Tracing the path to democratic governance in South Africa and Ethiopia: a comparative policy analysis

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate the dynamics of democratic governance in South Africa and Ethiopia within the framework of Africa Agenda 2063 (AA2063), including how political polarisation and populism shape the democratisation process. Design/methodology/approach A mixed-methods approach integrates quantitative analysis using the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data set with qualitative case studies from South Africa and Ethiopia. Cohort analysis, comparative analysis and descriptive statistics revealed patterns and trends in democratic transformation, how groups evolve over time and the momentum needed for both countries to achieve the goals of AA2063. Findings This study found that the political landscapes of South Africa and Ethiopia are significantly shaped by the emergence of democracy, political polarisation and populist parties. Considering the 10-year expected outcomes outlined in AA2063, the findings show that South Africa achieved 84% of its 10-year democratic governance policy goals, whereas Ethiopia reached only 25%. South Africa, despite demonstrating a strong commitment to clean elections, has experienced significant political polarisation and the rise of populist movements. In Ethiopia, the shift towards one-man governance has significantly diverted the country’s trajectory from liberal democratic aspirations to undemocratic practices. Practical implications The findings provide actionable policy recommendations aimed at building resilient democracy against political polarisation and populism. Social implications This study highlights the vital role of informed citizens in safeguarding democratic practices. Originality/value This study makes a significant contribution through a rigorous comparison of democratic practices in South Africa and Ethiopia by elucidating the critical factors that shape their differing levels of democratic maturity. The analysis uncovers the impact of political polarisation and populism on governance by employing a comprehensive array of democratic indicators to provide a nuanced understanding of these dynamics.