Prince Misuzulu Zulu named new Zulu king

The Free Radical

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
1,214
Not really. Monarchs have little to no powers in most of the western world.
Agreed, but look where modern democracies have landed us today.
Democracies are now in crisis. They are splintering internally because rights have been allowed to trump responsibilities, where they are equal counterbalancing forces. Law and Order (real justice) is being replaced with 'social justice. It is exactly why the world is reshuffling into a multipolar world. The old order is crumbling.
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
35,098
Most western monarchs are largely ceremonial.

Nope. They have real power. Many believe that myth. Here are just some of the British monarch's powers. I bet the Zulu king can't do any of these:

Without his consent, no bill can be passed to form a law.
He can opt out from paying tax. But He doesn't.
He requires no driving licence
In times of "grave constitutional crisis", the King has the power to VETO any ministerial advice/opinion.
And under no "grave constitutional crisis" the King has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn his ministers.
He can fire the entire Australian Government.
He can disband the British Armed Forces.

Apart from being the Head of State of UK and Australia, He is also dominion to all these commonwealth realms:

Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
 

TheMightyQuinn

Not amused...
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
31,961
Check your colonised mind.
This is Africa, and its true leaders are the royal African bloodlines.
National borders, provincial borders etc are all colonial constructs.
We'd be far better off carving up SA into its traditional lands, run by its monarchs, than the useless ANC.
Oh dear....hahahahaha.
 

The Free Radical

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
1,214
Nope. They have real power. Many believe that myth. Here are just some of the British monarch's powers. I bet the Zulu king can't do any of these:

Without his consent, no bill can be passed to form a law.
He can opt out from paying tax. But He doesn't.
He requires no driving licence
In times of "grave constitutional crisis", the King has the power to VETO any ministerial advice/opinion.
And under no "grave constitutional crisis" the King has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn his ministers.
He can fire the entire Australian Government.
He can disband the British Armed Forces.

Apart from being the Head of State of UK and Australia, He is also dominion to all these commonwealth realms:

Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

South Africa was re-admitted to the commonwealth on 1st January 1994 after being suspended during apartheid.
The ANC should never had acceded to this.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
The Ingonyama trust Act was passed by the Nats just prior to the 1994 elections to the anger of the ANC. Looks like the ANC now recognises it as it is now advantageous to them.


Secret details of the land deal that brought the IFP into the 94 poll

A sweetheart deal. This is how the Ingonyama Trust has been repeatedly described: millions of hectares of land in return for the Inkatha Freedom Party not boycotting the 1994 elections. Now, in an exclusive story, Hilary Lynd uncovers the secret details of the controversial agreement. From secret meetings on airport runways to the KwaZulu legislature, she charts the creation of the trust. This comes as yet another government report questions whether there is a need for the body

How did 2.8-million hectares administered by the KwaZulu homeland end up in a trust with the Zulu king as its trustee?

The land administered by the other nine homelands, the building blocks of apartheid, came under the authority of the national government. How did KwaZulu manage to preserve what the other homelands lost?

The answer takes us back 25 years to the final days before the first democratic election.

Many have long suspected that the Ingonyama Trust was central to the last-minute decision of the IFP to join the 1994 election, but lack of concrete evidence — and threatened lawsuits — have made it difficult to convert suspicion into fact. New archival research and extensive interviews have now made that possible.

A major sticking point in negotiations from 1990 to 1994 was the future of those who had enjoyed power and privilege under the old system. This was especially challenging in the homelands. One purpose of the homelands had been to create a social grouping with something to lose. Ending apartheid had to mean dissolving the homelands, but how would the beneficiaries be convinced to participate in dismantling their own power bases?

...

Chief minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, King Goodwill Zwelithini, and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP)were threatening to boycott elections as they had the constitutional negotiations. The king proclaimed the “sovereignty” of the Zulu kingdom and fears grew that a secessionist war was brewing. These fears built on the stream of information emerging about hit squads within the KwaZulu police, co-operation with the security services of the white government, stockpiling of weapons, and paramilitary training at Mlaba camp.

Negotiators had to deal with intertwined monarchist and federalist commitments within the IFP. One, represented by the king, emphasised the continuity of the Zulu monarchy dating back to a precolonial era. The other, pushed especially by Buthelezi’s Italian-American libertarian adviser, Mario Ambrosini, pursued maximum devolution of powers from national to regional levels. Both offered a basis for preserving the authority of the KwaZulu government and the IFP, its ruling party, into a post-apartheid order.

Every major party had leaders more and less inclined towards compromise. But, by early April, the hardliners had the upper hand. The IFP showed no signs of backing down from its confrontational stance. In an interview later in 1994, Buthelezi reminded Patti Waldmeir: “I was not threatening, I intended. I was not going to participate [in the election].”

Archived records of IFP-NP bilateral meetings and interviews done at the time by Waldmeir and Padraig O’Malley indicate that some within the ANC and NP had lost patience. Among them were Cyril Ramaphosa and Roelf Meyer, the respective heads of the ANC and NP negotiating teams. They became convinced that the IFP would stay out, elections would proceed, and Buthelezi’s base would disappear in the new South Africa.

Best to read the whole article.
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
35,098
Check your colonised mind.
This is Africa, and its true leaders are the royal African bloodlines.
National borders, provincial borders etc are all colonial constructs.
We'd be far better off carving up SA into its traditional lands, run by its monarchs, than the useless ANC.

And recognised under international law which SA has undertaken to uphold.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
It was still a sop to the Zulu.

It is viewed as a peace deal. It was a compromise to make sure the transition would succeed. The problem now is that the land deal, or otherwise the Ingonyama Trust *serves no purpose any more, but it is instituted. To add to all this, it wasn't the Act which ensured their participation due to tensions. A backroom negosiation, unknown to the public, convinced enough IFP members to have quorum to have consensus.

*The problem it solved doesn't exist any more, so it is being exploited now. The state has since made too many promises to the Zulu Nation, so I don't see the Act abolished. What can be asked now is how determined Zulu people are to own plots within the area managed by the Trust?
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
41,137
Agreed, but look where modern democracies have landed us today.
Democracies are now in crisis. They are splintering internally because rights have been allowed to trump responsibilities, where they are equal counterbalancing forces. Law and Order (real justice) is being replaced with 'social justice. It is exactly why the world is reshuffling into a multipolar world. The old order is crumbling.
Monarchy is no guarantee of prosperity. There are many examples in Europe. Humans are virus of the ecosystem.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
41,137
Nope. They have real power. Many believe that myth. Here are just some of the British monarch's powers. I bet the Zulu king can't do any of these:

Without his consent, no bill can be passed to form a law.
He can opt out from paying tax. But He doesn't.
He requires no driving licence
In times of "grave constitutional crisis", the King has the power to VETO any ministerial advice/opinion.
And under no "grave constitutional crisis" the King has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn his ministers.
He can fire the entire Australian Government.
He can disband the British Armed Forces.

Apart from being the Head of State of UK and Australia, He is also dominion to all these commonwealth realms:

Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
British monarch isn't the only monarch in the western world.
 
Top