On the international stage, largely out of necessity, the debate has moved on from the outcome of the election to trying to avert a much greater crisis. What is now of grave concern, is what has happened in the aftermath of the mandate debate: the disintegration of the rule of law, the transformation of a government into one that attacks its population and refuses to engage in constructive dialogue with its critics, and the emergence of an armed opposition which may also no longer be committed to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Next week, the continent’s commitment to these principles will be put to the test. One country that should be front and centre is South Africa; for several reasons.

First, South Africa was a key champion of the African Charter on Democracy and Human Rights and the shift to the non-indifference principle. Now is the chance to take that one step further. Second, South Africa played the leading role in mediating the Burundi crisis and is a guarantor of the Arusha Peace Accords that underpin the Burundian constitution. It knows what Burundi stands to lose if a resolution is not found.

Third, South Africa also played a crucial role in the development of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), of which the PSC is a pillar. Fourth, the proposed deployment is an example of Africa taking charge of its own issues and finding African solutions to African problems – a leitmotif of the South African government, and Dlamini-Zuma.

Fifth, South Africa has already committed significant resources to peace and stability in the Great Lakes region through its deployment of troops to the Force Intervention Brigade in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Chaos in Burundi means more chaos in the DRC, which undermines South Africa’s own objectives.

And finally, although admittedly diminished in recent years, South Africa remains a moral authority on democratic values, on equality, human rights and freedom of expression.

For all of these reasons, South Africa’s voice on the Burundi crisis should be heard, loud and clear, in support of mechanisms that can restore the rule of law and stability.

South African President Jacob Zuma – who played a key role in the Burundi peace talks – did not mention the country in his address to the African National Congress two weeks ago, nor has he made any statements on the proposed AU deployment.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation’s statement of 18 December 2015 does not explicitly refer to the proposed AU force deployment, but does call for the ‘urgent strengthening and increased deployment by the AU Peace and Security Council of military, human rights and police observers,’ a reference to the handful of AU observers who were deployed in 2015.

South Africa is on the PSC, so it will have been party to the discussions and the decision in favour of the deployment. But the PSC operates on consensus, and it is not clear what exactly South Africa’s thinking might be. It is possible that South Africa is reticent to vote in favour of the deployment because it fears alienating other Central African presidents – notably close ally, Congolese President Joseph Kabila, but also Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and Denis Sassou-Nguesso of the Republic of Congo – who are all manoeuvring for mandate extensions.

South Africa may also be reluctant to alienate countries which do not support the Burundi deployment because they do not want to set a precedent for AU military intervention against a government’s will. If that is the case, then – much like with the International Criminal Court issue – South Africa has chosen solidarity with African heads of state over its domestic principles of justice and over solidarity with African populations.

The AU deployment faces many hurdles, not least garnering approval from a two-thirds majority of AU member states. Even if this seems like a long shot, South Africa has an opportunity and, many would say, a historical responsibility to champion an initiative that aims to prevent worse bloodshed in both Burundi and the Great Lakes region.

This article was first published by the Institute For Security Studies on Jan. 22, 2016