Is it "too early to tell" whether South Africa will turn out like Zimbabwe?

Meant to get to this a month ago, it slipped my mind . . .

In this thread on a “one-state solution” for Israel/Palestine, brazil84 posted the following:

The notion SA might follow Zimbabwe’s path (dispossession and suppression of the white minority) seems preposterous to me based on what I know of SA today – but that’s all from Western media (and Dope posts), of course. The ancillary coverage during the World Cup portrayed what seemed to be a pretty harmonious society, all things considered. But politics are tempestuous and unpredictable, especially in post-colonial Africa. Are there any significant political forces in SA today that might seriously push for such a thing? I understand “One Settler, One Bullet” is a phrase from Apartheid-era activism that has not quite entirely passed out of usage.

Come to think of it, why have Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and SA turned out so differently so far? They both started in more or less the same place: A former British colony in Africa, dominated post-independence/decolonization by a white minority too numerous to be marginal which marginalized political power; and both eventually abolished that strange pseudocolonial system. And now Zim is a corrupt dictatorship and economic basket case, and SA is real democracy with a thriving (by African standards) economy. What made for the difference?

Power in Zimbabwe changed hands by a long, complicated civil war with at least three sides (whites, Mugabe, and Nkomo) and lots of destabilizing foreign intervention. Zimbabwe’s economy was never that great to begin with. Robert Mugabe is insane.

South Africa, while hardly the perfect democracy you suggest, is indeed a much better place than Zimbabwe because it did not suffer those factors–against all odds and predictions, the move away from apartheid was peaceful with an emphasis on “reconciliation”, it has a lot of natural resources and has had a diversified economy ever since the move away from gold mining, and, while Jacob Zuma is a douchebag, he is not the sole locus of political power in the country like Mugabe is, and plenty of other political figures and mundane bureaucrats are able to exert a stabilizing influence.

There are factions within the ANC that would like to see South Africa turn into a Zimbabwe-like racial dictatorship, but they are not the majority and are far more likely than not to see their goals thwarted.

I had to consult Wikipedia for the exact dates; Nelson Mandela was released in 1990 but the first elections were not held until 1994. The Apartheid system was being dismantled 22 years ago but a real new free society wasn’t being built until 18 years ago. So we’re definitely talking around 20 years ago, if a couple years shy by some measures.

Anyway, it’s a moronic comparison, obviously. A country – one with serious social and economic problems, admittedly – but a country with a functional democracy and real institutions is obviously not comparable to a place like Zimbabwe (even though Zimbabwe was, of course, successful for a while). Zimbabwe was a dictatorship, one that remained benevolent as long as its dictator’s mind remained intact and fell apart as soon as it wasn’t.

Honestly, it’s such a facially stupid comparison that it almost seems embarrassing to bother arguing it. Zimbabwe and South Africa are not really comparable, and the quote you shared gives no real reason to draw a comparison.

Is it relevant that SA was a whole lot more industrialized, while Zim was an remains an agrarian country?

By “all things considered”, do you mean “apart from all the rapes, assaults and murders”?

I dunno. High crime rates (which of course SA has had for years) seem like a fundamentally different thing than what happened in Zimbabwe. Of course SA is not Belgium, but do you really believe it’s in a similar circumstance to that of Zimbabwe?

Yes - in fact, it will always be “too early to tell”, since it could go the way of Zimbabwe ten years from now, or fifty, or a hundred…

One factor: Nelson Mandela was very serious about SA becoming a democracy. Mugabe wasn’t. Individuals matter.

Not going to happen - mostly because South Africa is not Zimbabwe. The demographics are vastly different (20% non-Black African vs 1.5% is a hell of a difference. So is 50 million people vs 10. So is everything geographic about environmentally diverse SA vs landlocked, drought-prone Zim.)
The 18 years thing is kind of a red herring, anyway - South Africa hasn’t really been a colony, like Zimbabwe was before UDI, since 1910. 1961 if you want to be a pedant, but 1910 is more relevant. It wasn’t a full democracy, but that really isn’t pertinent, IMO.
I must admit, I do find the whole issue of South Africa’s future a useful shibboleth on this board…

“All things considered - for a country that managed to not break out into full-on civil war despite generations of racial oppression” would be my interpretation, actually. Anyway, South Africa’s crime stats are constantly getting better, year-by-year. Not great, especially on the rape front, but better than the last decades.

Indeed, and, no doubt, one day things in Zimbabwe will improve.

Things change, and different countries are subject to different historical contingencies. There is no law of history that says that former colonies, or states formerly organized on racist principles, must fail within about 20 years of gaining independence or establishing equal civil rights. To suggest otherwise is itself based on nothing but racism.

A considerable amount of the white population has left South Africa since the end of apartheid. And then there is the issue of farm attacks which has to be one of the most underreported news stories:

This.

The United States COULD have turned out a lot worse if George Washington had been a power-hungry douchebag. As it turns out, for all his faults, Washington was an utterly dedicated, truly honest devotee of democracy. So it didn’t turn out badly.

Zimbabwe had a douchebag at the helm. Botswana, right next door, had a stateman at its helm when it gained independence, and so it turned out okay.

Individuals can and do change the course of history; the fate of a country is not an unstoppable force of nature.

Yes, there’s no doubt that South Africa has a terrible violent crime problem, and SOME factions within the government look the other way on black-on-white crime, but the difference in degree between that and Zimbabwe is so immense that it would be willfully deceitful to pretend there’s an equivalency.

The great difference being that a South African can go into the town square, proclaim all these problems openly, blame them on Jacob Zuma - and be perfectly fine thereafter. Such an action in Zim is much, much less healthy.

For anyone who cares, this was discussed [. I’m tempted to participate, but I still remember how mad MrDibble was. (:

In fact, OP, you even asked the [URL=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13785181&postcount=54”]very same question](Will South Africa go the way of Zimbabwe? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board):

[A better question would be: Why didn’t Zimbabwe go the way of South Africa? They started out in almost exactly the same place, after they abolished their white-only governments.
[/QUOTE]
"]

]([QUOTE=BrainGlutton;13785181)

I will say (again) that South Africa isn’t as rosy as the OP paints it to be, but South Africa and Zimbabwe are two very different states with two very different histories. Do you also make threads asking why Italy and Poland are so different?

Jeepers, has it been a year already? Time for the annual “bullshit about farm attacks” run, I see.

:rolleyes:Not because you got your arse handed to you, or anything…

I think this post from that previous thread covers my points again nicely:

PUH LEEZE.

(:

We agreed about some major points and I feel you were sensitive to my criticism of your home country.

But to answer the OP, let’s just gather 'round and say it loud:

NO.