{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02178649237472767, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.721951219512195, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Soft Power: The Fourth ‘Tentacle’ of South Africa’s Foreign Policy

Studies on South African post-apartheid foreign policy have evolved through four distinctive strands: the estimative, the new dispensation, the ambiguity and strategic engagement. In this article, I attempt to illustrate that a burgeoning thread is noticeable in recent times within the fourth strand offering a marked perspective on the ideational and utilitarian substance of soft power for South Africa’s foreign policy and within the discursive context of its regional/middle power status. In considering the varied arguments submitted by scholars in this regard, the article uncovers three significant thematic positions. First, the cultivation and utilisation of soft power instruments present multiple platforms for expanding South Africa’s global reputation and regional influence. Second, soft power has been the fulcrum of South Africa’s post-apartheid foreign policy. Third and definitely no less important, this new body of analysis offer critical explanation into the international moral authority and global acceptance that South Africa ostensibly enjoys over and above other regional competitors. Drawing on Alden and Schoeman’s ‘symbolic representivity’ narrative, I argue that it is on the basis of these three interrelated assertions that South Africa’s putative hegemonic reference thrives.