I’ve been in the US on holiday for the past few weeks, and although I’ve kept a distant eye on things from overseas, I am interested to note the distinct rise in political tension since my departure, drawn from the regional voting for the succession nominations. Funnily enough, it mirrors some aspects of what is occurring in US politics at present with the open nature of intra-party conflict in the lead-up to party presidential nominations there.
However, the point of this post is not to compare and contrast South African and US politics, but rather to look at a wider picture of the consequences this intra-party ANC turmoil may have on South Africa’s political landscape. Could this chaos we’ve seen in the past few months herald a Christmas wish of a return to realism within the ANC voting structures?
In my opinion, the methodologies used by the ANC to elect its leaders is obsolete. A system that relies on internal political clout and friends in high places over individual voting and which completely discourages any form of public campaigning on issues does not resonate with the principles of truly democratic politics. Democracy is about the power of each individual’s vote, and if the individual never sees a presidential hopeful campaigning, and thus has no chance to review his/her policies and his/her political stance, how can a mandate be effectively given to regional party structures? Why else would so many people be asking of Jacob Zuma, surely the most actively campaigning “non-campaigning” hopeful ever: “What will a Zuma presidency look like?”
ANC members are asked to give a mandate to their regional structures to vote for a party president, who will become the state president in the next election, on the basis of superficial public popularity alone, which explains why so much ink has been spread describing Mbeki as “cold and distant” and Zuma as a “man of the people”. What about policies? What about governing effectiveness? What about the nation’s future?
In a country dominated by one-party politics, this effectively takes the proverbial man on the street out of the democratic equation of choosing the nation’s future policies. Presidential hopefuls can be voted as the nation’s president through this system without as much as a whimper about their view of the nation’s political horizon.
So, my Christmas wish is for this turmoil to bring about a return to realism in ANC election processes. Let the ANC allow open campaigning for political positions, and encourage an open discussion of candidate policies and viewpoints. Let us give more power to the people of South Africa to choose their president under the status quo of one-party domination. Let’s have a presidential election based on issues and a real future, rather than whether we like how the candidate looks when he gets up in the morning.
Given that we’ll have to wait another eight years for this issue to rear its head again, the chances of real change are about as good as Tony Yengeni’s presidential hopes. But, I’ve been good this year, so perhaps Santa will deliver …
PS: Santa, if you’re listening, let’s get rid of proportional representation while we’re at it. I’ll leave a beer out for you.
The only reason we would like to see an open campaign is because we live in a ‘one party state’. No one asked Helen Zille what her policies were. No one really cared.
I do agree on the proportional respresentation bit.
THE IRAQ WAR – OPINIONS VERSUS THE TRUTH
Bill Clinton’s Claim of Opposing Iraq War From Outset Disputed – “A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton’s statement this week that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning,” saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion.”
Commentary: More lies from the spiritually shallow Clintons. See: Text Of Clinton’s Feb. 17, 1998 Statement On Iraq – President Clinton’s address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff – “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Background: On May 2, 2003 Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, (Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) stated: “He (John Paul II) did not impose this position (‘Iraq War not necessary’) as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith” (Zenit News Agency).
The above statement by Pope Benedict, while truthful, does not reveal any evidence that these two men actually prayed about this issue like President George W. Bush did. Since there is only ONE Holy Spirit, why are Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger’s views on the Iraq War the same as radical Islamists, terrorists, morally corrupt left-wing liberal Democrats, biased people in the U.S. media, immoral Hollywood movie “stars,” and other selfish, spoiled Americans? The answer is that they were simply “opinions” that were confirmed to be incorrect because of the morally twisted people that agreed with them. Many other good men & women (including veterans who suffered far more than Pope John Paul II did during World War II) did pray about this matter & strongly disagreed with their conclusions – and to this day continue to disagree with Pope Benedict XVI on this moral issue. You are known by the type company you keep, and this is also true of your opinions. When your opinion is according to God’s Holy Will, many good people will agree with you, but if your opinion is not according to God’s Will, for the most part people not right with God will find agreement with your point of view.
However, unlike many U.S. Democrats, Pope John Paul II’s thoughts on the Iraq War were not voiced in an arrogant, judgmental manner. He loved America, and praised President George W. Bush’s moral leadership. See: President George W. Bush Presents Medal of Freedom to Pope John Paul II, June 4, 2004 – “I also continue to follow with great appreciation your commitment to the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and the family….Mr. President, as you carry out your lofty mission of service to your nation and to world peace, I assure you of my prayers and cordially invoke upon you God’s blessings of wisdom, strength and peace.”
Pope John Paul II never praised President Clinton for his “moral values,” because Clinton, along with most Democrats, believe you have the “right to kill” someone through an abortion – a horrible crime against humanity that has resulted in the cruel deaths of millions & millions of innocent, defenseless, unborn human beings.
Cardinal Ratzinger later confirmed: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (Italian magazine “L’espresso,” June 2004 – published online in July).
Would Pope John Paul II have considered it a “Just War” if France, England, and the U.S. had disarmed Germany, preventing Hitler from invading Poland and other countries or deliberately exterminating & killing millions of innocent Jewish people? The vast majority of Americans agreed with President George W. Bush’s decision to disarm Iraq, and eliminate their capacity to wage war when it was thought by U.S. intelligence agencies that Iraq was developing biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that could be used against the United States and other countries.
Aided by the Democratic Party, the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the Iraq War Resolution.
If President Bush is a “liar,” why aren’t double-tongued Democrats held accountable? Do they think faulty intelligence on Iraq only came through Bush? It originally came from Bill Clinton’s administration.
Hypocritical, immoral Democrats want it both ways – they supported the Iraq War Resolution, but also want to place the blame for going to war on President Bush. President Bush’s only mistake was to trust incorrect intelligence reports. But others, including politicians from the U.S. Democratic Party made the same type of mistake. For example:
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 (Vice-President under Clinton – ran for President in the year 2000)
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts), Sept. 27, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Senator John F. Kerry (Massachusetts), Oct. 9, 2002.
“He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members….Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (New York), Oct 10, 2002
As you can see from the above, many U.S. Democrats have very short memories when it comes to the judgments of leaders in their own political party.
Vincent Bemowski – “Retired” freelance writer
“No one asked Helen Zille what her policies were. No one really cared.”
Thank you. At least one white person is starting to get with the program. We really really really really don’t care, despite what your media is telling us. When Zille speaks, i treat is a commercial break and head of to the kitchen. Thank you for finally getting it. Yay…
Liansky. I think that you missed my point. We should care for what a party stands for not an individual as we vote for party’s not individuals.
Hence if we did away with proportional represnetation then we could vote for what an individual stands for.
Also it is not my press.
I try to explain things in basic terms of incompetance and greed. I leave race, religion etc out of it as the aforesaid normally explains everything.
I am an african.
At what point did anyone believe this would be a proper democratic election? SA is a one party state (aka ‘African Democracy’), where you get one man, one vote, once. After that, the government you’ve chosen gets to vote for you.
Pity the grass-roots level don’t properly understand the actual principles behind true democracy. True democracy does not mean the induna of your village gets a 4×4 just before the elections, to ensure that the people of his village vote ANC. True democracy does not mean that the president gets to to rule (not govern, but rule!) until the end of his days.
People get the government they deserve, and Africa is not ready for democracy, as they will realise over the course of the next 20 years or so.