This article reports on the frequency and turmoil of South Africa’s community protests from 2005 to 2017, which, taken together, have been called a ‘rebellion’. It defines ‘community protest’ as protests in which collective demands are raised by a geographically defined and identified ‘community’ that frames its demands in support/and or defence of that community. It distinguishes between ‘violence’ and ‘disorder’, which has produced a novel three-way categorisation of turmoil, namely ‘orderly’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘violent’ protests. Drawing on the Centre for Social Change’s archive of media reports, the largest database of its kind, and by comparing its data with details gleaned from the police’s Incident Registration Information System (an unrivalled source of protest statistics), the article reveals a rising trend in frequency of community protests and a tendency towards those protests being disorderly, that is, disruptive and/or violent. In the process of advancing this position, the authors offer a critique of other attempts to measure the number and turmoil of community protests.
Historically and today, social movements have often been at the forefront of envisioning the content of democracy. Although democracy itself is a contested concept, in general, definitions and measures of democracy are often drawn from the canon and experiences of the global North. Contributing to the growing decolonisation movement in the social sciences, this article examines understandings of democracy in the context of post-apartheid South Africa. It considers how ordinary people conceptualise democracy through an examination of its understanding in isiZulu, one of South Africa’s most dominant vernacular languages, and through analysing how democracy is understood and practised at the grassroots, by citizens mobilised in community protests. It is argued that popular understandings and expectations of democracy are rooted in traditions of popular organisation that emerged in the struggle against apartheid, and in the experiences of many citizens of the post-1994 state. Crucially, the article draws attention to the tensions between grassroots understandings and visions of democracy and that which has been articulated by the governing African National Congress (ANC). By rooting the analysis of democracy within local histories, practices and contexts, the article provides lessons for democratic theorists by illuminating how citizens and popular organisations articulate the current crisis of democracy and its possible alternatives, promoting a re-imagination of normative democratic thought based on ideas of democracy from below.
This article reports on the frequency and turmoil of South Africa’s community protests from 2005 to 2017, which, taken together, have been called a ‘rebellion’. It defines ‘community protest’ as protests in which collective demands are raised by a geographically defined and identified ‘community’ that frames its demands in support/and or defence of that community. It distinguishes between ‘violence’ and ‘disorder’, which has produced a novel three-way categorisation of turmoil, namely ‘orderly’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘violent’ protests. Drawing on the Centre for Social Change’s archive of media reports, the largest database of its kind, and by comparing its data with details gleaned from the police’s Incident Registration Information System (an unrivalled source of protest statistics), the article reveals a rising trend in frequency of community protests and a tendency towards those protests being disorderly, that is, disruptive and/or violent. In the process of advancing this position, the authors offer a critique of other attempts to measure the number and turmoil of community protests.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.