Chikane Questions Acceptance of SA's 1994 Democratic Order

Reverend Frank Chikane, a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, has raised concerns about the durability of South Africa’s democratic settlement, arguing that segments of the population never accepted the constitutional order that came into being in 1994. His remarks, made in an exclusive interview with the SABC ahead of the African Diaspora conference in Ekurhuleni this week, place the question of democratic legitimacy at the centre of public debate at a moment when the country’s institutions face sustained pressure.

Chikane’s assessment is direct: for some, the transition to democracy should never have happened. He points to the violence that preceded the 1994 elections as evidence of that resistance. “They exploded bombs until the last week to stop this from happening. Now that it is happening, they see this as negative. They see it as genocide. I can’t see where genocide comes in here,” he said.

The activist framed the current rhetoric around claims of genocide as a mischaracterisation of the realities of rural crime. “Are they trying to say because of white farmers who are being killed? But there are more black farmers who are killed on those farms. It has nothing to do with targeting people. The reality is change will affect them because they were privileged,” Chikane said. In his view, the discomfort expressed by some reflects the loss of privilege rather than any failure of the democratic state to protect its citizens equally.

Meanwhile, his warning about attempts to reverse democratic gains comes as political parties prepare for electoral contests that will shape governance in key municipalities. The timing matters. The African Diaspora conference in Ekurhuleni will bring together figures from across the continent’s diaspora at a moment when questions about the resilience of South Africa’s institutions are being openly contested.

Chikane’s own position illustrates the intersection of personal history and institutional responsibility. He confirmed that the ANC will communicate its decision on who will stand as its mayoral candidate for the City of Johannesburg, one of the most important municipalities in the country. His nomination has drawn attention precisely because of his standing within the movement that now governs, and because of the crisis conditions under which the metro is operating.

He described his own reasoning when the nomination came. “When I was nominated, I thought if they wanted me to help deal with Johannesburg and get it to work, it was not for me to come back into government. I never wanted to come back into government, but if there is a crisis people want to resolve, I’ll do it. So, they went through the process and announced the shortlist and decided they are going to finalise this matter after the elections,” he said.

What emerges is a structured internal process: a shortlist was announced, and the final decision was deferred until after the elections. That sequencing places the choice of mayoral candidate squarely within the party’s formal procedures, with the outcome to be communicated once voters have had their say. For an institution as consequential as the Johannesburg Metro, the manner in which that decision is made and communicated carries weight well beyond the party itself.

Chikane’s dual message, one about the fragility of democratic acceptance and the other about the management of a troubled metro, underscores a broader theme. The gains of 1994, in his telling, are not self-sustaining. They depend on those who hold office and those who contest it treating the democratic framework as binding, and on institutions being led by people willing to step in when crises demand resolution. Whether the country’s political actors meet that standard, he suggests, will determine whether the new South Africa remains, as he insists it must, a project for everyone.