Grievance Formation in a Country in Transition: South Africa, 1994-1998

Abstract

Relative deprivation theory and social justice theory are applied in a study of grievance formation in South Africa. We hypothesized that grievance formation is affected by objective conditions (race and class) and subjective conditions (comparisons with others and across time, trust in government, and perceived influence on government). Between 1994 and 1998 we annually interviewed separate samples of South Africans. Our findings suggest that people's sense of grievance has become less related to race than to class. Furthermore, we found an interplay of the two kinds of comparisons in the formation of grievances. Depending on the comparison made and on the outcome of that comparison, it appears that people find it either easy or difficult to cope with a low living standard. These assessments are further qualified by trust in and influence on government. Trust and influence make people optimistic about the future and therefore more inclined to believe that their situation will improve. The apartheid policies of the pre-1994 South African government resulted in a deeply divided society (Sisk 1995). Racial cleavages ran through every sector of society: South Africans were classified as either black, colored, Indian, or white. This classification in turn determined one's life chances: where one was allowed to live, with whom one was allowed to associate, where one was allowed to go to school, the kind of work one could get, the church to which one belonged. Apartheid politics had imposed race upon the South Africans as the overpowering identity (Marx 1998). Africans (blacks) occupied the lowest status of all four categories; the coloreds were next lowest, the Indians were next highest. The whites reserved the highest status in South African society for themselves.

Regressive Socioeconomic Distribution and Democratic Survival

“…Last, increased levels of development will also render lingering deprivation more conspicuous and intensify expectations for improvement in living conditions. Like Gurr and others, we believe that the impact of socio‐economic distribution on politics is relational––whether a material condition becomes a salient demand is based on a complex set of intra‐ and interpersonal comparisons to the broader economic context (Gurr 1970; Gurr and Lichbach 1986; Lichbach 1989; Klandermans, Roefs, and Olivier 2001). For patterns of socioeconomic distribution to threaten the survival of democracy, citizens must first perceive differences in patterns of distribution, deem them unwarranted and demand their alleviation (Dahl 1971:95).…”

Positional deprivation and support for radical right and radical left parties*

“…Since the legitimacy of any political system is at least partly dependent on the (perceived) quality of outputs, resentments generated by positional deprivation might also undermine faith in political-institutional anchors of Western liberalism (democracy, constitutionalism, freedom and human rights). In line with this idea, Klandermans, Roefs, and Olivier (2001) find that relative deprivation erodes the trustworthiness and legitimacy of political institutions.…”

Economic Crisis and Levels of Political Participation in Europe (2002–2010): The Role of Resources and Grievances

“…Citizens compare their own situation with specific expectations such as their past or their expected future situation, the situation of reference persons or a normative standard such as social justice or norms of equity (Folger 1986;Klandermans et al 2001;van Stekelenburg and Klandermans 2013). If this comparison leads to the conclusion that one is not receiving what one is legitimately entitled to, feelings of relative deprivation arise.…”

“…Within the European Union average unemployment rate rose from 6.7 per cent in March 2008 to 8.9 per cent in May 2009 leaving at that time, 21.5 million EU citizens without a job. Rising levels of unemployment and job insecurity can be associated with feelings of relative deprivation in two different ways (Kelly and Breinlinger 1996;Klandermans et al 2001;Klandermans et al 2008;Runciman 1966 ordeal it is rendered more likely that they do not feel personally responsible. Instead, the responsibility for this grievance is attributed externally (Appelgryn and Nieuwoudt 1988;Kelly and Breinlinger 1996;Klandermans 1997).…”