There is a truly sad headline, in the London Times. Excerpt:
The violence was triggered by the jailing last weekend of the former president Jacob Zuma, 79, for contempt of court. The only Zulu to lead South Africa, he was forced to step down in 2018 and had refused to take part in a Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate his eight years in office. Billions of rands disappeared from the state coffers during his tenure. His supporters infiltrated and undermined virtually every state institution....
Taking advantage of the fanatical support for Zuma among Zulus in his heartland of KwaZulu-Natal, his acolytes effectively launched a low-level coup. In the early days of the unrest, communication towers and water supplies were sabotaged. Agents provocateurs sent messages to the masses telling them which particular mall would soon be hit. In a country where 50 per cent of the population lives under the poverty line and the official unemployment rate is 32 per cent, messages declaring that “shopping with no money” would soon be possible fell on fertile ground....
Posts
3 comments:
Richard writes:
No idea whether the Times gets this right about South Africa, but its description has a certain resonance for the troubles here: “Taking advantage of the fanatical support for Zuma among Zulus in his heartland of KwaZulu-Natal, his acolytes effectively launched a low-level coup.”
That could have been (perhaps was) a line by the many Dem talking heads that populate most US papers: “Taking advantage of the fanatical support among Team Trump, his acolytes effective launched a low-level coup.”
Or, from the opposite perspective, it’s easy to take the same line, and use a version of it to describe the chaos last year in Portland, Chicago, Seattle, NYC, Baltimore, etc.
And then there’s the subtle tone of resignation in the face of unhappy developments, along with a certain sympathy for those responsible for the mayhem. That too is also similar to how the riots here were described in Dem-dominated media—the “mostly peaceful” stuff, all as looting was rampant and fires were burning out of control in the background.
Makes one wonder about the state of journalism in jolly old ….
Lloyd writes:
"I've got my fingers crossed that South Africa turns out OK, whatever that means exactly. Otherwise, the picture in sub-Saharan Africa is not encouraging. Setting aside the fact that whether "liberal democracy" can spread around the world remains an open question, there are opportunities for the people living in Africa that are not being developed.
"I thought the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" was a great idea. The new regime needed to make use of many people who had served the old regime, but it was also necessary to treat the "worst offenders" as criminals. This all took some investigation, testimony open to the public, etc. Adam Schiff could learn a few things. Perhaps it was always clear the Zulus would be the biggest problem--bigger in a way than whites. Given disparities not only in wealth, but in status, which ties in to self-respect, do people want to increase opportunities for the less advantaged to join the advantaged, or will they settle for tearing things down, and making the previously advantaged feel some of the fear of the previously disadvantaged?"
Jack writes:
The South Africa experience reminds me just how special the USA is. To establish and maintain a stable democratic nation state requires coalescence of several key factors (excuse me if I miss one or don’t provide the proper emphasis):
1. A tradition and strong desire for individual rights that the state cannot take away, which it can do in South Africa. The key rights include the 1sr, 2nd, and 4th amendments.
2. A moral and virtuous population that shows restraint from exploiting the loopholes of laws which are ever present. Our current constitutional crisis comes from the Marxist-inspired left dropping all restraint in pursuit of their top-down transformative aims.
3. A governmental system of checks and balances to prevent hegemony of a small and temporary majority. This is the role of the Senate filibuster.
4. Rule of law respected by the primary actors and enforced by non-corrupted judiciary and public prosecutors. This enables contracts and financial investments to grow an economy and jobs.
5. The right to bear arms. (Repeat from 1 above for emphasis) It is the critical backstop to prevent tyranny of the majority and the government.
6. Civilian control of the army and prohibition of the army being used domestically. Even the Roman Republic had this rule until Sulla broke it.
Unfortunately, South Africa never had any of these conditions FOR ALL OF ITS PEOPLE and thus was fated to major instability or revolution. What followed lacked had most of these conditions initially under Mandela but those around him soon took over and fail under all of the six conditions.
Keep in mind that so-called democracies of Western Europe fail on this list in individual rights (1st, 2nd, 4th amendments) so the government can be and is oppressive.
Post a Comment