4.5: Comparative Case Study – South Africa and Iraq

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare and contrast South Africa and Iraq’s regime transitions.
• Identify internal and external factors which contributed to regime transition in South Africa and Iraq

Introduction

Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University, popularized the concept of waves of democracy. Waves of democracy are moments in history when multiple countries transition to democracy during the same time period. Often, waves in democracy are attributed to the combination of internal and external factors facing countries. Internal factors can include societal rejection of authoritarian regimes resulting in decreased legitimacy, economic growth, which may help countries modernize and improve institutions which support education and the working class, and changes in how religion and religious traditions factor into political institutions. External factors can include regional and global pressures. Regional pressures, for instance, may occur if/when citizens observe other societies transitioning towards democracy and want the same governmental changes for their own countries. Global pressures could manifest because of globalization, as there is more global news and information available to citizens in different countries. With more information and exposure to new ideas, citizens may begin to question the legitimacy and basis for their own country’s government. Although the concept of waves of democracy helped political scientists to group and compare trends in democratization abroad, much remains to be understood about how and why countries decide to transition to democracy, as well as how successful these transitions are.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\):

Number of nations scoring 8 or higher on the Policy IV scale, 1800-2003. (Source: Waves of Democracy, by Priotrus, Wikicommons, is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

The movement from authoritarian regimes to democratic regimes between the 1970s and 1990s, referred to as the Third Wave, initially garnered great hope worldwide. This hope was reflected in Fukuyama’s book arguing that humanity had reached the ‘end of history’ by beginning to universally accept democratic regimes, institutions, and ideas. Forty years later, however, a number of the countries which initially moved towards democratization have experienced disparate outcomes. It has been argued that most countries which attempted to democratize during and following the third wave simply became semi-authoritarian regimes or flawed democracies. It is in this context of global patterns of democratization that we look at the cases of South Africa and Iraq. Through the lens of Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD), this case considers the similarities in South Africa and Iraq’s moves to democratize while also considering how their political outcomes have differed.

South Africa

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Map of South Africa. (Source: Map of South Africa by CIA World Factbook is licensed under Public Domain)

Full Country Name: Republic of South Africa
Head(s) of State: President
Government: Parliamentary Republic (Unitary dominant-party / executive presidency)
Official Languages: 11 Official languages
(English, Zulu, Swazi, Afrikaans, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Xitsonga, Xhosa,
Tshivenda, isiNdebele)
Economic System: Mixed economy
Location: Southern Africa, at the southern tip of the continent of Africa
Capital: Pretoria
Total land size: 1,219,090 sq km
Population: 56.9 million
GDP: $680.04 billion note
GDP per capita: $11,500
Currency: Rand

Like Botswana and Somalia in Chapter 3, South Africa’s history is marked by frequent interventions and occupations by foreign powers through colonialism and imperialism. British and Dutch powers, attempting to expand their empires and grow their influence, colonized parts of South Africa at various points between the 1600s and 1800s. By the early 1900s, there was growing internal demand for South Africa to be independent from Britain. Multiple wars leading up to the 1900s, including the Boers Wars, contributed to deep racial divides between black and white citizens. White South Africans demanded independence from Britain, which eventually culminated in the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910. The Union of South Africa modeled its government structure after the British system, but had a British leader installed as a ceremonial head of state. Full independence was achieved in 1931, giving South Africa’s government the ability to act outside of, and without permission from, the UK.

Although South Africa’s government had hallmarks of democratic government, like three branches of government operating with checks and balances, its legacy of colonialism and racial divide made democratization difficult. Under British rule, a number of laws promoted segregation and the disenfranchisement of nonwhite citizens. Following World War II, a political party called the National Party stoked fears within the country that significant growth in the nonwhite population of South Africa was a threat. The National Party won the majority votes in the 1948 election and implemented a system of apartheid. Apartheid is defined as a system of governance wherein racial oppression is institutionalized. In the case of South Africa, this meant laws were implemented to ensure that South Africa’s minority white population could dominate all political, social and economic factors within the country for their own benefit. Apartheid in South Africa resulted in, among other things, the segregation and displacement of nonwhites into segregated neighborhoods and the prohibition of interracial marriage and relationships.

Despite fierce criticism from the United Nations and global community, South Africa’s system of apartheid until 1991. In the 1970s and 1980s, South Africa experienced intense internal strife as clashes between those who supported the National Party, and those who opposed apartheid, deadly violence. The main opposition to the National Party, the African National Congress (ANC), worked to bring down South Africa’s system of apartheid. The ANC, having been forced into exile for many years, used a variety of tactics to force pressure upon the National Party, including using guerilla warfare and acts of sabotage. Eventually, the National Party and the ANC began meeting to negotiate a way forward. The outcomes of these negotiations was the abolishment of apartheid and, in the coming years, the election of the first democratically elected President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela was a member of the ANC who had been imprisoned for 27 years prior to his release in 1990. Under his leadership as President of South Africa, he oversaw the drafting of a new constitution which, in tandem with solidifying various democratic principles, heavily emphasized racial equality and the protection of human rights. Mandela saw it as his personal mission to heal the racial divides within the country, and formed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was tasked with investigated crimes committed both by the government led by the National Party under apartheid, as well as the crimes committed by the ANC. Though it can be difficult to quantify, the commission was widely held as an important factor towards moving the country forward and focusing on improving the present challenges.

Mandela stepped down as the President of the ANC in 1998, and retired from politics in 1999. Although Mandela made strides in improving domestic conditions, including investing in education, welfare programs, and the protection of workers and prominent industries, a number of challenges remained that still challenge South Africa today. South Africa continues to struggle with racial tensions, as well as persistent xenophobia due to large influxes of legal and illegal migrants. One of the major criticisms of Mandela’s term in office is his failure to fully address the HIV/AIDS pandemic. For many years, the HIV/AIDS pandemic was so severe in South Africa that the average life expectancy was only 52 years. Failure to provide a strategic approach to combat the pandemic led to decades of poor health outcomes within South Africa.

For many years, South Africa’s transition to democracy was heralded as a victorious example of democratization. Nevertheless, current challenges to South Africa’s democracy include corruption, enduring racism, and increased rates of femicide and gender-based violence. Each of these realities has contributed to the Economist Intelligence Unit labeling South Africa as a flawed democracy. Recall, flawed democracies are those where elections are free and fair, and basic civil liberties are protected, but issues exist which may hamper the democratic process. It is worth briefly considering South Africa’s current challenges regarding corruption, racism and gender-based violence below.

Corruption is, at best, damaging to democracy and, at worst, fatal to democracy. Corruption can erode the public’s trust in the government and its institutions, exacerbate inequality and poverty, and hinder economic development. In 2021, high-ranking political officials in South Africa faced allegations of corruption for misusing billions of dollars of foreign aid targeted towards COVID-19 relief. The government officials charged with corruption are undergoing investigations for their misuse of funds, particularly in allowing various private companies to exorbitantly price gouge the government. There are additional allegations of government corruption, particularly in the favoring of some private companies over others. Corruption within a country can also yield skepticism and condemnation from the global community, as trading partners may lose trust in conducting business with corrupt regimes.

Racism, too, can present threats to democracy. Failure to protect civil liberties and civil rights within a country can create illiberal or flawed democracies. Ongoing structural racism can exacerbate societal tensions and perpetuate violence. Unfortunately, racism is still an ever present force in South Africa. The last two decades have seen ongoing allegations of police and military forces engaging in racist activities. During COVID-19, a number of Black South Africans were killed by police officers violently enforcing lockdowns. Frequent instances of violence against Black citizens has prompted recurrent conversations over the implementation of hate crime legislation as well as appropriate rules for conduct regarding the use of force on citizens.

Finally, data has shown continued increases in femicide and gender-based violence. Here again, democracies that are unable to protect civil liberties and civil rights of their citizens risk backsliding or inability to ever fully consolidate. To this end, equal protection of women under South Africa law is questionable. As of 2019, it was reported that 51% of women in South Africa experienced some kind of physical violence as a result of their gender. Violence towards women, which was already elevated prior to the pandemic, continued to increase during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

Iraq

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Map of Iraq. (Source: Map of Iraq by CIA World Factbook is licensed under Public Domain)

Full Country Name: Republic of Iraq
Head(s) of State: Prime Minister
Government: Federal Parliamentary Republic
Official Languages: Arabic & Kurdish
Economic System: Mixed economy
Location: Middle East, bordering the Persian Gulf, between Iran and Kuwait
Capital: Baghdad
Total land size: 169,235 sq mi
Population: 40 million
GDP: $250.070 billion
GDP per capita: $4,474
Currency: Iraqi Dinar

Iraq formed in the wake of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The Arab people of the regions of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra fought with the British to gain their independence. However, this did not quite happen. While Iraq was nominally independent, the country had signed an agreement with the British that gave them power over major segments of the country. British imperial authorities controlled the newly formed kingdom’s military and foreign affairs and had major influence over its domestic political and economic affairs. In 1921, Britain established King Faysal Il as ruler of Mesopotamia and officially changed the name to Iraq, which means “well-rooted country” in Arabic. Many Arabs in the region saw Iraq as an artificially created country, established by British authorities to maintain power in the region. As a result, many people saw the country, and its newly installed royalty as illegitimate.

The British remained in Iraq for the next three decades, with military bases, transit rights for troops and eventually British control over the growing oil industry. Still, the question of illegitimacy never left. King Faysal and his family were able to stay in power until 1958, when the grandson, Faysal II was overthrown in a coup. The coup was led by a general that belonged to the Ba’athist Party. The Ba’athist Party was a transnational Arab political party that espouses pan-Arab nationalism and socialist economic policies. The party came to power in Iraq and Syria, but also exerted some power in Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya. After some turmoil between the Ba’athist party and the Iraqi military, the country eventually came under the command of Saddam Hussein. Hussein, who ruled until he was overthrown and executed during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, was from a mostly Sunni tribe in Tikrit, a city north of Baghdad. His reliance on members of his tribe and the city, which were a minority group in the country, contributed to the eventual violence that would follow the 1991 Gulf War.

After fighting Iran for 8 years to a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq War, the country found itself in debt to its neighbors, particularly Kuwait, located to the South. Kuwait itself had been a thriving autonomous trading community for centuries. Similar to Iraq, the British curried favor with the ruling as-Sabah family and eventually took control of their military and foreign affairs. Iraq historically claimed Kuwait as its 19th province, believing that the British had unfairly kept it from them. The debt burden and the geopolitical advantage of Kuwait’s geography led Hussein to invade and annex the country in 1990. The US and a coalition of allies invaded Kuwait and Southern Iraq the next year. Coalition forces routed Iraq forces and heavily bombed Iraq. In 1992, the US set up two ‘no-fly zones’ in the country to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi’a in the south, who had rebelled against Hussein’s rule. A no-fly zone is when a foreign power intervenes to prevent that country or another country from gaining air superiority. The intervening power must be willing to use their military to prevent certain aircraft from flying over an established area.

The no-fly zones and ensuing UN embargo on Iraq greatly weakened the Hussein regime. However, the incoming US Bush administration strongly believed that Iraq was in the process of developing or acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). After the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration pushed to invade Iraq a second time. The US invaded in 2003, without much world support. Coalition forces captured Hussein later that year. He was put on trial, found guilty of crimes against humanity and was executed in 2006. During this time, a fact-finding mission found that there was no identifiable WMD program. They were, in the words of the official Presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, “dead wrong.”

The US invasion and Hussein’s fall had a dramatic effect on Iraq. Chaos ensued. The US was not ready to govern the country. Millions were displaced within Iraq and millions more fled the country as violence spiked. Long-simmering sectarian and ethnic disputes erupted in a full-fledged civil war and insurgency. Shi’a militias were unhappy about American military rule. Sunni tribes were fearful of reprisals. The Kurdish minority in the northern part of the country sought independence. Remnants of the Ba’athist party loyal to Hussein mostly folded into al-Qaeda in Iraq, which bitterly fought US forces in several major battles, including Fallujah. American soldiers were caught in the middle of a conflict where peace was elusive. Eventually, a surge of US troops in 2007 provided enough security to allow the country to stabilize and US forces finally withdrew from Iraq in 2011.

In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a successor terrorist group to al-Qaeda, rapidly grew into a massive presence in the region. Starting in Syria, ISIS took advantage of the security vacuum and moved into Iraq. ISIS surprisingly captured Mosul, considered the second largest city in the country. The terrorist organization used the revenues from the nearby oil fields to finance their violent activities. ISIS quickly expanded to other countries and committed a series of terrorist attacks in Europe. However, by the end of 2017, ISIS had lost 95% of its territory. A combination of Russian-led Syrian forces and US-led Kurdish forces, who sometimes worked together, defeated ISIS on the battlefield.

The majority Shi’a had always chafed under Hussein’s rule. His departure meant that the Shi’a would gain political power for the first time in centuries. A transitional Iraqi Governing Council led to democratic elections in 2005, where a religious Shi’a party won the plurality of seats under Nouri al-Maliki. al-Maliki remained as prime minister until 2014, where he governed a tenuous coalition and had been accused of protecting Shi’a militias. al-Maliki also forged closer ties with neighboring Iran, much to the chagrin of the American authorities. In addition, Iraq Kurdistan declared independence in 2017. The referendum results were rejected by the Iraqi parliament, and Turkey vehemently opposed the move. Kurdistan is still part of Iraq, though the region effectively functions as an independent country.

Today, Iraq is a tenuous confederation of three major groups, Sunni Arabs in the west, Kurds in the north and Shi’a Arabs in the central and southern parts of the country. The current prime minister is supported by the majority political bloc led by Moqtada al-Sadr. He comes from a powerful political family in Shi’a politics and is a major power broker in the country. Iraq also has a president, who is elected by the Iraqi parliament and has a largely ceremonial role. Mostly the country is run through a sectarian apportionment system, muhasasa taiifia in Arabic, where the country is structured amongst the three major sectarian identities. Initially, the US supported this sectarian approach to the country. US forces have had a close relationship with the Kurds since the early 1990s and Iraqi Kurdistan has become a relatively peaceful and prosperous region. However, sectarianism is what also led Iraqi Shi’a to look to Iran for leadership and what led Sunni Arab tribes to become receptive to first al-Qaeda and the ISIS overtures. How long will it take for Iraq to consolidate as a democracy? That question remains unanswered for now.