comparison between sa today and zimbabwe

[krycor]

I think SA gov is fast coming to the American point of democracy and now more than ever a strong president is needed. Just like in America we have ministers double dealing and getting super rich at the expense of the people. The only reason i like/give credit to mbeki is he puts his foot down occationally(not enough tho) wrt his ministers but lately they have taken way too much advantage.

Essentially we can either go the way of American Democracy which looks like democracy but in the end the corporations run it OR they can try and eliminate ties with the gov.

We will however end up in the Zim scenario if the gov continues their downward spiral wrt wealth + corrupt deals since then the base of supporters will deminish fast than they anticipate. What I am interested in is what happens when their actions are flooded in the media and the elections are lost, thats when Zim will be possibility if the head of the ANC cannot accept that they, in particular their ministers have caused it.

 

[Debbie]

democracy doesnt automatically mean stability either.

Yup, democracy is not a cure-all. Dictatorships are far more stable politically at the height of opression. But they are unsustainable, and will eventually crumble.

IMHO oppinion what is required is commitment from the leaders not to follow any example but to rather set an example.

True on a number of levels of understanding. I think that practically, this is impossible so long as we continue to search for political solutions instead of solutions that arise from a collective expanded consciousness. We need to change our thinking before we can chnage our politics.

however it seems our current leaders are not interested in doing this.

The gravy train is a reality. But within our citizenry there is the will to change, and ultimately this will will triumph. Whether it triumphs tomorrow, next year or in a thousand years is up to us.

 

[nocilah]

Dictatorships are far more stable politically at the height of opression. But they are unsustainable, and will eventually crumble.

not that i support dictatorships, but look at China. They are doing very well.

 

[Debbie]

not that i support dictatorships, but look at China. They are doing very well.

No argument from me here.

George W Bush has also made the observation that "a dictatorship would be a lot easier".

If freedom of the mind were pitted against economic growth, and I was forced to choose between the two, I'd choose freedom of the mind in every case.

 

[MyDraadloos]

I can't wait for the day when the current system of representative government comes to an end.

In my opinion they offer no real value.

 

[nocilah]

If freedom of the mind were pitted against economic growth, and I was forced to choose between the two, I'd choose freedom of the mind in every case.

so would i, but sometimes we are not given the opportunity to choose.

 

[Dave A]

One such 'common denominator' is a history of colonialism and a present of neo-colonialism.

I think this is a clue as to where Africa's problems lie. African governments have relied heavily on the negative aspects of their history to provide the rallying point for their support base.

This allows supporters to overlook or forgive the transgressions of their current leadership.

How does the current alliance continue when the ANC states they are pro-capitalism, the SACP are pro-communism, and COSATU is, at the very least, strongly socialist? The rallying point is the common enemy - the beneficiaries of the apartheid regime. The rallying point is social redress for the evils of the past. I even see colonialism being thrown in the mix of rhetoric lately.

This unifying rallying point provides relief from accountability for transgressions that ordinarly would not be accepted. It takes the focus off the real issues of the day.

There is a saying that if you spend most of your time thinking about the past, the past will be your best day (couldn't find the quote, but a reasonable aproximation). The current fixation with the past might provide temporary momentum, but it cannot be sustainable in the long term. The resource will be consumed.

We need to focus on real issues that will make a difference in the long term. Like primary education - how is that going? The very foundation of a society moving forward.

 

[Skeptik]

Cases involving Zuma, Yengeni etc. rubbish your claim.

These were either blatant crooks (Yengeni) or those that threatened el Presidente's hold on power like the "corrupt" Zuma.

Besides, they didn't sack Zuma right away + now he's reinstated as Dep. Pres. of the ANC. That just proves the point that they wont do anything to them unless they are really pushed.

not that i support dictatorships, but look at China. They are doing very well.

China is doing extremely well. Peanut salaries to slave (& child) labourers forbidden from complaining about it. Poor working conditions, huge workforce. It's an exploiters dream. What Western democracies can compete with that?

 

[ajak]

Africans crazy for democracy

Indeed, a decade ago it seemed democracy in Africa would have a bright future.

Queues to vote in South Africa
South Africa's 1994 elections suggested a bright future for democracy in Africa
Tyrannies in Benin, Ethiopia, Liberia and Mali had been ousted and many more were under threat. Opposition activists in Francophone Africa organised national conferences holding leaders to account on claims of corruption and brutality.

Pro-democracy activists in Ghana and Nigeria stepped up their campaigns, and advocates of one-party rule such as Ivory Coast's Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Kenya's Daniel arap Moi and Zambia's Kenneth Kaunda were going or had gone.
When it comes to real political power, the sword - or at least the AK-47 - is still mightier than the pen in these areas.

And politics remains too often an expensive game with the spoils of office being shared between members of the same elite wearing different political colours.

Economic uncertainties chip away at idealism and new style regimes find it easier to co-opt and corrupt rather than to bludgeon their opponents.

The democracy movement in Africa is here to stay, but the struggle continues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3586085.stm

 

[Debbie]

Ajak, good post.

 

[pupa]

One such 'common denominator' is a history of colonialism and a present of neo-colonialism. There are others, such as the fact that traditional african cultures tend to revere leaders/politicians, which leads to a situation where accountability is thrown out the window.

Democracy was festering in europe for hundreds of years before it became (somewhat) a reality. africa has no such history, though i stand to be corrected on this.

Like this example!
http://www.mweb.co.za/news/?p=top_article&i=226954

 

[pupa]

Indeed, a decade ago it seemed democracy in Africa would have a bright future.

Queues to vote in South Africa
South Africa's 1994 elections suggested a bright future for democracy in Africa
Tyrannies in Benin, Ethiopia, Liberia and Mali had been ousted and many more were under threat. Opposition activists in Francophone Africa organised national conferences holding leaders to account on claims of corruption and brutality.

Pro-democracy activists in Ghana and Nigeria stepped up their campaigns, and advocates of one-party rule such as Ivory Coast's Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Kenya's Daniel arap Moi and Zambia's Kenneth Kaunda were going or had gone.
When it comes to real political power, the sword - or at least the AK-47 - is still mightier than the pen in these areas.

And politics remains too often an expensive game with the spoils of office being shared between members of the same elite wearing different political colours.

Economic uncertainties chip away at idealism and new style regimes find it easier to co-opt and corrupt rather than to bludgeon their opponents.

The democracy movement in Africa is here to stay, but the struggle continues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3586085.stm

Problem is will this ever happen. Cosatu have an different agenda! There is just NO! hope.

http://www.cosatu.org.za/shop/shop0804-03.html
http://www.cosatu.org.za/cong2006/co.../Political.pdf
http://www.cosatu.org.za/cong2006/co...6/congpage.htm

These guys live in the past and in their own time frame!

 

[Dave A]

Problem is will this ever happen. Cosatu have an different agenda! There is just NO! hope.

http://www.cosatu.org.za/shop/shop0804-03.html
http://www.cosatu.org.za/cong2006/co.../Political.pdf
http://www.cosatu.org.za/cong2006/co...6/congpage.htm

These guys live in the past and in their own time frame!

Great links that demonstrate the point. COSATU and the SACP are in alignment. The ANC's views on economic structure are substantially different. So how is the alliance kept together?

The organisations must maintain an area of common ground if the alliance is to continue.

 

[jontyB]

Great links that demonstrate the point. COSATU and the SACP are in alignment. The ANC's views on economic structure are substantially different. So how is the alliance kept together?

The organisations must maintain an area of common ground if the alliance is to continue.

Excellent question. The answer is twofold: Power and Money. COSATU as an organisation has immense wealth. The ANC has access to immense wealth as well (don't for one second think the only Brett Kebble was the only bankroller for political parties in SA). The other reason: COSATU guarantees ANC success at the polls. COSATU is quite unhappy with Mbeki, as under him a lot of things have happened taking a more capitalistic approac, and further away from the social network COSATU (and of course the SACP) would prefer. That is probably the biggest reason they (COSATU and the SACP) want Zuma to take power, they believe they have a man in him that will reign in capitalism and re-empower COSATU and the SACP in the collective. Personally, I am not so sure, but then again, you never know - almost everyone has a price.

 

[pupa]

but then again, you never know - almost everyone has a price.

And ZUMA will be cheap as is his Legacy!

 

[Debbie]

DaveA and jontyB spot on. If you want to know more about this, then read on....

The ANC did an about turn around 1996/1997 when they dropped the RDP in favour of a more neo-liberal economic approach. So now we have a situation where the ANC is all "go neo-liberalism" and COSATU and SACP are all "buggar neo-liberalism, bring on socialism/communism!"

So the division in the tripartite alliance is basically a disagreement on the 'economic framework' of South Africa. The ANC tends towards partial or full privatisation, whilst the SACP and COSATU push for nationalisation or public ownership.

It's a fundamental difference in ideology not to be underestimated. It's like a mini-Cold War of sorts, with the ANC ('America' in this analogy) having the upper hand over SACP/COSATU ('Russia' in my analogy).

There is somewhat of a consensus amongst analysts that this ideological division is where the ANC dominance will be broken. It is believed that the tripartite alliance is unsustainable because of the opposing ideologies within it.

Analysts say that the only reason why the tripartite alliance has lasted this long is because of the common ground that DaveA mentioned. Many believe that most tripartite alliance supporters place their loyalties in the ANC primarily; thus, according to this view, if the alliance were to split members of SACP and COSATU would migrate their support to the ANC. Proponents of this view point to historical reasons for this (i.e. the ANC is the body that brought liberalisation and was at the forefront of the anti-apartheid struggle).

Then there are those who believe that the ANC has sufficiently alienated SACP/COSATU members, and were a split to occur, it would be the SACP/COSTAU who would drain members from the ANC.

The uncertainty - ie whether the first viewpoint or the second is correct - is believed to be the force that keeps the alliance together. In other words, if the alliance splits, both sides are uncertain as to whether they would command more support. Therefore it's just easier to remain together under the common banner of the tripartite alliance than to risk losing any power.

The ANC obviously has the upper hand at the moment in terms of concrete political power (Mbeki is president). But the ANC has had to do quite a bit in order to keep the alliance functioning. For example, the labour laws in SA are a result of the ANC trying to keep SACP/COSATU happy.

Along with many others, I believe that this ideological division is the root of the Zuma vs Mbeki saga, as well as the Zuma for president/Zuma NOT for president debate. Zuma tends towards the SACP/COSATU part of the alliance, while Mbeki is firmly located in the neoliberal ANC part of the alliance. This is the reason why so much interest has been paid to Mbeki's successor- it's really all about which component of the tripartite alliance gains the upper hand in the next election.

 

[Dave A]

I was originally quite keen to see the split, mainly because it might give more balance to the political landscape. However, this post in another forum is pause for thought:

If we consider the strong support that Zuma has (even if not in numbers at least strong in expression) and were to postulate that each grouping within the ANC may be able to muster such strong and vocal support, then what would the outcome be of an alliance split?

We would have three major parties, the ANC, SACP and COSATU, each with their own vehement supporters. Now the constituency may be common in that each party (in their own way) represent the black majority (whether in ideaology or just historically). I'd say the SACP and COSATU's views are not that far from each other and they could team up.

So this brings us to the ANC vs. COSATU/SACP. Where does that leave the country? Torn between two parties that each claim to be representative of the "common man" - the one the common working man, the one the common black man (obviously this is a broad generalisation to make a point).

Now in SA the reality is that the common working man = the common black man.

How violent could this opposition become? (based on what we've seen from Zuma supporters, murders of ANC councillors in KZN etc. etc.)

Yes I agree that the ANC not having 66% is probably good, but what would the cost of this particular action be? I would hope that we've reached a mature enough stage in our country that things would go well and an alliance split would push us forward (and hold politicians accountable), but we may not be there yet.

 

[Dave A]

The answer is twofold: Power and Money.

But that doesn't appease the electorate.

Along with many others, I believe that this ideological division is the root of the Zuma vs Mbeki saga, as well as the Zuma for president/Zuma NOT for president debate. Zuma tends towards the SACP/COSATU part of the alliance, while Mbeki is firmly located in the neoliberal ANC part of the alliance. This is the reason why so much interest has been paid to Mbeki's successor- it's really all about which component of the tripartite alliance gains the upper hand in the next election.

This thread has really got me thinking. Reading between all the lines:

• It seems that if we get a COSATU or SACP aligned President, there could be a rather severe reversal in economic policy iro capitalism.
• A split could result in a nasty spell of violence.
• As a white businessman, I'm on the receiving end of the common ground anyway.

What's the incentive to hang around? Up till now I've bought into the "Be part of the solution" drive, but the message that comes back is "You're the problem".

Can anyone predict a fairytale ending here?

 

[ajak]

Do what I did. Took my companies to the USA [kids are running them] me? too old for that Shiite[and other reasons]its not that we disinvested, we just took the ideas over there and started the companies .At one stage we and some interested parties wanted to open 2 assembly plants 1 in western cape and another in Gauteng but i decided/vetoed the idea...but that’s a story for some other day.

 

[Debbie]

DaveA, you are touching on some subjects here that generally don't make it into media debates.

I have come to the conclusion that the one party dominance of the tripartite alliance is actually GOOD for SA in the present. It means political stability. It means economic stability. It means a neoliberal agenda (I think SACP/COSATU have a very small chance of getting 'their' candidate in in 2009). It means a somewhat predictable near-future. It means international support from important countries. It means SA will continue to be viewed by the rest of the world as 'the exception' in Africa. Also, it means some degree of checks and balances will naturally occur because the dominant part of the alliance will continue to be somewhat accountable to the non-dominant part. (Please no-one flame me about this accountability comment - if you don't 'get it' then you don't 'get it').

Personally I don't think our country is ready for a tripartite alliance split. Maybe in the 2014 elections things would have changed, but right now there is just too much work to be done and it is too risky to wish for or promote a split in the alliance.

Tony leon is right in some aspects when he says that SA politics will have room to mature and democracy will deepen whent eh allaince splits (I don't say 'if' as I believe it's amatter of 'when'). But I don't support a premature split, because a premature split - in my opinion - spells disaster for our country.