|
Woestynryer, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.
Firstly, De Klerk said he wanted two parties, one slightly left of centre (i.e. the Democrats/Labour) and one slightly right of centre (i.e. the Republicans/Conservatives). I would consider the UK and the USA two spectacular reasons for why this is bad. You may argue that these are two of the top ten economies in the world, but I would counter by pointing out the low voter turn-out, making their much-vaunted "democracies" not worth much more than a half-cent piece.
Secondly, I take great exception at De Klerk's labeling of Eastern European politics during much of the 20th century as a "failed experiment". It may be a failed ideology, but an experiment it certainly was not. I then waxed a little too lyrically screaming the merits of socialism, partly because De Klerk debunked it a little, pointing out that there were still socialists and communists within the ANC. (And there we were, thinking that McCarthy hunted all those witches out in the 40's and 50's.)
What may be part of the problem is that De Klerk, despite several decades as a politician and with a Nobel prize on the mantlepiece, still hasn't realised that African communism is a far cry from Eastern European and/or Asian communism. Yes, there are distinct Marxist elements, but much less willingness to cramp human rights. I'm hoping that Angola, now that it's finally getting a chance to have its popular government in power instead of facing American guns, will give our children a new perspective on communism, and how it can be beneficial where people have so little (with a fair sprinkling of oil and landmines to mix it up.)
Thirdly, I am surprised that you refered to the National Party under apartheid as Socialist. Fascist, certainly, but Socialist -- never. I have never heard that before. I assume, of course, that, like the NP, you are thinking only of white citizens, for the NP didn't ever do anything for anyone else. (Well, except lock them up, malnourish them in prison, and when they felt like it, killed them, sometimes just for sport.)
I will grant you that school fees for white kids were only really optional (though we were pretty hard-up and my parents paid school fees and bought my uniforms). Up to the early 80's, school books were free. Similarly, vaccinations were free. That's pretty much where the buck stopped, however. My parents paid for doctors' visits, operations, dental work, and they never received even so much as UIF when things really got hard in the mid-80's. White South Africa up until the sanctions started to bite in the 1980's was a monument to Capitalism.
White South Africans were in the top 10 (if not top 5) wealthiest per capita in the world. It was R2 to the UK pound and even stevens with the US dollar. Life was about as coushy as it is for Orthodox Jews in Israel. Of course our money was made by the sweat of black South Africans (and Zambians, Zimbabweans, Angolans and Mozambiquans, who were "conscripted" to work on the mines because South Africans refused until the Bantustans became too overcrowded and overgrazed and they had no alternative).
What I really take exception to in what you said, however, is that about Kortbroek opening up the ANC to white voters. Frankly, I don't think it's helped a jot. I somewhat suspect that his floor crossing has in fact labeled him a traitor in the eyes of those who still supported the NP even after all these years.
Surely people like Joe Slovo and Ruth First and Beyers Naudé and Ray Simons and Johnny de Lange and Rob Davies and Alec Erwin and Derek Hanekom and heck, Nelson Mandela opened up the ANC to white voters?
What I agree with, however, is that the opposition party will eventually emerge out of the ANC, just like the PAC did in 1959.
All you could come up with that was negative about a party having 70% of the country behind it was an opportunity to change the law. (Actually the constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority government.) The ANC has completed one full term with the necessary majority for substantial law changes, and hasn't done anything nefarious.
The link that is missing is this: 70% of the country wouldn't support a party that wasn't trustworthy enough to put the people's needs first. Yes, I acknowledge that there are individuals within the ANC that abuse their power for personal profit. But there are also individuals in the ANC like Albertina Sisulu and Adelaide Thambo, not to mention, God rest their souls, their more famous husbands.
There are benefits to having a very strong party in office, however. Without the need to waste time on electioneering, trying to stay in office, the party can stay focused on the important issues, like modifying or passing legislation and delivering on mandate promises. (The very concept of electioneering amazes me. Who wants to be elected to do something so important if there's a more qualified person to do the job? Sure, we all back ourselves, but to try to hoodwink the public into voting for us, slinging mud, effectively crying "Vote for Me! I'm not as bad as that guy!"?? My mind boggles.)
Perhaps a greater benefit is a spin-off of this political stability: foreign investment. There's nothing that the First World likes better than a sure bet. They won't lend money and they'll be damned if they'll put their own money into something if they can't predict how rapidly it'll grow.
South Africa is now in the beautiful situation of having a government that's been around long enough for foreign investers to be comfortable with predicting their behaviour, while at the same time, is not in danger of being voted out as soon as they've dumped their cash into our economy. Were it not for the very strong Rand (although, this is also a plus for those who have already invested in South Africa, because they're getting a good return in US Dollar terms as well as South African Rand terms), South Africa would be a prime candidate for all kinds of investment. If the Rand stabilizes at R6.50 +/- 50c to the US Dollar, and by stabilizes, I mean falls into the same kind of comfort as the US $/Euro relationship, then the pairing of Political Stability and Economic Stability (with growth - and a huge potential for growth as Africa continues to develop) will be highly beneficial for South Africa.
|