An analysis of the state of our democracy has suggested for a while that government in general, and local government in particular, needs to deepen its links to voters and to become more attuned to events on the ground.

The Diepsloot unrest provided confirmation and a warning. It is not entirely clear what prompted a violent response from residents of this informal settlement to the north of Johannesburg.

Nor is it clear how the authorities went about quelling the disturbance since the media were excluded from Diepsloot when police went in to place a lid on the violence, fuelling fears that democratic freedoms have become victims of attempts to deal with grass-roots protest.

However, the events are a warning, even if we follow the official version.

Let us accept, therefore, that civic activists seeking political advancement persuaded residents that they would be moved to Brits in North West province, despite the fact that there was no plan to do any such thing.

Even that should be disturbing to those who run the province and the Johannesburg metropolitan council. Why were the trouble stirrers so readily believed?

Why did Diepsloot residents resort to protest which turned violent rather than raising their worries with the authorities via democratic local government?

Why would a governing party which won nearly 70% of the national vote less than three months ago be so vulnerable to attack in part of its heartland that a group of malcontents or power seekers could persuade many residents of an informal settlement that they were about to be betrayed by their representatives?

The authorities would obviously prefer to react by blaming those who spread rumours and those who listen to them.

However, the inescapable lesson of Diepsloot is that much needs to be done to cement the link between our democratic institutions and those they are intended to represent.

Diepsloot is a warning against the view sometimes found in the governing party that winning elections by a large majority means that it has already won the trust of most voters. People vote for parties because they broadly identify with them. Assuming that they therefore trust their representatives and feel comfortable leaving their future in their hands is a recipe for more Diepsloots.

This trust has to be won, whatever the election result.

It is also a reminder that democracy is not yet working, as intended, for people at the grassroots level.

The democratic system is meant to be operating in Diepsloot. In accounts of the tension, the local councillor is mentioned, as is the ward committee which councillors must set up to keep in touch with residents' wishes.

Clearly, residents are not confident enough of either's ability to look after their interests to stop a rumour triggering an explosion.

Nor is this likely to be an isolated case. Research suggests that Diepsloot could have happened in many of our municipalities because there are many places where government does not reach deep enough into society to be able to inform citizens of its plans and be believed.

The problem is not necessarily that councillors do not care about those who voted for them.

It is that establishing deep roots among grass-roots voters in a democracy is far more difficult for our politicians than getting people to fight apartheid or to vote for those who led the fight against it.

The ward committee established to provide the link with the grass roots was, in Diepsloot, not enough to connect councillors with voters.

Nor are other committees likely to be any better at this committees are picked by councillors and it is unclear why representatives lacking a link to the grass roots will know who to appoint to create that connection.

In any event, grass-roots people are unable to develop trust in government through committees because they are rarely approached to sit in them. When they are, they find that the odds are stacked against them because committees are for those who are visible and the grass roots are very often invisible.

Government cannot wait for the people to come to it it must go to them by developing an active presence at the grass roots, listening as well as talking.

That may mean pressure on councillors and officials to spend more time establishing a presence on the ground.

An electoral mandate is not a guarantee of a partnership with voters. It is an invitation to begin creating one. Diepsloot shows that government needs to do far more to accept that invitation.

If it wants to prevent recurrences, it will have to begin not by pointing the finger outwards at trouble-makers but inwards, at the limited contact with and presence among the grass roots which made Diepsloot possible.

Friedman is Centre for Policy Studies research fellow.