Do South African realities a quarter-century after the achievement of formal democracy offer a route out of path dependence?

Before attempting an answer, it is important to emphasise again that change which would benefit South Africans would not end all aspects of path dependence. In 2017, the governing party responded to the prospect of losing its national majority not by finding ways to stay in power whatever the outcome, but by electing the president it believed could prevent this defeat. After the election, the former president is reported to have asked the military to stage a coup on his behalf but was rebuffed. This indicated not only a respect for parliamentary democracy but also perpetuated another form of path dependence for which most South Africans may be grateful: the subordination of the military to civilian rulers. Under apartheid, despite the militarisation of the state by PW Botha, the military did not take over the government. The ANC's guerrilla army, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was always subject to the authority of its elected civilian leadership. Thus, to abolish all vestiges of path dependence might also be to scrap free elections and civilian government. Respect for court rulings, which played a crucial role in thwarting a particular example of ‘state capture’, is a product of a path dependence which has served citizens well. A core feature of post-1994 South Africa – vigorous freedom of speech for some, and constraints on speech and action for others – is also a feature of path dependence. A fairer social order would not abolish this freedom; it would ensure that free speech is extended to all. Therefore, the question is not whether the society can rid itself of all vestiges of the past, but whether it can begin to move away from those which ensure continued exclusion and inequality, while retaining those elements which protect citizens’ rights.

A credible strategy to move away from path dependence would also need to recognise that not everything has remained the same since 1994. This is yet another argument against smashing all vestiges of the past. The first quarter-century of democracy brought social and economic changes which would need to be preserved and extended in a path which differs fundamentally from that which exists now.