The recent interview with former Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke on Channel 405 raises an important question about the relationship between political power, constitutional democracy, and transformation in South Africa. If I am quoting him correctly, Justice Moseneke argued that in a democratic state, changes aimed at improving society should be implemented as swiftly as possible.
This observation invites a broader discussion: Can the African National Congress (ANC) legitimately claim that the Constitution is an impediment to transformation, particularly on issues such as equality, land reform, and economic transformation?Following the 2003 floor-crossing window period, the ANC increased its representation in the 400-seat National Assembly from 266 seats to 275 seats, equivalent to an increase from 66.5% to 68.75%. Following the 2004 national and provincial elections, the ANC secured 279 seats in Parliament, surpassing the two-thirds majority threshold of 267 seats required to amend most provisions of the Constitution.
Subsequent floor-crossing periods further strengthened the ANC’s position. By September 2005, the party’s representation had increased to 293 seats, equivalent to 73.25% of the National Assembly. This gave the ANC a near three-quarters majority, a level of parliamentary dominance that some opposition parties and market commentators regarded as a potential threat to democratic checks and balances.By contrast, the ANC secured 230 seats in the 2019 national elections, representing 57.5% of Parliament. Following the 2024 elections, its representation declined further to 159 seats, equivalent to 40.18%. From its peak of 293 seats in 2005 to 159 seats in 2024, the ANC lost 134 parliamentary seats, representing a decline of approximately 46%.
These figures raise a fundamental question: What can the ANC achieve today that it could not have achieved when it possessed an overwhelming parliamentary majority? The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law of the land and cannot be amended through a simple majority vote. Section 74 sets out the rigorous procedures and voting thresholds required for constitutional amendments. Most constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, while amendments affecting the founding provisions of the Constitution require the support of at least 75% of members of the National Assembly, together with the necessary support in the National Council of Provinces.
Given the extensive parliamentary mandate the ANC enjoyed from 1994 onwards, it is reasonable to ask whether constitutional limitations were truly the primary obstacle to transformation. If constitutional provisions presented barriers to the ANC’s policy objectives, why were those issues not addressed when the party possessed the numbers necessary to pursue constitutional amendments? This question inevitably leads to the negotiations at CODESA I and II. Is there anything that was overlooked during those negotiations that could have been corrected later? If so, what was it, and why was it not addressed when the ANC enjoyed a commanding electoral mandate?
Some within the liberation movement have long argued that the ANC conceded too much during the constitutional negotiations. The late Mama Nomzamo Winnie Madikizela-Mandela was among those who suggested that the movement had over-negotiated, particularly regarding the transformation of the economy. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it remains part of the broader debate about South Africa’s democratic transition and the pace of transformation.The issue is therefore not merely constitutional. It is also political. Why did the ANC not fully utilise the mandate granted to it through the democratic process to address the structural challenges that continue to confront South Africa?
These are the questions that South Africans should continue to interrogate. What is the purpose of a voters’ mandate in a democratic state? What responsibilities accompany electoral victories? And what obligations do elected representatives have towards the people who entrusted them with power? The ANC has historically presented itself as a movement representing the aspirations of the people of South Africa. It was a liberation movement before it became a governing party. Moreover, for much of the democratic era, it possessed the political authority and parliamentary numbers necessary to pursue its vision for the country.
As South Africa approaches the 4 November 2026 Local Government Elections, the ANC has introduced what it calls the “Six Pillars of the ANC Action Plan.” However, the party faces a significant trust deficit among many voters.The central question is therefore not whether the ANC has an action plan, but whether voters believe it can implement it.The ANC must ensure that its members and representatives, who serve as the face of the organisation in communities across the country, are adequately equipped to explain how the action plan will be implemented and how its promises will be realised.
The party must also recognise that it is judged differently from other political organisations because of its history, legacy, and long tenure in government. South Africans do not evaluate the ANC solely on its promises; they evaluate it on its record.Furthermore, the ANC should avoid the temptation to separate itself from corruption while claiming ownership only of successes. The ANC is a legal and political entity that acts through its members and office bearers. Consequently, the actions of its members inevitably affect the movement’s image, credibility, and standing in society.
As South Africa continues to grapple with questions of land reform, economic transformation, inequality, and social justice, the debate should not focus solely on constitutional constraints. It should also examine the relationship between political power, electoral mandates, accountability, and implementation. Ultimately, the question remains: Can the Constitution be blamed for the pace of transformation, or does the answer lie in how political power has been exercised over the past three decades?
