This doesn't really tell us anything. As is typical in South African research and socio-economic and political understanding, the only criteria of demographics recognised are race and ethnicity. There are far more criteria than that and they include (but are not limited to):
- Age;
- Economic situation and position (lower, middle or upper class);
- Education;
- Living area (rural vs. urban/ suburban)
A poor white person is bound to have more in common with another poor black person than they will with a rich white person. Just because they're both white, it doesn't mean they will have the same view point. For that reason, divide the sample and see how many of the people who approve are lower income and how many are above middle class; see how many are young and how many are old; check how many have a Secondary or Tertiary qualification and how many don't. If I were to take a stab at it, I'd say those who are lower income, older and live in rural areas are bound to have higher approval ratings than those that are middle/ upper class, younger and live in urban/ suburban areas. Those with a qualification or a decent education are bound to have lower approval ratings than those without the formal qualification.
We can even break it down further and consider SA vs. non-SA people considered. Someone coming from Zimbabwe is bound to be more lenient in their opinion of Zuma than someone who lived in SA all their life because the Zimbabwean knows exactly what a dictator is and how it feels to live under a dictatorship while the rest of us SA full-breds use that word like it's water.
The information provided doesn't tell you anything meaningful. It tells you exactly what we've always known: More black people approve of him; more white, coloured and Asian people disapprove. More Zulu people approve (because Zuma ke moZulu) and more non-Zulu people disagree. These are all things we already know.
Our understanding of population dynamics, in SA, needs to gravitate away from racial and ethnic divide. Marketers picked this up a decade ago - everything else needs to catch up and catcha-wake-up!
- Age;
- Economic situation and position (lower, middle or upper class);
- Education;
- Living area (rural vs. urban/ suburban)
A poor white person is bound to have more in common with another poor black person than they will with a rich white person. Just because they're both white, it doesn't mean they will have the same view point. For that reason, divide the sample and see how many of the people who approve are lower income and how many are above middle class; see how many are young and how many are old; check how many have a Secondary or Tertiary qualification and how many don't. If I were to take a stab at it, I'd say those who are lower income, older and live in rural areas are bound to have higher approval ratings than those that are middle/ upper class, younger and live in urban/ suburban areas. Those with a qualification or a decent education are bound to have lower approval ratings than those without the formal qualification.
We can even break it down further and consider SA vs. non-SA people considered. Someone coming from Zimbabwe is bound to be more lenient in their opinion of Zuma than someone who lived in SA all their life because the Zimbabwean knows exactly what a dictator is and how it feels to live under a dictatorship while the rest of us SA full-breds use that word like it's water.
The information provided doesn't tell you anything meaningful. It tells you exactly what we've always known: More black people approve of him; more white, coloured and Asian people disapprove. More Zulu people approve (because Zuma ke moZulu) and more non-Zulu people disagree. These are all things we already know.
Our understanding of population dynamics, in SA, needs to gravitate away from racial and ethnic divide. Marketers picked this up a decade ago - everything else needs to catch up and catcha-wake-up!
