南非當前面臨的經濟困境與治安惡化，並非源於單一族群「是否有能力管理國家」這樣簡化的因素，而是多重歷史、制度與全球環境長期交織下的結果。若僅將問題歸因於族群更替，不但無法解釋現實，也忽略南非轉型本身所承受的巨大結構性壓力。

首先，種族隔離制度留下的深層遺產，是理解南非問題的起點。Apartheid時期，國家透過法律系統性地剝奪黑人在教育、土地、就業與城市居住的權利，使大量人口被迫集中在基礎設施薄弱的「班圖斯坦」或城郊地帶。白人社會在這種制度下確實建立高效率的城市管理與治安體系，但那是建立在對多數人口的排除與壓迫之上。1994年制度終結後，新政府繼承的是一個表面現代化、內部卻極端不平衡的國家結構。龐大的貧富差距、教育斷層與技能落差，不可能在短短幾十年內被完全彌補，這種轉型期的「結構性陣痛」至今仍深刻影響社會運作。

其次，民主化後的經濟治理與政策執行問題，也加劇現況的惡化。非洲民族議會（ANC）長期執政，內部同時存在民族主義、市場導向與左派社會主義等不同路線，導致政策方向反覆搖擺。一方面政府承諾社會正義與再分配，另一方面又需要吸引外資、維持市場信心，兩者之間的拉鋸使經濟改革缺乏一致性與長期穩定性。國營企業問題尤為突出，例如電力公司Eskom長期管理不善、債務沉重與腐敗問題嚴重，頻繁限電不僅影響民生，更直接拖累工業與投資信心，形成經濟停滯的惡性循環。

在就業層面，南非雖然擁有豐富的礦產資源，但經濟結構高度集中，無法有效吸納大量勞動人口，導致長期存在結構性失業。整體失業率多年維持在30%上下，青年失業率更是居高不下，這使得一整代年輕人缺乏向上流動的機會，對社會制度產生深層的不信任與挫敗感。

治安惡化正是這些經濟與社會問題的外顯結果。極端的貧富差距與高失業率，使犯罪在部分地區成為生存手段之一。搶劫、入室盜竊與暴力犯罪頻傳，進一步侵蝕民眾對政府的信心。而政府在警政、司法、教育與醫療等公共服務上的執行能力，又未能隨著社會需求同步提升，導致國家治理能力與現實壓力之間出現落差，使治安問題更加難以控制。

此外，南非經濟高度依賴全球大宗商品市場，礦產價格的波動對國家財政與就業影響極大。在全球經濟放緩、能源轉型與國際資本流動不穩定的背景下，這種依賴性讓南非更加脆弱，也限制政府改善民生與治安的財政空間。

綜合來看，南非今日的經濟與治安困境，是歷史不公、制度轉型、治理能力不足與全球化衝擊共同作用的結果。與種族隔離時期相比，當年的「高效秩序」本質上是以剝奪多數人口的基本權利換來的，並非可持續的治理模式。真正的核心問題在於，南非如何在民主框架下修補長期累積的結構性不平等，建立穩定而有效的治理體系，同時為被邊緣化的大多數創造實質的經濟機會。這是一場極為艱難的社會系統轉型，而不是一句「換了誰來管」就能解釋或解決的問題。

South Africa’s current economic difficulties and deteriorating public security are not the result of whether a single ethnic group is “capable of governing the country,” but rather the outcome of multiple historical, institutional, and global factors that have long been intertwined. Reducing these problems to ethnic succession not only fails to explain reality, but also ignores the enormous structural pressures inherent in South Africa’s transition itself.

First, the deep legacy of apartheid is the starting point for understanding South Africa’s challenges. Under the apartheid system, the state used law to systematically strip Black South Africans of access to education, land, employment, and urban residence, forcing large segments of the population into underdeveloped “Bantustans” or peripheral townships. White society did establish highly efficient urban administration and public order during this period, but that efficiency was built on the exclusion and oppression of the majority. When apartheid ended in 1994, the new government inherited a country that appeared modern on the surface but was internally extremely imbalanced. Massive wealth inequality, educational gaps, and skills deficits could not possibly be remedied within a few decades, and this transitional “structural pain” continues to shape South African society today.

Second, governance and policy implementation after democratization have further intensified these problems. The African National Congress (ANC) has governed for many years, but internal divisions between nationalist, market-oriented, and socialist factions have led to policy inconsistency and frequent shifts in direction. On the one hand, the government has pledged social justice and redistribution; on the other, it must attract foreign investment and maintain market confidence. This tension has resulted in economic reforms that lack coherence and long-term stability. The problems of state-owned enterprises are particularly severe. Companies such as Eskom, the national power utility, have suffered from chronic mismanagement, heavy debt burdens, and corruption. Recurrent power outages not only disrupt daily life but also directly undermine industrial activity and investor confidence, creating a vicious cycle of economic stagnation.

In terms of employment, South Africa possesses abundant mineral resources, but its economic structure is highly concentrated and unable to absorb large numbers of workers. As a result, structural unemployment has persisted for years, with overall unemployment hovering around 30 percent and youth unemployment reaching even more alarming levels. This leaves an entire generation with limited prospects for upward mobility, fostering deep frustration and a loss of trust in social institutions.

The deterioration of public security is a visible manifestation of these economic and social pressures. Extreme inequality and high unemployment have made crime a means of survival for some communities. Robberies, home invasions, and violent crime are widespread, further eroding public confidence in the state. Meanwhile, the government’s capacity to deliver policing, justice, education, and healthcare has not kept pace with societal needs, creating a widening gap between governance capacity and lived reality and making crime even harder to contain.

Moreover, South Africa’s economy is highly dependent on global commodity markets, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in mineral prices. In an era of global economic slowdown, energy transition, and unstable international capital flows, this dependence has increased the country’s fragility and constrained the government’s fiscal ability to improve livelihoods and public safety.

In sum, South Africa’s current situation is the result of a complex interplay of historical injustice, transitional governance challenges, institutional weakness, and global economic forces. Compared with the apartheid era, the former “efficient order” was achieved at the cost of denying basic rights to the majority and was never a sustainable model of governance. The core challenge today lies in whether South Africa can, within a democratic framework, address long-standing structural inequalities, build stable and effective governance, and create genuine economic opportunities for the marginalized majority. This is an exceptionally difficult process of systemic social transformation, not a problem that can be explained—or solved—by simply asking “who is in charge.”