Desarrollo de @note 55 

Although not considered preconditions of democracy, trust and tolerance are nevertheless strongly associated with it. Trust and tolerance have often been studied by scholars of

democratic consolidation as both constructs are widely recognised as very good indicators of political culture (Garcia-Rivero et al., 2002:163). Citizens in a democracy do not rule directly, but through representatives and various government and other institutions. Democracy

therefore requires high levels of trust in institutions and people. Although citizens of a democracy are required to be vigilant against abuse of power - and therefore need to be suspicious and even distrustful of those in power (Warren, 1998:96) - if people harbour extensive distrust of the majority of the actors in the system, democracy begins to weaken. For the purposes of this study, only social trust (trust in people rather than institutions) is analysed.

Sztompka‟s definition of social trust as a “bet about the future contingent actions of others” (1999:2) implies a risk that others‟ actions may be harmful. The definition can therefore be extended as the “belief that others will not deliberately or knowingly do us harm, if they can avoid it, and will look after our interests, if this is possible” (Newton, 2004:17). Social trust is considered necessary for the effective functioning of civil society. As already discussed in Chapter Two, a dynamic civil society is considered a feature of a healthy democracy (Steenekamp, 2011:88-89).

The WVS includes a number of questions meant to measure social trust: respondents are asked whether most people can be trusted or whether one needs to be careful of others. Answers range from 1 (most people can be trusted) to 10 (need to be careful). There is also a “don‟t know” category which has been excluded (as missing data) from analysis. Steenekamp (2011:93) draws attention to some of the weaknesses of this measure, including the lack of social context to the question and the fact that respondents can‟t distinguish between trust in family, friends, strangers and so on. The measure is nevertheless recognised as the standard indicator of social trust.

59

Additionally, respondents are also asked whether the following people can be trusted (completely, somewhat, not much or not at all): family, neighbours, people of other race groups, people who are personally known to the respondent, people one meets for the first time, people of another religion, foreigners, black people, coloured people, Indians, whites, Chinese people, politicians, businesspeople, friends (WVS, 2006a & 2013).

Tolerance is simply defined as “putting up with something that one does not like” (Vogt, 1997:1). Tolerance requires people to support the rights of those they may not like or approve of for whatever reason. It can be an indication of how willing people are to accept different or unpopular groups and political opponents. Tolerance is therefore closely linked to the

acceptance of the rules of a democratic system (Garcia-Rivero et al., 2002:170). Although the dislike of others may stem from prejudice, it does not become intolerance until discriminative action is taken against the people in question (Steenekamp, 2011:94). Tolerance can therefore be seen as an act of “intentional self-restraint in the face of something one dislikes, objects to, finds threatening, or otherwise has a negative attitude toward – usually in order to maintain a social or political group or to promote harmony in a group” (Vogt, 1997:3).

Vogt (1997:17-20) distinguishes between three types of tolerance: political, moral and social. Political tolerance applies to public acts of a political nature such as public speeches, rallies and campaigning. Moral tolerance refers to acts in the private sphere, for example, unmarried couples living together, homosexuality and abortion. Lastly, social tolerance is tolerance of people who are perceived as different due to qualities they are born with (such as skin colour) or acquire at an early age (language, for instance). These individuals are sometimes

discriminated against not necessarily because of the above-mentioned qualities as such, but because of the inappropriate behaviour that people may associate with those who have these qualities (Steenekamp, 2011:95).

Tolerance is often measured by asking survey respondents to express dislike towards a variety of target groups (Garcia-Rivero et al., 2002:171). In the WVS, respondents are

therefore presented with the following target groups and asked whom they would not want as their neighbours: drug addicts, people of another race, people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), immigrants or workers from another country, homosexuals, people who practice another religion, heavy drinkers, unmarried couples who live together, people who speak

60

another language, black people, coloured people, Indians, white people (WVS, 2006a & 2013).

The measures above are indicators of moral and social tolerance. The present study does not attempt to analyse political tolerance. The only potential concern with regards to measuring tolerance is that there may very well be a difference between a respondent‟s professed

tolerance and their lived reality. It is nevertheless an accepted and recognised way to measure tolerance: it is believed that the measures genuinely reflect tolerance or intolerance where it exists, regardless of the fact that the actual behaviour of respondents remains unknown (Garcia-Rivero et al., 2002:171; Steenekamp, 2011:97-98).

3.6.4 LOC

LOC is a psychological construct that was developed to study people‟s perceived levels of control over their lives as well as the influence that this perception may have on their subsequent behaviour and expectations (Rotter, 1966 & 1975). The LOC variables thus aim to measure beliefs regarding how much control people think they have over the outcomes of their lives. While some people feel that the outcome of their lives is largely determined by their own actions, others believe that external factors determine positive or negative

outcomes. Broadly speaking, analysing LOC can shed light on possible feelings of insecurity or even helplessness among South Africans. It is also a useful concept in light of the

traditional African view of good fortune as an allotted portion (that others can interfere with) rather than the result of individual effort.

Respondents were asked to answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most negative answer and 10 the most positive:

“Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair?”

“All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?”

“Some people feel they have complete free choice and control over their lives, while other people feel that what they do has no real affect on what happens to them. Please use this scale […] to indicate how much freedom of choice and control you feel you have over the way your life turns out.” (WVS, 2006a)

61

The fourth LOC question asked people to rate their overall level of happiness and provided several response categories: very happy, rather happy, not very happy, not at all happy and do not know (excluded).