I would say it’s too early to tell if ZA will go the same way. Recall that it took Zimbabwe 20 years or so to hit its tipping point.
Corruption, incompetence, little respect for the rule of law, racial hatred being stirred up, the usual stuff.
not really - Zim was pretty much a one party state up until recently. Here, there are growing signs of a split in the major coalition of ANC-Unions-Communist Party, and the opposition parties, while overshadowed by the ruling party, are not completely silent.
Zim economy was heavily dependent on agriculture (especially tobacco) - SA is a lot more diversified in its economic portfolio.
SA has much larger minority groups, and also much greater tribal diversity than Zim.
Can’t say what it was like in Zim until recently, but we have an active press & news media.
We’re just bigger over all, with a diversity of land types and cultures that I don’t see in Zim. That’ll help, I think.
's a little patriarchal, I think, to go “Aah, one African country is pretty much like another”. That’s just not true.
Because of the government’s attempt to redistribute farm land from white owned to black owned without any regard to the skills and assets needed to make the transition work. South Africa feeds it’s neighbors and the collapse of productivity will lead to internal and external unrest.
The impression I get is that it’s entirely personal.
OK, what about the African countries that are not South Africa? Africa’s a big continent, surely one or six of the other countries there could combine to force Mugabe’s hand.
I agree and I would like to add as well that if you’ve ever been to Zimbabwe or most other African countries you will immediately see the vast difference between them and South Africa. Even at it’s best Zimbabwe was a fairly poor country. It was “successful” in the sense that the people weren’t starving and there was no violence but it had nowhere near the prosperity and development of SA. If you drive through Zimbabwe you will see how rural the country is.
Zim has 2 major cities which at their best are about the size of one of our medium towns. They’ve never had major industry, mining or exports. In fact it was very easy to slip into the level of anarchy that they have today. This is also true of a lot of other African countries. The line separating “success” and failure is thin. Countries like Kenya and Sierra Leone were also held up to be examples to the continent but changed virtually overnight.
South Africa on the other hand is a lot more like a western developed country in all aspects. Yes there are areas that are rural and where there is trouble but that is true of most countries. The rest of the country is generally prosperous and on the right path. To change that to the same extent as Zimbabwe would, I believe, be extremely unlikely to happen. Despite a lot of people’s view (and a lot of people here believe it as well) SA is much stronger in all ways, political and economic, than most other African countries by an order of magnitude.
Both these statements are ignorant. Perhaps because of what you see in the media you paint all African countries with the same brush. But you have to realise the VAST differences between South Africa and most of the rest of the continent. Imagine comparing a small rural farming town and a big city like New York - that is the same as comparing Zim with SA. I’m not talking about comparing the stats on paper - I’m talking about physically going there.
To stretch my analogy a bit. Imagine you compare crime rates, prosperity etc… between the small town and the city. In some case the city will be better (economic?) and in some cases the town will be better (crime?). Now you conclude that the two places are about equal on the balance and are both equally robust to withstand external changes. But this is very far from true. A simple drought or flood could wipe out the town overnight but it would take much more than that to wipe out the city.
That is the same difference between Zim and SA. Land redistribution in Zim was done with violence and the farmers with the skills to produce food fled the country. Now half the country is starving. Land redistribution in SA was done legally with full compensation to the farmers and the skills were retained. And even if there were problems we are not wholly reliant on farming for food. We are a secondary and tertiary economy and it would not have thrown the country into anarchy and starvation.
Yes there is corruption in SA. But to compare our levels of corruption to other African countries is ludicrous. In some countries that I have visited, like Zim and Mozambique, the border guards get almost no salary and are expected to supplement their income with bribes and confiscating merchandise from travellers. This is a government policy. You cannot speak to a government minister without paying for the meeting. The cops expect to be bribed because that is how they pay the bills. It is as unlikely to happen here in SA as it is in America or Europe. Yes the odd bad apple exist but it is not tolerated and certainly not tacitly allowed.
It is all a matter of perspective. Yes SA is nowhere near American levels of prosperity and development but the difference between us and America is much less than the difference between us and Zim. If America is a shiny red Ferrrari, SA is a VW Golf GTi. Not nearly as good but not so shit you won’t drive it. Zim on the other hand is a horse and cart.
Simply not true, alas.
Sample cite: ‘Taking from whites is not a crime in SA’. And those Zimbabwean farms are really productive now, aren’t they?
Further reading here and here. Note that the author of the second piece emigrated from South Africa to America.
I would urge all white South Africans to have at least an exit strategy.
America on the brink of anarchy.
See how I did that. Selectively quoted from a subjective piece of writing that has nothing to do with the issue.
Your linked articles are firstly, misleading and secondly, in fact, confirm my point. Taking from whites IS a crime, just as taking from blacks is a crime. Your article however states that some youth leader made a controversial statement regarding the fact that it is NOT a crime. Should a controversial statement on America being on the brink of anarchy be taken as gospel that America IS indeed on the brink of anarchy. Of course not.
Your other article talks about Africa in general and SPECIFICALLY excludes South Africa by saying SA is the only country in the region with the " capital, technological and professional resources". I agree with a lot of what this article says about Africa and its failure to succeed.
Your third article is simply a personal opinion. I happen to agree with quite a lot of what he says as well although I think he is unnecessarily harsh. It is also entirely subjective and totally inconsequential to my argument.
You are completely missing the point. I don’t think you quite grasp the difference between SA and the rest of the continent. It is difficult to explain without someone seeing it for themselves. I have travelled extensively in Africa for over 15 years now. I have been to Zimbabwe maybe 30 times. I lived across the border for many years. I have been to Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya, Zaire, the DRC and many other countries in Africa. I have also been to many other countries in the world. I am STILL surprised at the standard of living in some African countries. I am STILL amazed at the lack of development. I am astonished how primitive and rural most Africans are, even in their “big” cities.
Comparing SA to them is the same as comparing Hong Kong to Myanmar or America to Peru. The differences are vast and cannot be realised by reading a few articles and thinking that you know the countries.
No, it’s really not that difficult to grasp what you are saying. What you are saying is that your country has a functioning civil infrastructure and theirs does not. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Excuse me? The piece I quoted was everything to do with the issue. And the article was objective - reporting fact, not opinion. And modern, not from 15 years ago.
I disagree: the first shows the contempt for the rule of law. Remind me of the crime rates in South Africa, again? Tell me that a lone woman can safely walk the streets at night. As for the other two, I do not see how you reach that conclusion. And you call the articles misleading: you must have applied the techniques of Chomsky or Monbiot to reach that conclusion.
Oh but I do. I see progress being made in Uganda, Nigeria, and Ghana, for instance, just as I see Zimbabwe and South Africa sliding downhill. I hope you are correct; I expect and fear that you are not. I expect and fear that the whites will be chased out or slaughtered, as happenned in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe had a functioning civil infrastructure too.
I think that’s a real danger in South Africa. Seems to me there’s an opening for some black demagogue to obtain and maintain power on a “get whitey” platform; institute confiscatory and persecutory policies; and start the country down the same road that Zimbabwe followed.
I apologise for coming over too aggressive and snarky. I feel that people who lump SA in with the rest of Africa and expect it to spiral into chaos any second have no real understanding of the country and do not realise just how different it is to the rest of Africa. I do however disagree that your articles linked report fact.
The first article does not deal with contempt for law. It deals with a person advocating contempt for the law. That is not the same thing. And it was widely criticised. And the person in question is no one particularly important and that article can hardly be said to be a reflection on SA society in general. I’m sure that needs no explanation. Yes the crime rates in South Africa are high. But once again you can’t compare it with the rest of Africa. We actually KEEP statistics and report on it. Most other African countries you can’t even tell what the crime rate is. Not to mention that there is little left to steal.
The second article confirms what I am saying about the differences between SA and the rest of Africa.
And the third article is definitely subjective. It is one person’s impression of Africa and Africans and his OPINION on what should be done (nothing , in this case). It is certainly not fact and there is a good case to be made that it is racist propaganda. I fail to see how anyone reading that article can believe it to be fact. Basically he’s saying there’s no hope for Africa and they should just be left to fend for themselves. That might or might not be the case (and that would be another discussion) but it does not answer the question of whether South Africa is
How do you see South Africa sliding backwards?
Yes, pretty much what I am saying. If all you have is a few mud huts there is not a lot to break down. If you have a huge castle it becomes a bit more difficult. (I’m not saying they live in mud huts - I am using hyperbole to make a point.)
Without repeating myself too often - it’s not the same thing. Comparing Zim and SA is like comparing a horse and cart to a modern car.
Yes there is theoretically some danger in that. It is possible. However, I believe it to be unlikely. In 1994 many white South Africans stocked up on supplies and bullets expecting a civil war to come. It didn’t happen (but it could easily have). When Mandela left and Mbeki came in it could possibly have happened again. As time goes on it becomes less likely, not more likely. There is a growing black middle class in this country that are as intent on making this country work as anyone has ever been.
In many African countries (Zimbabwe being one) there has never been a real middle class. There have been poor people, the ruling class and the Europeans. The ruling class tellthe poor people it is the Europeans fault and they kick them out. Then it gets worse and the poor start thinking maybe they should be the ruling class. Yes it is an oversimplification but essentially that is what happens. In SA none of that has happened and is unlikely to happen.
And as I say you really can’t grasp the significant differences between Zim and SA.
Sorry, missed edit window.
To finish my sentence - it does not answer the question of whether South Africa is likely to go the route of Zimbabwe or any other African country.
One laast thing. What do you consider progress? In Uganda the peace talks have broken down after 2 years and the country is in civil war. Nigeria is constantly under attack by militant groups about their oil fields and it will take them years to recover form the havoc caused by president Obasanjo.
I’ll concede you Ghana but would invite you to visit them and us and then decide where you would rather live. I can comfortably bet you there will be no comparison.
I don’t know how likely it is, and probably you don’t either. A lot of differences have been cited in this thread between South Africa and Zimbabwe. Without solid historical precedent, it’s difficult to assess how important such differences may or may not be.
My understanding of modern-day [de]Rhodesia[/del] Zimbabwe is that Mugabe was actually not a bad choice of person to lead the country in the years following independence. He was well-educated, and was hailed as a hero by many Africans
It was only later, when he started to go Mad With Power™, that the country started to go pear shaped and he started to Blame Whitey for the country’s problems. (We know another Dictator who thought he could blame a minority for the country’s problems, don’t we kids?)
Personally, I think the solution is a UN Intervention, but with some teeth- ie, rules of engagement that allow them to actually shoot people who pose a threat and so on.