Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in Democratic Persuasion (review)

The successful institutionalization of new democracies does not rely on formal political institutions alone. To develop and flourish, any new democratic system requires not only the creation of a legal structure that specifies basic rights, but also the actual enforcement of those rights. Perhaps more important, history demonstrates that citizens cannot simply depend upon the state for such enforcement. While the active engagement of a diverse civil society as a check upon state actions is necessary for the effective functioning of a democracy, not all associations of civil society promote democracy. Actors in civil society must be tolerant of their opponents, and this essential tolerance cannot be assumed. James Gibson and Amanda Gouws seek to measure this crucial trait of tolerance in South Africa. Underlining the central connection between political tolerance and the success of new democracies, they ask: How tolerant are South Africans? And they add a further question: "How does one come to tolerate those who have been responsible for the worst oppression" (xiii)?

In order to answer these questions, the authors surveyed 2,557 respondents in the primary sample and 477 in the boost (supplementary) sample in early 1996, and followed up with over half the interviewees in 1997. This study of mass public opinion in South Africa is welcome at a time when so many analysts continue to focus upon the interests and values of political elites. There are, nevertheless, many challenges facing such survey research. First and foremost is the matter of context, particularly in a country that has experienced such extreme discrimination, political violence, and conflict. Gibson and Gouws attempt to address this both in the design of their study and in their second chapter, which focuses on the South African context. This chapter points to the gross intolerance of the apartheid regime and underlines the violent nature of the struggle to end it. In their discussion of the liberation movement, however, the authors place excessive emphasis upon the violence of that struggle and completely ignore (except in a single footnote) the democratic aspects of antiapartheid mass organizations, especially within the UDF, the unions, and many civic organizations before the state of emergency. This leads to a perception, unfortunately carried throughout the text, of the poor masses as presenting the greatest danger to the future of South Africa's democracy and therefore the most in need of reform. The authors employ their survey results to confirm this perception.

Tolerance as defined by Gibson and Gouws is "forbearance[,]... the restraint of the urge to repress one's political enemies" (45); elsewhere, it is "liberal democratic political tolerance" (46). According to this definition, the authors found "widespread intolerance" (70) among South Africans. They point to "strong group identity" as "associated with greater intergroup antipathy, threat, and intolerance" and see such identities as "inimical to democratic politics in South Africa" (93). But causation is a question here, as they admit on the following page: "We cannot be certain whether group identities are a cause or an effect of xenophobia" (94). Throughout the discussion of their findings, both in measuring tolerance and in attempting to persuade interviewees to become tolerant, one point is repeated over and over again: Perceptions of threat are strongly correlated with intolerance. Threat perceptions were highest among black South African respondents; this was also the group judged to be most intolerant. Interestingly, the authors also find as they test for people's responses to authorities (encouraging tolerance or intolerance) that blacks are the most activist (they will attempt to challenge actions they disagree with and support those they agree with), while whites are the most passive (table 163). This point is strongly supported by South African popular history and suggests a deep distrust of authority—natural enough in the aftermath of apartheid brutality.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the authors underline the importance of context, they do not sufficiently engage South African history in the design of their study...