# Will South Africa go the way of Zimbabwe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2011, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248 "2011-05-09T09:08:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/201 "2011-05-14T20:07:06Z")
Damn it. My numbers in my previous post are fucked. Well, I usually know how to count, so excuse the, 1., 2., 2., 3 numbering. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/202 "2011-05-14T20:14:30Z")
- sorry ☚ Wrong thread. mods, okay to delete? _sheepish_ ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/203 "2011-05-14T23:15:25Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > \ > > If these links are considered to be biased then I can find you others. No, I’m not arguing with your links. I just wanted to establish if I understood you correctly. When I asked “Are you similarly in favour of getting rid of all the people of European ancestry in those countries [US, Canada, Australia]?” and you answered “No more in favor than Sarkozy is in favor of kicking out the gypsies and banning burkas; or more than Europe is in favor of kicking out the evil Muslims,” your answer meant in effect “Yes”? > [@](#): > > South Africa is trying to get rid of foreigners. Although not to the extent that Europe is. And the foreigners in Africa have done _far greater damage_. How do you define “foreigner” in such a way that it doesn’t include, well, most of the world’s population? Need I point out that the Bantu-speaking peoples who make up 80% of South Africa’s population are themselves descended from conquerors who settled South Africa during the first millennium AD? I also object to your use of the word “foreigner” in that it surely implies having some connection to a foreign country. Afrikaners, in general, have no social or legal or cultural connection to the Netherlands, except that it’s where their ancestors came from. (This is admittedly less true of Anglo-South Africans.) (I _also_ object to the word on a personal, emotional level, but I’m trying not to draw that in here.) What I really don’t understand is that you seem to be saying that Africa trying to get rid of “foreigners” is good, but Europe trying to get rid of “foreigners” is bad. My position is that it’s wrong either way, which seems more consistent. > [@](#): > > Yeah, that’s the point. Your ancestors were on the conquering side. > > See, here’s the problem. > > \ > > So when the children of European settlers say “otherwise you could iterate indefinitely back into history trying to redress earlier and earlier injustices” this absolutely _reeks_ of “we conquered the world but we don’t want to give anything back”. I tried to acknowledge this in my post; but does it actually affect the validity of the argument? Basically it’s an _ad hominem_. I’m not arguing that colonisation and apartheid was OK; but I am saying that at some point you have to accept the status quo and do what you can to redress the situation within that. > [@](#): > > No, that’s not what I’m talking about. > > I’m talking more about what China and India did. On a side note: Africa should get more control of its resources and leverage this to keep the next round of invaders at bay - China. Africa is in for yet another massive round of exploitation, this time by China, and few see it coming. So this is my problem: I don’t really know what you’re actually proposing. What do you actually think South Africa should be doing? ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/204 "2011-05-15T00:28:12Z")
Re **CitizenPained** : I don’t really understand the way you’re using the word “legitimate”. I mean, the ANC won 65% of the vote in a free and fair election - and the 2009 election had a turnout of nearly 80% of registered voters. (The number of votes cast does amount to slightly less than half the population of South Africa; but then about 40% of the population is below the voting age of 18.) I don’t think the ANC is running the government well, in general, but not every _bad_ government is an _illegitimate_ government. But this is really pointless semantic bickering. You wrote quite a bit about checks and balances, and the ability of the government to take away the liberties of the citizen. But you seem to be unaware of the extent to which checks and balances are present in South Africa’s system of government. Although South Africa is a parliamentary system, it does not have the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy; the actions of Parliament and the administration are subject to the Constitution, including an extensive Bill of Rights. The courts, and the Constitutional Court in particular, have been quite active in defending human rights, and willing to overturn actions of the government. A recent example would be _[Glenister v President of the Republic](http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/glenister-a-monumental-judgment-in-defence-of-the-poor/)_, in which the court overturned the government’s political decision to merge an independent anti-corruption unit into the police. That was not about individual rights _per se_, but for an example of that once could look at the gay marriage decision (_Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs_), which MrDibble mentioned above. You also questioned the willingness of the ANC to hand over power should it lose an election. All the evidence we have - the Cape Town municipal election in 2006, the Western Cape provincial election in 2009 - suggests that they will. Let’s refer to your quote: > [@](#): > > Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a “tyranny of the majority” in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights. South Africa has such protections, as I have mentioned above. > [@](#): > > An essential part of an “ideal” representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[15] and procedurally.[16] Yup. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press Yes, yes, and yes. > [@](#): > > are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[19] This is more subjective, but I’d say South Africa has this too. Incidentally, to answer your question about parliamentary systems with merged head-of-government and head-of-state, if my information is correct the other countries that have this system are: Botswana, the Marshall Islands, and Nauru. Also Switzerland, sort of, in that the Federal Council collectively is head of state and of government. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/205 "2011-05-15T01:43:42Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > **Orcenio** , if you want to play that game, will you at least do it right? Don’t take two quotes sand put them next to each other as though they have a relation. No game; your misuse of the same terms is relation enough. > [@](#): > > 1. In response to how I quantified a policy as being a failure: In going over your posts I’ve discovered that you haven’t yet used the term “failed state.” You referred to South Africa, the ANC, polices/laws, etc as failures, failing (or have failed). However I can’t find a quote with you using the exact term “failed state;” maybe it was implied, but not wrote. I stand on the point, but should’ve gotten a better quote. > [@](#): > > 1. But if you _want_ to talk about where I addressed the possibility of South Africa becoming a failed state, well, since you favor[Wik](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state), here’s a few things for you to chew on: > If that entry was suitable, there’s also a “Failed States Index” where South Africa is at “Warning”. > > Is that better for you? 😕 Not at all. Your quote of my citation doesn’t serve an example of you proving anything, nor does the listing of South Africa ([along with half the globe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Failed-states-index-loop-2010.gif)) as “warning” prove that it is a failed state. [QUOTE=CitizenPained] 2. On party monopoly of government: But will it become a literal one party state? What did I say? I expressed concern about the ANC’s legislative agenda. I said _in the idea that_, as in, ‘when you look at it this way’. I could’ve just called it an oligarchy. Sorry. But I did clarify my statement. More than a few times. Want to put democracy to the test? Let’s see if the ANC will cede any power. 😉 [/QUOTE] South Africa is not an [oligarchy](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligarchy) at all. The supreme power is [vested in the people](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy). You are simply using these words incorrectly. I have yet to decide if it is willful or ignorance. > [@](#): > > Clearly we have a [dominate-party system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system) right now. Here’s a list of other African states with [dominant party systems](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system#Africa). Some of them are in not so good shape. Good job, I see you have corrected yourself. Dominant-party system is the correct term to use for South Africa, not single-party system. There is no problem with using that term. > [@](#): > > 1. On legitimacy and how it relates to tyranny of majority: What’s your problem with this statement? I outlined my positions on _legitimacy_ a few times, because I said the world had a hard time of viewing the ANC as legitimate. Legitimate and illegitimate are technical opposites, but there’s a grey area. I gave so many reasons why…it’s been nearly every post. 😕 The world does not have a hard time viewing the ANC as legitimate. South Africa is a democracy and the ANC’s legitimacy comes directly from winning free and open elections regularly held in that country. There is no confusion as to whether the ANC led government currently speaks for the South African people. They do. This was not the case with either Rhodesia or (currently) Libya > [@](#): > > People in the U.S. have argued (rightfully so) that certain precedents or laws in the United States set up a case for legitimacy of government. When they are violated, it weakens the checks and balances system - our greatest democratic asset. Bush v. Gore, Guantanamo Bay, Nixon, and the 9/11 Commission are all examples of _actions_ by a government (or branch thereof) that threatened the legitimacy of the United States government. > > But those things have all been addressed (and still are being addressed and figured out) by citizens and government because this is a country in which citizens, should they choose to exercise it, have a strong hold on government power. They _are_ the government. > > When citizens and their government overreach themselves and inflict danger on the liberties of others, it is expected that SCOTUS will intervene when they have breached our social contract. Sometimes it takes awhile (e.g., Civil Rights movement), but there’s a method for rejecting tyranny of government. > > omg, did i JUST SAY TYRANNY? Wtf does [tyranny of government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority) mean?! It’s a criticism of what can happen in a democracy (you know, like when it becomes and oligarchy). Please learn the definitions of those words you use; I don’t think you are purposely doing this. It’s simply ignorance. “Tyranny of the majority” (often termed [Ochlocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy)) is opposite of “Tyranny of the minority” ([oligarchy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligocracy)). Do not use a mix of these terms to describe South Africa. 1. They’re all incorrect. 2. It’s simply confusing. > [@](#): > > 1. On democracy: > > Democracy is a tricky topic. The definition is wide enough that one democracy is another country’s illegitimate power. So when we talk about _democracy_ in a country, a good way to measure that is by viewing _democracy in action_, or when the citizens can change the status quo without violence. (A very odd example of how a state can be democracy and still have _the rejection of democratic principles by the majority_ is Puerto Rico not wanting to be a U.S. state.) > > We’ve had this convo here before. Is the U.S. a democracy? Well, literally, it’s a democratic Constitutional republic. :eek: Okay. But does it have the principles of democracy? Yes. > > Does Iran have the principles of democracy? Well, technically. But the only way to measure it is to look at[governmental processes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy). > > Clearly, _my_ view of democracy is of a system that protects natural rights. > Now, South Africa’s government is a far cry from direct democracy. Okay, we don’t have one either, but we also don’t have a system in which a party runs on its platform and\* then\* places people in power with no oversight. Many parliamentary systems have placed rules in place to ensure that their head of state is known by the people. :eek: > \*\* > Is South Africa’s [government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_South_Africa) democratic? Yes in some ways and no in others. But it is it a _stable_ democracy? I argue **no** , for two main reasons:\*\* > > 1.) The power of the government to take away the liberties of its citizens (tyranny of majority) > 2.) Its 17 year history of being a system in which one party has majority power and rule that has yet to find a way to get itself out of the mess it was in when it started. > > ^^ Youngest democracies are the most unstable ones. South Africa is noooo exception. It the only parliamentary system in the world (that I know of - I welcome corrections so we can do some comparative analysis here) where the head of government and the head of state are combined. :eek: > > These are political science ideas. They do change a little over time and some applications cannot always be set in stone. However, the phrases I used were completely in line with any political science classroom in the United States that values itself to be above Mickey Mouse University. > > Now that you have had some fun playing Webster, do you want to actually discuss _political science_ or not? Thanks, but I’d rather not play Alice. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/206 "2011-05-15T03:04:18Z")
I don’t understand you. I never said South Africa is a failed state. I may argue for ogliarchy, though. Tyranny of the majority? I said it could happen — just like tyranny _by_ the majority is happening now. You can say, “It’s a democracy!” all you want, but that doesn’t mean state policies aren’t racist or elitist or corrupt. _shrug_ I see you have had nothing to say on the proposed bills by ANC. 😉 You can fight over semantics all you want with ‘neener neener’ and ‘not uhhhh’ but that doesn’t mean anything. Show cites. Make a case. At least I’ve done that. But the pro ANC-ers in this thread? Nah. You want to support a racist and corrupt government, be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/207 "2011-05-15T03:14:07Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > No game; your misuse of the same terms is relation enough.In going over your posts I’ve discovered that you haven’t yet used the term “failed state.” You referred to South Africa, the ANC, polices/laws, etc as failures, failing (or have failed). However I can’t find a quote with you using the exact term “failed state;” maybe it was implied, but not wrote. I stand on the point, but should’ve gotten a better quote. Not at all. Your quote of my citation doesn’t serve an example of you proving anything, nor does the listing of South Africa ([along with half the globe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Failed-states-index-loop-2010.gif)) as “warning” prove that it is a failed state. South Africa is not an [oligarchy](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligarchy) at all. The supreme power is [vested in the people](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy). You are simply using these words incorrectly. I have yet to decide if it is willful or ignorance.Good job, I see you have corrected yourself. Dominant-party system is the correct term to use for South Africa, not single-party system. There is no problem with using that term. > > The world does not have a hard time viewing the ANC as legitimate. South Africa is a democracy and the ANC’s legitimacy comes directly from winning free and open elections regularly held in that country. There is no confusion as to whether the ANC led government currently speaks for the South African people. They do. This was not the case with either Rhodesia or (currently) LibyaPlease learn the definitions of those words you use; I don’t think you are purposely doing this. It’s simply ignorance. “Tyranny of the majority” (often termed [Ochlocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy)) is opposite of “Tyranny of the minority” ([oligarchy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligocracy)). Do not use a mix of these terms to describe South Africa. 1. They’re all incorrect. 2. It’s simply confusing.Thanks, but I’d rather not play Alice. Right. Okay. So, one party has the majority of the state’s wealth (and that includes their party operatives.) They advocate violence against whites. They have racist policies. They have yet to fix things, so they keep blaming it one white people. Anyway, can you get me some cites on what other governments have a government like South Africa’s? I’ve never heard…but again…I’d like to see how they run it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/208 "2011-05-15T16:38:52Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I said it wasn’t a successful one. …and I demolished that argument with concrete numbers that you didn’t actually adequately respond to. South Africa is a successful democracy just as much, if not more so, than the US or any other democracy you care to mention. > [@](#): > > I’ve been going on for two pages. “Going on” is right. > [@](#): > > Yeah, because we can change things and our system makes it hard for government to squash the wee wuns. Our system is even better. We have reps from more than just two parties in parliament, for instance. Could you say the same? And call me when gays have the same rights as straights, nationally. Then you can tell me about who is getting squashed. > [@](#): > > What about all the farmers in the past that never got paid?! In South Africa? You have numbers on that? or are you referring to all those _Black_ farmers who were driven off their land? Because they didn’t get any money AFAIK. > [@](#): > > Tough? That’s your attitude? Blame it on whitey? “Blame it on some whites”, sure. That’s not the same thing as your hyperbole. > [@](#): > > :p:p:p Blame it on whites that most of the country is in poverty? Yes. Definitely several legacies of Apartheid there. South Africa is measurably better-off economically than it was at the end of Apartheid, and things had been going downhill for a while there, at the end. > [@](#): > > That the poorest and most desperate are the ones who have not seen ANY change? No-one in this country has seen no change. No-one! For one thing, they can vote now. For another, they can live where they want. > [@](#): > > Who is running the show now, eh? 100% of the people, not 9% > [@](#): > > Your F U rhetoric is weak. You don’t even have sources. Sources for what? I can back up anything you care to question. > [@](#): > > At this point, I’m feeling so anti ANC right now that I’d do anything to get the weasels out of office. You could emigrate here, and then vote against them. That’s kind of how \*we \*do it. You know, in a democracy. I’m afraid we leave the regime change to…other countries nowadays. > [@](#): > > If they want to terrorize people, send them to Zimbabwe. The ANC doesn’t make a habit of “terrorizing” anyone, actually. Sure, Malema has some rhetoric, but really - he’s hardly “the ANC”, he isn’t even in elective office. > [@](#): > > Democracy at its finest. :dubious:Links? [Links!](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5624419) > [@](#): > > How is that democracy? Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? Democracy! > [@](#): > > _Forcing_ someone to ‘sell’ you land is _not_ libertie ! Liberty and democracy are not synonyms. White farmers used to have the “liberty” to have entire productive swathes of the country declared white-only. That wasn’t democracy, though. > [@](#): > > This Just In: The ANC, our democratic jewel of South Africa, is spewing violent anti-white rhetoric and racist policy while filling its own coffers with international aid $$. Vote for ANC if you like a good stick up your ass cause you know we do! Ummm, are you aware how insane you sound in this little paragraph? Anyway, as I’ve already said, I don’t support the ANC, and I encourage people to vote for other parties. Because that’s how we democracies roll. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/209 "2011-05-15T16:49:07Z")
Interesting factoid: the White ethnicity is currently the[fastest-growing one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_African#Current_trends) in South Africa. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/210 "2011-05-15T18:57:17Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > If that entry was suitable, there’s also a “Failed States Index” where South Africa is at “Warning”. Tcha - the same rating as Brazil, a better rating than India or China, Mexico or Turkey. Hell, the only countries that make it to “sustainable” on the failed states index are Canada, Australia and a bunch of Euro-states like Denmark and Norway and Finland. You do realise that the FSI is a risk indicator, not a descriptive classification of current status, right? I mean, the USA is at “moderate” risk there too. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/211 "2011-05-15T19:03:35Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Need I point out that the Bantu-speaking peoples who make up 80% of South Africa’s population are themselves descended from conquerors who settled South Africa during the first millennium AD? Prove it. Prove they didn’t take over simply by outcompeting for resources (which is not the same thing as conquest). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/212 "2011-05-15T19:09:31Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I don’t understand you. I never said South Africa is a failed state. Noooo! Never! :rolleyes: You just the word “failed” in relation to it several times, then pointed at its staus in the FSI with a knowing wink. Let me ask you a question: have you ever been to South Africa? ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/213 "2011-05-15T19:40:00Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Prove it. Prove they didn’t take over simply by outcompeting for resources (which is not the same thing as conquest). I agree that there’s a very clear qualitative difference between a slow progressive migration down the continent over the course of centuries, and a sudden settlement carried by sea from another continent. I would call them both conquests, though of different type. But it’s really a semantic issue, and I certainly wouldn’t ascribe to them the same moral status or acceptability. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/214 "2011-05-15T23:35:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > .. > > South Africa is measurably better-off economically than it was at the end of Apartheid, and things had been going downhill for a while there, at the end. That’s because economic sanctions were lifted. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/215 "2011-05-16T02:19:36Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Interesting factoid: the White ethnicity is currently the[fastest-growing one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_African#Current_trends) in South Africa. This happens all over. Minorities are always trying to breed themselves into a position of power. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/216 "2011-05-16T05:44:39Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > That’s because economic sanctions were lifted. Economic sanctions only really kicked in from mid-eighties. The Apartheid economy was going down _before_ that. From at least 1980, more likely from the '76 uprisings. Not that that’s relevant, as the economic sanctions were as a result of that government’s policies, so definitely counts. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/217 "2011-05-16T05:46:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This happens all over. Minorities are always trying to breed themselves into a position of power. 😛 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/218 "2011-05-16T15:35:18Z")
Look, as I understand it, there are really only three things wrong with South Africa today: AIDS, poverty, and crime. The crime problem stems partly from the old police forces having been disbanded after Apartheid was abolished, so it took time to train up new forces; but mainly from post-Apartheid SA having become such an attractive destination for immigrants, many of them dodgy, from all over southern Africa. (Because SA is a poor country by Western standards but a rich one by African standards.) Is there a fourth? And what does any of this have to do with Zimbabwe? ---
**Author:** ![Saffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saffer/32/6440_2.png) [@Saffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saffer)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/219 "2011-05-16T18:53:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And what does any of this have to do with Zimbabwe? Is this a serious question?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248/220 "2011-05-16T19:33:49Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Interesting factoid: the White ethnicity is currently the[fastest-growing one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_African#Current_trends) in South Africa. Only after a fairly long period of decline proportionally and possibly even numerically. A similar trend it should be noted was seen in Russia’s population. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-south-africa-go-the-way-of-zimbabwe/581248.md?page=12)