South Africa’s reputation as a litigious society is not accidental. It emerges from the fusion of two historical currents: the ANC’s origins in legal activism and the country’s adoption of an advanced constitutional democracy. Image: Supplied

ONE of the defining features of post-apartheid South Africa is the ANC’s persistent inaction when it comes to delivering public goods and services. Rather than leveraging its vast political mandate to drive governance and reform, the ANC has normalised what might be called the politics of non-action. Its governing style rests on delegation, delay and deflection rather than decisive leadership. This tendency reveals a structural incapacity within the ruling party to translate political power into administrative performance. The ANC’s reluctance to take ownership of delivery has allowed other actors, particularly the judiciary and civil society organisations, to become the real engines of social change.

The provision of antiretroviral therapy to people living with HIV, for example, materialised not through government initiative but through judicial intervention compelled by civil society litigation. South Africa’s reputation as a litigious society is not accidental. It emerges from the fusion of two historical currents: the ANC’s origins in legal activism and the country’s adoption of an advanced constitutional democracy