De Klerk slams SA's 'unhealthy' democracy

[Woestynryer]

The balance of political power in South Africa is unhealthy and needs realignment, former state president FW de Klerk said on Monday.

On paper, the country enjoyed a competitive democracy, he told the annual conference of the National Association of Pharmaceutical Wholesalers at Kleinmond in the southern Cape.

"But in any democracy, where one party has 70 percent of the vote and where six, seven, eight parties are fighting and at each others' throats for a share of 30 percent of the vote, it's not a healthy democracy.

"What we really need is a realignment in our party political structures, a realignment which will result in normalising our political parties so that we find parties which bring people together irrespective of their race or colour. which bring people because of shared values, shared policies and shared beliefs."

This would allow a system in which there were two major parties, one just to the left of centre and the other just to the right, hopefully marginalising the "wild people" and activists.

He did not know when this would happen, but it would, because ten years after democracy there were still communists, people who were "hard line socialist" in their thinking, in the governing alliance who wanted a return to the failed experiments of Eastern Europe and the rest of Africa.

At the same time, millions of moderate South Africans who supported that alliance had become convinced that free market principles were the only way to achieve the growth and create jobs and wealth.

The glue that held this alliance together, opposition to apartheid, was now gone.

"The glue which a healthy democracy needs is shared beliefs, shared principles, building of political principle and policies and philosophies which can bridge the divides."

De Klerk also warned that socio-economic transformation had to be implemented in a way that did not disrupt national unity or lead to friction between communities.

The problem was that South Africa's minorities had not been sufficiently consulted on transformation which, as a result, had become a divisive issue.

There was very little frank debate on the issue: instead, whites were withdrawing behind their security fences into a new laager and not making the contribution to broader society that they could and would like to make.

"South Africans need to talk to each other about transformation," he said. - Sapa

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...6901461697B253

[ches]

Two-party system? Failed experiments in Eastern Europe? Has De Klerk lost his mind too?

I don't think there's an American alive who doesn't wish there were a third party of some credence. The two-party system is horrid, and fortunately the UK is slowly edging towards a three-party system. I'd be happier with four or five.

There is no way in the world that two parties can adequately represent the views of a diverse nation. A two-party system leads to complacency: what's there to fight for? You're guaranteed at least 30% of the vote just because you're not the other guy.

Of course there are still communists and socialists in South African politics: There are still communists and socialists in South Africa. There will still be communists and socialists in South Africa all the while that people are starving, dying of preventable diseases and walking a mile to a polluted water source.

"Failed experiments in Eastern Europe". I'm sure that two generations of Europeans will be glad to hear that De Klerk thinks that they are the progeny of a failed experiment. "It's all okay now, folks, we're done experimenting with you, you go off and be real people now, FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY AND GLORIOUS CAPITALISM HAVE COME TO RESCUE YOU."

The problem with Eastern Europe's mid-to-late-20th Century politics was much less the communism and the socialism and much more the facism. It's no coincidence that "communism" and "community" share a root.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no communist. I'm definitely a Socialist, if a Champagne Socialist. Most of Europe is socialist today. The UK is socialist, Germany is Socialist. The second largest economy in the world is Socialist.

I will continue to support Socialism in South Africa until every last citizen has access to running water, sanitary toilets and a high school education. Until that day comes, rabid capitalism can only harm us.

It's ten years after democracy, but paying back all of those apartheid-era loans De Klerk has conveniently forgotten about has gotten in the way of bringing essential services to the people. When both evils of apartheid are taken care of, then we can look to fewer "government hand-outs", but until that day comes, Viva Socialism!

[Woestynryer]

Ches - I agree.I'm a couch socialist myself.
What F.W is saying,and that's what I agree with,is that there need to be balance in our politics.
At the moment we have one majority party of 70% voters,and 10 smaller ones fighting for the 30% vote.
I don't care if the opposition is socialist either.All that I would like to see is a fair balance between two major parties keeping each other in check.

Doesn't matter how just and how noble the party of the 70% voters are.There's always bound to be some bad elements with too much power.Those individuals can let laws pass,using their powers.With small 'chi wau wau' parties as the opposition who will take them serious?

We need a voice and like FW says,it's just a matter of when we get a proper opposition.It's not a problem being socialist.The problem, like many Eastern European countries is that it's the only party with no proper opposition.For healthy politics there need to be strong opposition and if their socialist then even better.As long as they are an opposition that have at least plus or minus half of the populations vote.

Let's not forget,the National Party was socialist too.Conservative at that,but still the same.Sometimes the ANC politics just look like the old Nats in disguise.

I'm not,and never was a great folllower of old kortbroek,but history will judge him in the future.The question will be if he actually showed a lot of vision in his decision to join the ANC.Many people might not agree now,but I know people will look very different on that decision in a few years from now.The reason is, I believe, the main opposition will come from inside the ANC.What the ANC is doing is being the party of all South Africans first.Old Kortbroek crossed that chasm,and 'opened' the ANC to 'white voters'.With this move the ANC is becoming moreso a multicutural party.That is and was the ANC's aim.Great start to our democracy!

Let me say again.Let's not judge the guy now.Let's see how history judge that move in a few years from now.Maybe old kortbroek did show show insight,so I'll give him credit for that.

The ANC is Laying a foundation of what we are as South Africans will be one day.From that, our future,and hopefully,very 'healthy' politics via a strong opposition will sprout.

[ches]

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.

[elkhnd]

Hello all:

I enjoy your forum, and for the first time I felt the desire to make a post:

1. Americans want a third party? Sure....until it costs their favored politician an election as Nader did to Gore in 2000, and to a lesser extent Perot cost Bush senior. On one hand a 2 party system (almost) guarantees the winner will carry the majority, a multiparty system may result in a winner carrying 30%, on the other hand you often end up with 2 candidates no one wants as has been the case in the US since Clinton ran in 1996. Interesting note: the Democrats are scared at the current time that many young people are favoring running a candidate who has no chance of winning a nationwide election, but agrees with their principles (e.g. Howard Dean, who the Dems de-railed in favor of Kerry....a decent man but a horrific candidate for a nationwide election...they should've let Dean get the nomination). Should this group peel off and run a third candidate a la Nader it will result in another decade of losses for the Democratic Party.

2. Eastern Europe, with the exception of Yugoslavia was Socialism foisted upon citizens without their consent and when they revolted in Hungary and Czech they were beaten down. In the end if fell from within; East Germans tore down the wall.

3. I disagree that Europe today is socialist. It is still a capitalist society where industry is owned by private individuals/stockholders (whereas "the state" owned all industry in the old Eastern Europe), however it has an extensive "welfare state."

4. Is it unhealthy for the ANC to carry 70%+ of the vote? Who cares, if it's what South Africans want so be it. Eventually a true second party will emerge as has recently happened in Mexico after almost 70 years of rule by the PRI, but it may be 50 years in the making...or it may be in 5 years.

[ches]

Hey there and welcome to the board. I would like to comment on two aspects of what you wrote.

Originally posted by elkhnd
Americans want a third party? Sure....until it costs their favored politician an election as Nader did to Gore in 2000, and to a lesser extent Perot cost Bush senior. On one hand a 2 party system (almost) guarantees the winner will carry the majority, a multiparty system may result in a winner carrying 30%, on the other hand you often end up with 2 candidates no one wants as has been the case in the US since Clinton ran in 1996.

I don't see a problem with the winner only carrying 30% majority in a mulitparty system. This is where coalition government comes in, which can (in a 3-party system) represent the vast majority of the country if the coalition is formed between the leading two parties (which it usually isn't - Israel is a good example of a winning party forming a coalition with as many marginal parties until the 50% majority is achieved.)

It is likely that a winner carrying a 30% majority would be unpalatable in US politics, where the president is elected independently of congress, on an electoral college basis. In other systems (where there is a Prime Minister who leads, usually), the leader of the country is the leader of the parlimentary majority - so the leader would be chosen from the ruling coalition.

In South Africa, coalition negotiations tend to include wrangling over vice president positions. South Africa has a president -- elected from within the winning party -- and two vice presidents. During the second democratic parliment, the second vice president was from the IFP, through an agreement over the coalition in KwaZulu-Natal province, which the ANC won with approximately 45% of the vote; insufficient to form provincial government without coalition.

Interesting note: the Democrats are scared at the current time that many young people are favoring running a candidate who has no chance of winning a nationwide election, but agrees with their principles (e.g. Howard Dean, who the Dems de-railed in favor of Kerry....a decent man but a horrific candidate for a nationwide election...they should've let Dean get the nomination). Should this group peel off and run a third candidate a la Nader it will result in another decade of losses for the Democratic Party.

I'm sure that all the people who turned out for the democrat primaries would be horrified by your ideas of why Kerry was chosen as the democrat representative! I also disagree on your assessment of Dean. Dean had a clear lead going into the primaries, based on internet hype. He had a vast lead on the internet, but the internet does not represent America well. Internet users tend to be male, young, and very liberal. They like Michael Moore, as a stereotype. Dean would've fared far worse than Kerry, who amassed around 50-million votes to Bush's 52-million-odd. Kerry amassed enough votes to have won in 2000, when voter turn-out was not as good.

[elkhnd]

Thanks for the reply, my comments regarding a third party where with regard to a US style system where the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch.

I will respectfully disagree with your comments regarding Kerry however. One of the largest problems with how we select our president is the primary system which was reformed post-Watergate. This relies on state primaries where you have to be (in most cases) a "registered" member of a party to participate, whereas a good 30% of the country is "independent." This is how we end up with candidates like Dole, Gore, Bush, Kerry. All were good foot soldiers and had their pros and cons, but were not strong nationally (e.g. Dole lost with Ford in 1976; Gore was routinely trounced in primaries in 1988, often coming in behind Dukakis and Jesse Jackson). McCain would have beat either Bush or Gore hands down in a nationwide election, but he couldn't beat Bush in Republican only primaries.

This past year the primary season was compressed so that a candidate could be selected early and money/time then spent on the presidential race (without going into details there is a financial advantage to doing this as funds spent before the convention are treated differently from funds spent after the convention). When it became apparent that Dean had a genuine chance at the nomination, and he was a pure party outsider I firmly believe that the Dem National Committee decided he had to be stopped, that is why they drafted Gen Wesley Clark, when he fumbled they closed ranks behind Kerry. All of a sudden Ted Kennedy's staff became available to Kerry, the Clinton's closed ranks behind him, and in the end he won the nomination because he wasn't Dean, and his strongest point in the general election was he wasn't Bush....which wasn't enough to win either the electorial or the popular vote. His choice of a VP was downright horrific. Not only couldn't Sen Edwards carry his home state, but the Senate seat he vacated was won by a Republican. I think he's an honorable man, but he was so unpopular that even after winning all three debates he still lost the general election.

Be careful of looking at voter numbers, I live in Oklahoma and Bush won every county, not because he was ultra-popular, but Kerry wrote the state off early and didn't run a single advert. Bush did likewise in states like NY and CA. No way was he going to win those two so he spent his money elsewhere, and Kerry got some 80% of the two most popular states. We'll never know but I think Dean would've done better. The turnout was better this time, but it was still poor for the 18-25 year old demographic. Dean was the only true anti-war candidate, and he could have galvanized that vote, similar to what Jesse Ventura did in Minn when he ran for governor. There are more than 30,000 students at Ohio State University, most didn't vote, if Dean motivated them to turn off the playstation and vote he could've carried that state.

The last President to come directly from the House/Senate was JFK, all others have been either state governors or VPs. There was no reason to think that a relatively liberal senator from Massachusetts could win a nationwide election. President Clinton was a Southern Governor who ran as a moderate and governed as a centrist. Until the Dems go back to that strategy, return to their roots as a populist "everyman" party they will have a hard time in future elections.