It seems politics has become nothing but a crusade in confusion, confusing the very same people who voted politicians into office. Politicians get caught up in the fruitless and wasteful game of politicking while bravely maintaining the lie that they are working for our interests.
I must start by saying we need to understand that the system of democracy, like any other “cracy”, is deeply flawed and unfair.
It is disingenuous of political parties to cry foul when they don’t get what they want through a political process when they knew from the beginning that they might not not get what they want, even when they are right. You see, in a democracy the majority rules. Even when they are wrong.
You can’t go into elections and lose, and then somehow expect that the majority party won’t use its majority to pass laws that are in line with its own policies. What would be the point of democracy then?
People play the politics of confusion game as a desperate attempt to obtain public sympathy instead of lobbying the ruling party to see their point of view. Opposition parties have contributed meaningfully towards the country’s governance and have made a number of policy and legislative proposals that are much better suited than those of the ruling party.
One case in point is the Private Member’s Bill recently announced by the DA, which makes very sound proposals on how teachers’ rights to industrial action should be balanced with the children’s right to education. This Bill, if passed into law, will provide much-needed protection of children’s right to education from the reckless and sometimes irresponsible South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) and its members who seemingly go on strike on a random basis at the tiniest sign of disagreement.
This Bill though, will never be passed into law. In fact it won’t even go through the first stages of parliamentary process. Why? Because both the DA and the ANC play the game of confusion and politicking instead of working for the betterment of our country first.
The DA will act as if they have a majority in parliament by submitting the Bill without lobbying for support and seeking contribution from the majority party in Parliament. This doesn’t make sense to an ordinary citizen who knows that the DA will need the ANC to pass any Bill into law because of the ANC’s sheer majority in parliament. Being confrontational and sidelining the majority party leaves you with no hope of success. The DA knows this so one can only conclude that they actually have no interest in getting such a Bill passed in the first instance! Confusing.
The ANC itself as the majority party in Parliament also plays this wasteful game. No matter how sound the Private Member’s Bill submitted by the DA is, it won’t get passed simply because the opposition came up with it. This is ridiculous to say the least. Parties always boast of representing public interest but choose party interest most of the time.
Politicking seems to be more important than actually working to solve challenges facing our country. Both of the biggest parties in Parliament are grossly guilty of this.
It doesn’t end in Parliament though. It is evident in almost every sphere of politics including internal party politics. Political parties seem to think the public doesn’t see through this managed confusion. We do.
Confusion? Rather, the politics of very clear self-interest, sustained by the fact that it’s almost impossible to discover the facts behind any political decision.
The politicians aren’t confused, we are confused. And that ain’t an accident.
@Dube, if the members of parliament were elected by the people in SA, I would agree with you because this is not the case.
At risk of appearing somewhat practical, how on earth do you lobby an ANC minister? The only time you see them is when the women attend – what they call – Silly Hat Day, and the men call Strap-on-yer-girdle Day. We – the general public – refer to it as The Opening of Parliament.
These strutting, non-photogenic fools only make an appearance when they sense they might get some (ugly) face time on the telly. They modelled the NuSAns Parliament after the Oscars, complete with over dramatic, ham acting. They’ve been appointed, much like couch-casting, only without the beauty but with plenty of slobbering.
So, the DA can be forgiven for forging ahead, attempting to make a go of it. And the ANC should be embarrassed. But they’re not. Those are the emotions felt only by Les Vulgaires, you see.
So what would you do if you had to witness the obscene, irresponsible and juvenile antics of your opposition party up close? The party in power? Those inept dandy’s? I’d give up, or continue to try do my job, with my head down, trying to shove these uneducated, sub 70 IQ morons in the right direction. Nothing else would work.
Reflecting on this piece and the advent of certain elections looming, it is becoming more and more evident that we as a ‘new’ society still have a long way to go to accept the principals of democracy. In fact, I put it to you that we are pretending democrats. We pretend that we love our constitution and we pretend that we will protect our constitution. But when something happens, eg when someone wins an election, fairly, with no protest, some amongst us have much difficulty in accepting the outcome. The DA is not the ruling party. The ANC is. You see we are passed a negotiated settlement so why should we be in negotiation mode. I mean for goodness sake where in the world have you heard of this nonsense that the ruling party should not stand and uphold its policies? They have policing conferences and at these conferences resolutions are taken, You are now asking that resolutions be overturned, reconsidered and be overriden by a minority party?
SADTU has a right to strike and that is a consitutional right. Children have a right to education and that is a constitutional right. But which right supercedes?
Given DA’s hostility towards unions and SADTU in particular, I doubt very much that the document addresses their interest. Given DA’s attitude of late, ie passing laws to keep dogs from barking in WCape, I expect their proposals to be autocratic.
Question, why in a democracy, should a majority be held to ransom by a minority?
AFRICAN AND THIRD WORLD DEMOCRACY:-
A system whereby the uneducated and unproductive elect equally (mostly) uneducated and unproductive people into power and then those now in power use that power to extract as much money as they can from and ever reducing number of educated and productive people.
A system like this cannot continue as the result is an ever increasing demand and an ever reducing and finite resource. It can and does work when there is equality amongst the voters.
Equality cannot be created. It can only come from production and learning from everyone in the country. March for equality – what a dumb concept? March for Economic Freedom is equally dumb. You cannot legislate wealth from those who have it and give it to those who do not as the ‘wealthy’ will simply leave and go to a country where their hard work and skills are appreciated. Feed the uneducated electorate rubbish and they will jump to confusion.
A democracy to function well requires political parties who are able to attract more even votes. This keeps any ruling party on its toes, as it runs the risk of losing elections if the public is dissatisfied. Unfortunately, the general public of South Africa is politically naive and confuses policies/politics with ‘patriotism’ / loyalty when it bothers to vote at all. When the majority of South Africans become more politicallly aware and questioning hopefully this will change.
Not sure how you, Toflux, feel that a DA minority is holding a majority to ransom if it is merely exercising its madate to express its opinions? Surely reasonable suggestions are worthy of consideration even if finally rejected? This can happen where a party is more consious of its need for public support to win votes to maintain its majority.
By the way, re laws to curb dogs barking, this has been enforced in Australia for years (democratic country?) I have three dogs myself, and realise that noisy dogs can be an absolute curse to neighbours. Can drive them literally barking mad. So I make every effort to control them and their noise output.
Even were I to vote ANC, I would not consider myself part of a democratic process, because people in the top positions are chosen within the party ranks and not by a democratic process.
I’m afraid the six-pager Private Members Bill contains pretty little except calling for the definition of “basic education”. It otherwise rehashes section 29 of the Constitution. Anyway, the hard truth is that politicians will act in your interest only to the extent your interests coincide with theirs (usually, political expediency). The residents of Makhaza and Moqhaka are the obvious example.
I dont see how anyone can lobby ANC members of parliament for support on anything, as their decisions are not their own but is dictated by Luthuli House.
Case in point, the furore that erupted when an ANC member of parliament decided to abstain from voting for the ‘Secrecy Bill’. If you vote anything but in favour of the ruling party, you will be commiting political suicide. Its for this reason that votes are cast in secret in the US.
The Praetor
@Tofolux: “Question, why in a democracy, should a majority be held to ransom by a minority?”
Wanted to reply to the obvious fallacy in your statement, but Jean Wright has already done a much better job than I would probably have done.
Although I am not enamoured with some of the divisive approaches of Nco Dube in other posts, I do agree with him that we – us voters – are still politically very naive.
Nco is correct. The DA and ANC are playing politics in this issue. The DA is using this as a statement of what they stand for (probably because they previously said the ANC took their good ideas and claimed it as their own, while demonising them). And yes, on the other hand, it “won’t get passed simply because the opposition came up with it.”
Sad.
PS. While I don’t think the US constitution is as good as ours, I do appreciate some of the intense philosophical discussions that contributed to it (and the amendments).
In further reply to Tofolux’s closing question, I would like to hear his philosophical thoughts on the “Tyranny of the Majority”?
PPS. As per recent reports (Sunday Times), our great constitution is clearly founded on pre-1994 ANC resolutions. On reading our constitution the first time many years ago, I was very favourable to the ANC for the creation of our constitution.
However, looking at things today, I cannot believe what is becoming of the ANC. Today’s ANC is clearly not your mother’s ANC any more.
I think Tofolux explains the SA situation very well. It’s all about power and self-interest, not about morality, principal and what is good for South Africa. Quite common in the rest of Africa (and elsewhere) too.
Good article !
” The majority will rule even when they are wrong”…..Case in point – The Media Tribunal and secrecy bill.
We should have a “Common Sense Commitee” that can veto all the blunders.
I would say that an attack on press freedom and the push towards the Protection of State Information Bill shows that government is far from confused, but I am waiting for an appearance from Michael J Fox in his high tops at some stage.
@Jandro, the SA consititution is not superior to the one in the US. In the US the people have a right to elect their officials to office and they are accountable to them but, in SA the people can’t hold none of the officials accountable. The mayors in the cities in SA can steal money or don’t know what happened to the money and the people can’t removed them. What one sees in SA is a fake democracy because this is not government by the people and for the people.
@Paleface, in a consititutional democracy the majority will rule but, the right of the minority is protected also. This is why the Roman Empire lasted so long because they tried to give equality to everyone under the consititution.
@Jean & Jandro, please engage with me factually on my point re majority. Generalisations are not relevant because it doesnt counter my argument. So I invite you humbly to make your point.
Education is one of the most challenging issues ANYWHERE in the world. Today, the mother countries of those amongst us are struggling with this very issue. What we fail to recognise is that education is not fixed and here many has agreed that the matric that is written today no parent of yesteryear would be able to rewrite. FACT!
What we also fail to recognise is that society is ever changing and any country needs to respond to this change on all fronts.
Now to all the éxperts’ there isnt NO counterproposal from any one to suggests that they have better ideas(yoh). It is a fact the DA WILL juxtapose a right at the expense of another right. What I am arguing AT WHAT POINT is this an unconsitutional approach? It is the very same supporters and civil society who runs to the courts inundating them with spurious actions shouting from the rooftops constitution, constitution. What we need in society today are discussions that contribute to solutions. What we need in society are those who strengthens society. This country belong to all who live in it. That is a constitutional obligation. Now at what point do we redemocratise our own pysche and disabuse ourselves of them against us. What really is your role and relevance in society, TO fight, unseen, nameless and anonymous?
@Toflux. I generally enjoy and sometimes agree with many of your comments. However, I absolutely fail to see how the DA (a minority party) is juxtaposing any rights here. It is merely putting forward a member’s bill regarding education for discussion to the house. This may or may not receive adequate attention and discussion, but as some have said will probably not be passed (no. of seats in house etc.. and votes) Bills can be amended can they not?
Please enlighten me. Do you object to the waste of time in presenting this bill – particularly in view of some of the current stuff, i.e. Weather forecast, etc., or do you have some problem with Teachers’ Strikes and their effect on pupils? You feel perhaps that the Teacher’s right to strike is more important than the Pupils’ right to learn? The current Pupils being the future of South Africa ‘n all?
To be honest, I think that the Teachers Unions are far too keen on striking at the ‘drop of a chalk’ and the Pupils rights to learn are suffering terribly from this. Therefore, I think the Pupils rights are paramount. However, the Right to Strike for teachers (together with other vital services) is probably a subject open for other legislation.
Teachers were supposed to have a ‘vocation’ in the past, although I don’t see any reason why they should be financially penalised for this ‘vocation’, but they must act responsibly for the future generations of this country.
@ Jean, we live in a constitutional democracy. Our national legislature is a mixed-party system. Now the DA proposals , would/should be introduced in parly and the members will debate it and the members will decide. It is not a bill, but if the proposals warrants it, can be presented to the various comittees. Point is, it must be engaged in the proper fora.
Furthermore, it is common knowledge that our parliament is very progressive. In fact it is the most progressive in the world. Hence I cannot for the life of me understand the wild generalisations and this is very frustrating becos it really adds value to a discussion when peeps stick to facts.
I love animals, all kinds of animals and I think that it is arrogance to the extreme to DICTATE how many times a dog barks (referring to DA laws). ANd this eg, shows the dictatorship of DA and its values. It is also common knowledge that SADTU is aunti helly’s nemesis and hence I dount that even they have been engaged. Now when we claim to be such special citizen;s of this country, with special knowledge then surely the very basic of rights should be so unconscious in the minds of those who are our perpetual teachers?
@toflux @jeanwright – In terms of our constitution the rights of a child are always paramount. As far as the DA being anti-union, I don’t agree, I think the unions are anti-DA. Largely due to their Tri-party alliance. At some stage one must ask, whether the union’s actions, actually result in better circumstances for workers. Fact is they don’t always. My point being: disagreement with a union, does not make one anti-union. As far as autocratic laws go, by-laws on nuisance dogs exist everywhere; if only in common law of nuisance. The difference is in the WC laws are enforced.
@Tofolux (spelt your name properly this time OO!!) Thanks. I now think I understand. Not a South African! The DA hasn’t gone through the ‘proper channels’ regarding presentation of the Bill? Should have consulted more, etc., etc. But this is very time-consuming, isn’t it, and it does appear to be quite a reasonable suggestion and it is also sad that it should be ‘rubbished’ before it gets off the ground because of political/procedural dogma when it is an important question.It would seem that minority party input could take YEARS to get anywhere meaningful. And then of course you get ‘our idea’ ‘your idea’ squabbles. Shame.
Regarding not being driven ‘barking mad’ I think owners have an obligation to make sure their animals are not a nusiance to their neighbours. Some friends of mine were driven demented by their neighbour’s dogs noise. Dogs are trainable. It needs input. Afraid I can’t agree it shows a dictatorial attitude. I think it shows consideration for others, particularly in densely populated areas. But Rik le Roux has dealt with this one.
@Sterling Ferguson: “In the US the people have a right to elect their officials to office and they are accountable to them but, in SA the people can’t hold none of the officials accountable.”
Good point. Although our constitution is not fully at fault here, as (according to EISA) it only prescribes that the electoral system “results in general in proportional representation.” However, you’ve got a point in that it leaves the door open for our current fully proportional system (and its concomitant accountability deficiency).
@Tofolux: “please engage with me factually on my point re majority.”
Apologies if I wasn’t clear, but the original post ended with one question: “why in a democracy, should a majority be held to ransom by a minority?”
I thought my response implied that there is no basis in fact for that statement, but let me clarify:
To hold someone to ransom (in a non-kidnapping sense) simply means “to demand concessions from a person or organisation by threatening damaging action,” and I saw nothing like that happening.
The DA created a Private Member’s Bill, which they have all the right to do. I have neither seen nor heard any DEMANDS or THREATS (whether overt or implied).
If I missed them, please point them out to me.
PS. Did you read up on “Tyranny of the Majority?”
PPS. The business we are building takes up a lot of my time, so if I do not reply in a timely fashion (or even at all), it’s simply that I don’t always have…
@Jandro, the political system needs to be reformed in SA and the people be given a voice in the parties as well as the government. The people on the local level should have a right to run their governments without the ANC bigwhigs getting involved. The mayors should be able to have townhalls meeting with the people and listen to the people without Malema going there or worst Gede coming there. All of these people have not been elected by the people but, they are making policies for them. There have been situations in SA where the mayors have been doing a good job and the people were happy with them, however the ANC heads removed these people. The officials in SA are not at the mercy of the people that they served but, the ruling party.
@Sterling: Fully agreed. Being a minarchist in principle (although many minarchists would probably say I support too much public assistance for the poor), and therefore clearly against statism, in the present system I advocate two principles very strongly: direct representation and devolution of power.
At the moment we the people of South Africa have very little power, and the ANC is withholding it from us.
(As soon as a political party throws slogans like “the people shall rule” or “power to the people” at me, I become very suspicious, and make sure I investigate the FACTS – as this is often not in agreement with the TALK, aka political spin.)
By the way, it does not seem to me that our constitution is actually preventing direct representation, as it prescribes “results in general in proportional representation.”
Why do I suggest that? Well, from a statistical perspective, even a system that is 100% direct representation, is still likely to be generally proportional in representation.
So you are correct, it is a political issue.