande Mbekela, Communications Intern at IJR, who analyzed media coverage of South Africa’s 2024 elections, noting the lack of diversity in perspectives.

In her presentations Everett highlighted the important role of the media as a backdrop of democracy, “robust, free and independent media plays a critical role in informing the public and its watchdog role contributes to monitoring, accountability and oversight of government.”

Adam Alqali, spoke about conflict sensitive reporting for media which should help support peacebuilding. Alqali emphasised the need for journalists to move away from conventional journalism whereby they focus on reporting violent events but he says they must play a key role in fostering peace in communities.

“As journalists we need to adopt advocacy strategies of civil society in the course of our work and that is the only way we can contribute to peace and sustainable development of the continent,” said Alqali.

His presentation was followed by Baboloki Semele who focused on media coverage and portrayal of women and youths in Botswana in forging peace and democracy.  Semele said,” In order for us to have peace, progress and security we must include women, young people and marginalised communities.”

Charles Mangwiro shared his views on media freedom in covering Cabo Delgado and the upcoming elections in Mozambique. Mangwiro spoke about how journalists face threats from the government and are accused of working with terrorists, “…Most of the threats come from government officials, and accusations that journalist have entered into agreements with terrorists This creates a narrative that the information by journalists is of doubtful origin…”

To close off the panellists discussions was Nande Mbekela who discussed the media coverage of the 2024 elections in South Africa. She was of the view that despite efforts from the South African media to provide fair and balanced coverage some media houses lacked genuine diversity in perspective.

“The narrative during the elections frequently revolved around political interests and party politics rather than the broader social economic realities faced by ordinary South Africans,” said Mbekela.

The discussions underscored the need for responsible journalism and the media’s potential to drive positive change. The webinar concluded with a call for a more collective effort to uphold democratic values and media integrity in Africa, setting the stage for continued dialogue on leveraging media for peace and democracy across the continent.

To watch the full recording of the webinar, click HERE.

Leading in to the 2024 elections, the majority of South Africans felt – and were feeling for some time – that, on balance, the country was heading in the wrong direction – in the direction opposite to the democratic and inclusive society that the South African Constitution articulates as the goal of government.

The Afrobarometer – an African continental public opinion survey that measures African sentiments on issues of governance in close to 40 countries across the African continent including South Africa – shows public sentiments of South Africans about the overall direction of the country over the past thirteen years. Its findings are unambiguous. South Africans have become overwhelmingly negative about the general direction that the country has been moving in. As the graphic in figure one details, in 2011 opinion was evenly split between those who were negative and those positive – at 46%, about the country’s trajectory. By 2024, positive sentiment had declined to a mere 13%, while negative sentiment almost doubled to 85%. Consequently, it is not implausible to argue that, over time, the majority of South Africans experienced a back slide in their life-experiences.

Question: Would you say that the country is going in the wrong direction or going in the right direction?

Between 2011 and 2024 levels of satisfaction with the functioning of the democratic state almost halved from 60% to 39% as demonstrated in the data from Afrobarometer presented in Figure 2. Dissatisfaction with democracy has almost doubled during the same period. Though the majority of South Africans still appeared to prefer democracy above other forms of government, these findings underscore the reality that the gap between expectation and experience of democracy and democratic government, is increasingly becoming wider.

Question: Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in South Africa?

Dysfunctional Democracy & Government – driven by lack of trust.    

The Afrobarometer findings on citizen perceptions on the dysfunctionality of the country’s democratic system contains within it an indictment of the way in which the constituent institutions of the democratic system seem to function. The South African Reconciliation Barometer (SARB) of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) – a public opinion survey measuring South Africans’ attitudes towards reconciliation and broader social cohesion processes in South Africa – postulates that the vertical trust that citizens have towards the institutions of state, are equally as important for social cohesion as the levels of trust that exist between different people across different cleavages in society. Launched in 2003, the SARB is the longest running survey of its kind in the world. The insights that it reveals about trust in public institutions are as insightful as they are worrying. In Figure 3 below, trust that South Africans have in the National Parliament (legislative arm), the National Government (executive arm), and the Constitutional Court (at the apex of the judicial arm), are shown.  Between the period of the SARB’s first measurements in 2007 and its latest measurement in 2023 – confidence in all three institutions of state have declined by close to 30% for both Parliament and the National Government respectively, and reduced by just over 20% for the Constitutional Court (Lefko-Everett, 2023). Amongst the 13 institutions measured in the 2023 round of the SARB (see Figure 4), only one institution, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) as a public media outlet, managed to attract a trust level above 50% at 57%.

Question: Tell us how much you trust the following institutions to execute their mandate

Question: Tell us how much you trust the following institutions to execute their mandate

Cumulatively, these findings do not reflect well on the substantive dimensions of democracy. They appear to be failing to resolve, even if incrementally, the country’s most intractable challenges – poverty, inequality, and unemployment – but also appear incapable of addressing many of the systemic challenges that flow from them. In terms of the public opinion data at our disposal, South Africans are unhappy with the direction that their country is moving in and the failure of its democratic system to arrest its perceived decline. As a result, the legislative, executive and judicial arms of the state and the institutions that constitute them are increasingly struggling to retain the trust and confidence of South Africans.

As is the case in all democratic societies, South Africans have a recourse to judge the performance of those that they mandated to be custodians of power in government through regular credible elections. The vote in democratic societies provide citizens with an opportunity to vote for the kind of government they would like, and to reward those who have performed well in government and punish those who did not. In the May 2024 South Africans were able to exercise this democratic right for the seventh time since the 1990 -1994 transition to democracy.

In the light of the African National Congress (ANC’s) faltering track record in prudent and proper governance since the late 2000s, many expected that the hitherto governing ANC would struggle in the 2024 elections to retain an outright majority, and to be able to form a government on its own. The final election result surprised everyone, including the ANC. The ANC’s support plummeted by 17 percentage points from 57% to 40%, while support for the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA) increased by 1% from 21% to 22%, and support for the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) decreased by 1% from 11% to 10%. The other major surprise was the relatively strong performance of the newly formed Umkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) of former President (of the ANC and of the country) Jacob Zuma, which in its first election, became the party with the third largest presence in parliament. They garnered 15% of the vote.

Consequent to this result, the ANC faced the difficult choice of either going into opposition, governing as a minority government, or inviting other parties into a governing coalition to co-govern with it. It has opted for the latter, although choosing to refer to it as a government of national unity (GNU), which harks back to the inclusive government arrangement of the first post-apartheid administration that granted all parties above a threshold of 10 percent support, a place in the executive order to create a sense of collective ownership of the processes of governance in an emergent democratic South Africa.

Do South Africans really want coalition government at present?

It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the outcome of the coalition negotiations will be instructive for the country’s developmental trajectory. At a global historical juncture referred to as a “poly-crisis”[1], or “perma-crisis”[2] – much will depend on the seventh democratic administration’s capacity to rehabilitate public institutions, orient them towards a developmental mandate, and reset the domestic economy on a path towards greater equity while, enhancing the country’s longer-term global competitiveness.

It will have to do so in conditions not of its own making, and in a configuration that has been foisted upon it consequent to the election results. Though a coalition government was not the preferred outcome, particularly for the ANC, in the wake of the election results – both the ANC and DA separately claimed that the election outcome signified voters’ preference for their respective parties to enter a coalition type arrangement.

But is this really the case? Did voters mandate political parties to form a coalition government, or is this merely a matter of contingency arising out of the fact that no party achieved a majority?

Between the 23^rd of April and 11^th of May 2024, the Institute for Justice of Reconciliation, on behalf of Afrobarometer, conducted a telephonic pre-election survey amongst a representative sample of 1,800 South Africans to measure their sentiment towards the upcoming elections. Given the possibility of the ANC losing its outright majority, the survey probed South Africans’ receptiveness towards the idea of a coalition government. The question “Do you approve or disapprove of the idea of a coalition government?” was asked to respondents who had indicated that they have registered to vote AND that they were likely to turn out to vote. Responses to this question amongst registered voters indicating a likelihood of voting in Figure 5 suggests that respondents do not seem to provide an emphatic corroboration of the ANC, DA, and an increasing number of other parties’ interpretation of the poll outcome. Figure 4 shows that less than half of respondents (46%) signalled support for the idea of a coalition government, while close to a third (30%) indicated their disapproval for a government consisting of several parties. A further 20% noted their ambivalence about the formation of a governing coalition.

Question: Do you approve or disapprove of the idea of a coalition government, in which two or more political parties run the country together? 

When responses to the same question is broken down by party support (or affinity to a party) among respondents who indicated that they have registered to vote and who were likely to vote (Figure 6), a similar inconclusive picture emerges. While majorities in each of the parties supported the idea of a coalition government, none of them amounted to an outright majority of more than 50%. Interestingly, the highest level of support for coalition government came from “undecided voters” (47%), while the lowest support (35%) came from MKP supporters.

Question: Do you approve or disapprove of the idea of a coalition government, in which two or more political parties run the country together?

Overall, there did not appear to be strong support for the idea of a coalition government amongst registered voters who had indicated an intention to vote. However, those who rejected the idea, remained ambivalent about it, or otherwise did not express a view (the: “don’t know” response) far outnumbered those who were in support of it. These findings show that there may be some ambivalence among voters about the political parties’ contention that the election outcome signalled a preference for coalition government.

Bibliography:

Lefko-Everett, K., 2023. South African Reconciliation Barometer Survey: 2023 Report, Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation

[1] multiple different but interlocking problems facing societies, all with major adverse impacts occurring simultaneously and compounding each other’s effects, because of inappropriate policies which are seemingly difficult to tackle and resolve individually. It refers to a convergence of crises that pose significant challenges to governance, stability and societal well-being and include factors such economic crises and downturns, political instability, social unrest, environmental disasters, and health emergencies.

[2] A period of instability and insecurity, the result of either natural disaster, or poorly configured policy whose ill -effects become entrenched, and seem unresolvable. It is suggestive of a situation where crisis conditions persist to become systemic, where societal, political, economic, environmental and other problems become chronic and entrenched, making it seem impossible to find sustainable solutions.

Felicity Harrison, the Head of the Sustained Dialogue Programme at the IJR, emphasised the importance of amplifying the voices of people in communities through this film and shedding light on the lived realities of what it’s like to live in South Africa.

“The documentary captures lived realities of a majority of South Africans and the trauma that they still carry. The voices of the people in the documentary remind us that our democracy cannot be fulfilled until we commit to the work of healing the wounds of our past,” said Harrison.

Inspired by these stories of individuals and communities grappling with social justice and the aftermath of apartheid, “Justice Before Healing” aims to bridge the gap between past injustices and present-day healing. Central to the film are themes of justice, institutional racism, reconciliation, and reparations. These themes are intricately woven into the narrative, showcasing the power of dialogue and the critical work needed for society and communities to heal from past injustices.

The film highlights the persistent class and racial divide left by apartheid, which remains very present and alive in communities across South Africa three decades since the attainment of democracy. The spatial and social restrictions imposed by the apartheid government still influence contemporary society, affecting where people live, work, and interact. Although the journey of reconciliation has been explored in various South African communities, the step of mentally decolonizing individuals and dismantling internalized oppression has yet to occur, as evidenced by the everyday interactions and lives of South Africans.

The production of “Justice Before Healing” was an intricate and collaborative endeavour, reflecting the essence of the Sustained Dialogues programmes’ mission to foster meaningful conversations and solutions around social justice issues. The process involved extensive research, community engagement, and a commitment to authentic storytelling. At the film’s screening at the IJR offices on June 26, it was well received, sparking vital conversations about using our voices for change and sharing our lived experiences. The screening highlighted that as more conversations emerge around an issue, more solutions will arise. Furthermore, emphasizes the need to involve communities in the work of reconciliation and healing in South Africa.

By sharing these powerful stories, the aim is to create a platform where marginalized voices can be heard and validated. The documentary is a catalyst for grassroots movements, empowering people to advocate for their rights and demand systemic change.

“Justice Before Healing” is more than a documentary; it is a call to action. Acknowledgment, accountability, and reparations are the next steps we need to take as a society to fully decolonize ourselves and the spaces we occupy. Through this film, the Sustained Dialogues programmes aim to create a platform for change, encouraging communities to confront and address the deep-seated issues left by apartheid.

By Nande Mbekela, Intern Communications

PAN-AFRICAN RECONCILIATION NETWORK (PAREN)

AFRICAN UNION TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE MONITOR (AUTJP MONITOR)

Call for Articles

1.Background and Context:

The African Union Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP), adopted in February 2019, emphasises the important role played by non-state actors and civil society organisations as key partners with government and inter-governmental actors, in the promotion of transitional justice, national and regional reconciliation.

The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) is a Pan-African organization, based in Cape Town, South Africa, which works with governments, inter-governmental and civil society actors to build fair, inclusive and democratic societies. The Pan-African Reconciliation Network (PAREN), was established by the IJR’s Peacebuilding Interventions Programme, to convene and sustain a continental and global platform for practitioners, policy makers, and analysts working on transitional justice and peacebuilding, to provide technical support to governments and societies through the facilitation of dialogue interventions, policy analysis and the strengthening of national capacities to drive in-country processes.

The IJR Peacebuilding Interventions Programme will develop a PAREN AUTJP Monitor.

2.Key Objectives of the PAREN AUTJP Monitor:

The purpose of these articles will be to provide some analysis on prospective and ongoing transitional justice and peacebuilding processes across Africa, and elsewhere in the world, in order to raise awareness and sensitize African stakeholders on the utility and importance of engaging and utilize the provisions of the African Union Transitional Justice Policy in order to assist governments, inter-governmental actors, and civil society actors to develop and guide their own national transitional justice and reconciliation processes.

The adoption of the AUTJP creates a home-grown African approach to addressing the violations of the past and promoting redress with accountability for such injustices. There is a need across the African continent, to create platforms for the exchange of insights as well as to enhance awareness and the understanding of transitional justice and reconciliation processes. The PAREN AUTJP Monitor serves such a function as a professional knowledge-sharing and exchange of views platform, with a specific focus on strategies to implement the provisions of the African Union Transitional Justice Policy. The Monitor will assess where provisions of the AUTJP are being adopted and implemented across Africa.

We hereby invite you to share your brief insights to be included in the AUTJP Monitor into how transitional justice, peacebuilding and reconciliation processes are being undertaken across the African continent. Topics can also focus on efforts to addressed gender-based violence, prevent violent extremism, psychosocial support, regional reconciliation,

3.Length of Articles:

Kindly submit your short articles (up to 500 words) and longer features (800 words or more) to Ms Anthea Flink at aflink@ijr.org.za, by 8 September 2021.

If you have any queries please contact Ms Anthea Flink at 021 202 4071 or email at aflink@ijr.org.za

Pan-African Reconciliation Network, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation

August 2021

The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) sends its message of solidarity and support to the South African Women’s Peace Table convened by the Getrude Shope Women Mediators Network. IJR remains available to work collaboratively with associations, organisations and partners to mobilize and build our collective capacity to dialogue and work diligently to address the underlying issues that led to the social unrest and protests in July 2021, especially in Kwa-Zulu Natal and Gauteng Provinces.

Today, the IJR stands in solidarity with all of our mothers, sisters and daughters and calls upon all South Africans to calm and unite as the country pursues democratic processes and promotes a cohesive and inclusive vision for the future. The IJR also calls for national solidarity particularly at this difficult time when there are high levels of desperation among South Africans who have been hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, worsening the rising unemployment, poverty, inequality. IJR recognizes that the social unrest in South African is linked to the legacies of the past, slavery, colonialism and apartheid have scarred the national psyche with attendant trauma. While the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) started the process towards justice and peace, there is much that remains to be done. South Africans continue to live with the consequences of decades and centuries of dispossession and inequality.

The IJR stands ready as a willing partner to other association, organisations and partners to create fair, inclusive and democratic societies. We call upon government actors and partners to promote strategies for the development of our country that are inclusive and not based on politics, ethnicity or race. We further implore protestors to express their views in nonviolent ways, and for the media to ensure that it plays a peaceful, rather than polarising role. We call on community leaders and religious leaders, working together to explore means of dialogue and mediation, to ensure that we can sustain a peaceful and inclusive society.

IJR works to contributing to “sensitizing” key governmental, inter-governmental and civil society actors, about the provisions contained in the AUTJP which they can use to their own national and regional transitional justice, peacebuilding and reconciliation processes. Since it was adopted in February 2019, the AUTJP has provided a collective Pan-African template for countries to utilise in guiding their own national processes. However, it is clear from the minimal level of policy engagement and the low level of governmental uptake with the AUTJP, that we need to do much more to raise awareness and to capacitate colleagues to proactively engage with its provisions to guide our societies on their journey towards more durable and sustainable peace.

In paragraph 123, he AUTJP is very explicit on the role of non-state actors in this regards and paragraph … states that non-state actors also have a responsibility in the implementation of the AUTJP, by contributing to “the planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating and reporting on all phases of the implementation of the policy”.  Furthermore, in paragraph 135, the AUTJP specifically identifies a technical role for civil society and think-tank actors, in support of governments, by contributing to the “production of relevant research and studies” through processes that systematically “collect best practices and facilitate the sharing of such best practices with societies contemplating or pursuing transitional justice processes”. In addition, it proposes that “the process for national dialogue, reconciliation and healing should enable faith leaders, traditional and community leaders, not only to play an active part in such processes … but also pursue intra- and inter-community dialogue, reconciliation and healing at local levels.” In effect, the AUTJP mandates local actors including community leaders to play a proactive role in the implementation of the AUTJP and in the creation of national spaces for dialogue on the approach that will be appropriate for specific countries and communal groups.

The AUTJP presents an opportunity for the African continent to recalibrate the legacy of the enduring adversarial relationship between state and society, by assigning specific tasks to non-state actors, civil society organisations, faith and traditional leaders. Specifically, the shared implementation of the AUTJP between state and non-state actors will encourage closer collaboration on the promotion of peacebuilding and reconciliation, which can have positive side-effect in terms of forging platforms that can increase the interaction and exchanges between the state and society.  Given the future trends of crisis on the African continent, the IJR will continue to contribute towards proactively to informing the practical governmental, and inter-governmental processes on the ground.

Prof. Tim Murithi is head of the Peacebuilding Interventions programme at IJR

Image Source: Wikipedia

With IJR shifting to a work from home model, the Inclusive Economies Project was determined to project its voice, and bring to the forefront, the import role of inclusive development in safeguarding social cohesion. It was a year of research, webinars, interviews and fostering partnerships.

As the year unfolded, the government receded deeper in austerity, threatening the cohesiveness of society by undermining the sustainability of public services and quality of life (here and here). We explored ways to protect social cohesion by considering the expansion digital inclusion (here) and the creation of resilience in the country’s growing informal sector (here), that ultimately reduces vulnerabilities among those at risk of falling captive to precarious labour situations (here).

Perception data collected by the Afrobarometer has been used to produced novel insights into how South African’s perceive the social grants system (here), and where the disparities in economic agency between rural and urban women in Africa requires revived policy attention (here). Culminating with a final (forthcoming) publication titled Social Cohesion Hangs in The Balance as South Africans Feel Economically Insecure: Reflections from the South African Reconciliation Barometer.

As we look to 2021 and anticipate the challenge of rebuilding a post-Covid Africa, we are more inspired, determined and energetic than ever before. In the new year, Inclusive Economies will pioneer a series of publications that span the continent. As the links between economic inclusion and peace become clearer, we will set out to investigate the broader relationship between development and social cohesion in Africa, and more specifically the implications that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on this pivotal relationship.

Protecting our most marginalised, promoting democracy, fostering inclusive development and solidifying social cohesion, is more than an ideal, it is a tangible future for Africa. We invite you, friends and partners of the IJR, to engage with our research and to use your sphere of influence to spread the insights uncovered through our work. While a perpetual battle of ideas rages on, we will continue to produce clear, concise and pragmatic solutions for governments, policymakers, practitioners and civil society, so that we can collectively advance our mission of a peaceful and prosperous Africa.

Jaynisha Patel leads the Inclusive Economies Project at IJR. You can connect with her at jpatel@ijr.org.za

Image Source: Unsplash