Popular attitudes toward affirmative action

A further aspect of our inquiry into affirmative action concerns public opinion and sentiment toward the policy. Broadly, surveys more directly capturing policy

Affirmative action outcomes South Africa 215 support find a majority favouring AA, with disparities across groups. More recent surveys seeking views on allocative outcomes and labour market procedures but not precisely capturing opinion toward law and public policy, find support for competency in appointments and also observe disparities across groups, most markedly between Africans and Whites. On quotas in sports teams, a question consistently asked across questionnaires, we see a gravitation of support away from such intervention. Consistent disparities within the Black category, mirroring a sense of exclusion among Coloureds and Indians, arc a cause for concern.

The South Africa Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS), a series conducted from 2003 to 2009, is perhaps the data source most directly addressing public sentiment towards affirmative action policy (Roberts, Weir-Smith and Reddy 2011). I draw on Roberts (2006) and Durrheim (2010), which report findings from the 2003 and 2004 SASAS, respectively.³⁹

The SASASes also capture popular sentiment toward a range of policies, providing material for instructive comparison. Most pertinent to this study is the degree of support for basic provisions, in which the 2003 SASAS showed broad and overwhelming support, with more than 80% within all groups, and 90% nationwide, supporting the view that government is responsible for providing employment and basic livelihood (Roberts 2006). The surveys affirm the higher priority that South African society places on basic needs and livelihoods, but importantly, also demonstrate that such opinion can coincide with support, particularly in the majority group, for affirmative action.

An overall majority support preferential measures to promote blacks in business and occupational advancement, but the matter is starkly polarizing. In the 2003 and 2004 SASASes, the statement, “there should be preferential hiring and promotion of black South Africans in employment,” received over 60% support overall, but overwhelmingly, Africans were favourable (80% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and Whites were opposed (13-16% in agreement), while the support of Coloureds and Indians was not much higher than that of Whites.⁴⁰ Stratifying the sample, Roberts (2006) found higher support among lower income respondents, with 81% and 75% of “poor” and “vulnerable” respondents, respectively, in agreement, compared to 54% of those classified as “wealthy.” The SASASes observe similar patterns regarding preferential contracts and support for black business.⁴¹ On quotas for sports teams, similar patterns of racial disparity hold, but by lesser margins, with 62% of Africans and 18% of Whites supporting such a policy (Durrheim 2010).⁴²

A contrasting survey was conducted at the same time as the early SASASes, and has sometimes been cited as evidence of popular rejection of affirmative action (du Toit 2004). It asks a different set of questions, some of which are rather emotively charged.⁴³ The statement “affirmative action policies turn able-bodied white men into second class citizens in their own country” elicited polarized responses, with about 70% of Whites in agreement but only around 30% of Africans, and larger shares but still a minority (less than 40%) of Coloureds and Indians. These results are expected. However, on whether “young people entering the job market for the first time should be exempted fromaffirmative action policies,” there is less disparity, with almost 80% of Whites, and over 70% of Coloureds and Indians, agreeing, along with nearly 50% of Africans. In both of these questions, more highly educated and higher income earners are more likely to agree.

An annual series of surveys by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) from 2014 onwards have been conducted in a similar vein of probing public sentiment on policy priorities and outcomes and procedural scenarios, but unlike the SASAS, these findings do not capture public opinion toward the policy per sc (SAIRR 2017, 2018, 2019).⁴⁴ The presentation of alternate positions regarding appointments processes also, arguably, elevate the role of “merit” in ways that potentially bias responses. Among the salient repeated questions across the survey’s iterations is, “Who should be appointed to jobs in South Africa?” The answer “appointments on merit, with special training for the previously disadvantaged” receives broad support of 60-70% overall, with majorities of all groups agreeing.⁴⁵ However, the statement presents a somewhat internally inconsistent picture: if the previously disadvantaged require special training, can they be appointed solely on the basis of “merit”? The statement is premised on a disparity and implies that some who are less capable or less experienced can be appointed, yet sets up an unqualified merit-based appointment process (SAIRR 2017, 2019) ,⁴⁶ The question also contains elements of qualified support for affirmative action; for instance, the findings may be interpreted as favouring affirmative action specifically in skills development, or appointment on preferential terms conditional upon subsequent training. However, the reports derived from these surveys generally take the findings as a rejection of affirmative action.

Nonetheless, there is some value in referencing these surveys, which discern-ibly reflect a popular demand for competency, especially in positions with public consequence. Problems with public service delivery may also reside in the background of the broad reception for merit-based appointments, although again, the findings arc not as decisive as the SASAS in reflecting opinion toward the policy and expected roles of government in affirmative action. The SAIRR surveys also probe the issue of racial quotas in sports teams, with a line of questioning that is comparable to the SASAS. In contrast to the SASAS, these surveys find all groups overwhelming rejecting quotas, in contrast to the gaps between Africans and Whites ten years prior. This suggests that support for merit-based appointment have increased across time, and South Africans may be less concerned with racial representation. However, the issue of sports teams must be handled circumspectly. Their exceptional visibility, and the visceral and vicarious impact of their success, set them apart from ordinary employment. This is partly reflected in the lesser emphasis on racial representation in sports teams compared to employment in general, in the SASAS. The SAIRR findings suggest that the term quota, evidently with negative connotations, is a trigger point in surveys that appears to swing opinion against such policies - but respondents, especially Africans, still value group representation.⁴⁷