Democracy doesn’t necessarily die suddenly. A country can continue to have elections, courts, political parties, and freedom of speech, but its democracy could gradually erode. I think South Africa is a great example of that. South Africa remains a democracy but suffers from high levels of corruption, poor government performance, general dissatisfaction among the public, and shrinking confidence in political institutions. This is why, in South Africa, democratic erosion should not only be seen as democracy totally collapsing; it can also be the case that some democratic institutions still operate but are functioning improperly. South Africa’s problem is not the wholesale disappearance of democracy; it is more about how corruption, lack of accountability and public disenchantment can gradually undermine the quality of democracy.

South Africa became a multiracial democracy in 1994 after the end of apartheid. Since then, the country has continued to hold regular elections. It also has courts, political parties, media organizations, and civil society groups that are important for democracy. Freedom House still classifies South Africa as “Free,” and International IDEA also shows that the country performs relatively well in political representation. This is important because it shows that South Africa is not simply an example of a failed democracy. People can still vote, opposition parties can compete in elections, and citizens are able to criticize the government. Courts and the media also continue to play important roles. At the same time, having democratic institutions does not automatically mean that democracy is working perfectly. South Africa has faced many political problems even while these institutions have continued to exist.

One of the clearest examples is the issue of “state capture” during the presidency of Jacob Zuma. During this period, political leaders and private business interests were accused of using government institutions and state-owned companies for their own benefit. I believe this example is significant because democracy did not just disappear during this time. Elections continued, opposition parties continued to operate, and the Constitution remained in place. The problem was happening within government institutions themselves. This is an example of democratic erosion because corruption can weaken accountability even when elections and other democratic institutions continue to exist. Democratic institutions may still be present but may slowly become weaker if they are unable to keep politicians accountable. It indicates that democracy can be endangered even when the political system itself remains largely democratic. When government institutions cannot work in a proper manner due to corruption or individual interests, and if the authorities are not held responsible, citizens may lose trust in their government. But South African authorities also investigated state capture and introduced reforms, which demonstrates that, despite these problems, democratic institutions can address grave issues. In conclusion, the case of state capture reveals both the weaknesses of South African democracy and its capacity to fix some of its flaws.

For South Africa, it was yet another important election year in 2024. The African National Congress, or ANC, had held a majority in Parliament since the end of the apartheid era. But in the 2024 election, it received about 40 percent of the vote and lost the majority for the first time since 1994. I believe this result is significant as it demonstrates that political competition remains relevant in South Africa. Discontent with the ANC on the grounds of corruption, unemployment, government performance and various other issues was not an absolute rejection of democracy but a means by which the electorate expressed their discontent through an election. Following the elections, the ANC was no longer the sole governing party and had to work with other political parties. For me, this proves that dissatisfied citizens are not necessarily a sign of democracy failing. Sometimes dissatisfied voters use elections to shake up the balance of the political system. The 2024 election showed that citizens can, at the very least, make an electoral difference without abandoning the democratic system. I think this shows democratic resilience. Even though many people were unhappy with the government, they were still able to use their votes to reduce the ANC’s power.

One of the most significant problems in South Africa is public services. Many citizens have faced issues with water, crime, unemployment, electricity and infrastructure. These issues can increase public anger toward the government. I should emphasize, though, that I do not believe that poor services should be read as automatic evidence of democratic erosion. For instance, if there is an electricity shortage, this is primarily a problem of government performance. It is more associated with democracy when leaders are not accountable, corruption impedes solutions, or when citizens perceive that the government has no interest in them. I think this difference is important. If every government failure is “democratic erosion,” the label of democratic erosion will be too loose. Instead, we should ask whether these problems diminish accountability, confidence and participation. In its studies, Afrobarometer has found that many South Africans are discontented with the functioning of democracy. However, respondents’ perceptions of democracy improved following the 2024 general elections. That complicates things. You may feel let down by the government, but you may also believe an election can change things.

Political disengagement is also an important problem. If people keep feeling that politicians do not listen to them, they may become less interested in voting or participating in politics. They may start thinking that their vote does not matter. According to South Africa’s Electoral Commission, voter turnout fell from about 66 percent in 2019 to 58.6 percent in 2024. This can create a cycle. Poor government performance can lower public trust. Lower trust can reduce political participation. Then, if fewer people participate or demand change, politicians may feel less pressure to improve. However, the 2024 election shows that people do not always respond by giving up on politics. Many voters used the election to change the political situation and reduce the ANC’s power. Because of this, low political participation and public dissatisfaction should probably be seen as warning signs rather than proof that democracy has already failed.

South Africa tells us that democracy is not all or nothing; there are certainly several levels in between. There are still free and fair elections, court systems, political parties, media outlets, and civil society organizations. And the 2024 election illustrated that voters still have the power to shift the political landscape at the ballot box. Simultaneously, we have the issues of corruption, state capture, governance problems, and low levels of public trust and legitimacy that make elections just one of the necessary ingredients of democracy. For me, the most important lesson that I have learned from South Africa is the realization that democracy can fade away very gradually. Not all economic problems, like an electricity crisis or unemployment, constitute a threat to democracy. But these problems do become threats to democracy if they involve corruption, lack of accountability and declining trust. And yet at the same time, South Africa demonstrates that democracy is resilient. Elections can bring about change, investigations can unearth corruption, and people can carry on calling for accountability. That’s why South Africa is a great example to examine. It provides insight both into how a democracy might gradually weaken and into how democratic institutions might still respond to those challenges.