:dubious: But I didn’t claim that whites were being hounded out of the country. So you should probably address your points to a relevant statement. Mkay? Then you won’t shift your goalposts anymore.
South Africa is a very very young ‘democracy’. It’s not successful until its withstood some time. Land reform (the original topic here) has already failed. You wanna talk about shifting goalposts? What’s the new deadline now? 2025? 2030?
The United States considered the governments of China, Iran, and _____ countries to be legitimate in the sense that they are the ones in control, but not legitimate as a form of democracy; no. Please see my post in response to Marley because I feel like I could just copy + paste instead of retype.
The problem is that what you said to me is wrong, and your use of the word legitimate is idiosyncratic, as far as I can tell. That’s why I said you should use a different word. South Africa is a democracy. One party has been in charge since apartheid ended, but other parties exist, and I’m not aware of parties being outlawed or about any kind of rampant voter fraud. They’re holding on to power through legitimate elections. So again, you need to use another word instead of redefining “legitimate.” They have some major problems, and they have a long way to go in addressing AIDS, rape, and poverty, which is hardly surprising. That doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate government. If you think it’s a bad government, just say that.
[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
We’ll see what this government cooks up. But kicking white folk out isn’t the short answer.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say you had, I addressed the notion (pertinent to a comparison of Zimbabwe and SA) of white people being hounded out of the country. I gave (anecdotal) evidence that South Africa is white-friendly, insofar as white people I know are choosing to make lives for themselves over there. Those people believe South Africa has a bright future.
You scoffed at the notion that this was indicative of South Africa being a ‘legitimate’ state and you made comparisons to Mexico. However, if SA didn’t have a legitimate government I doubt migrants would flock there the way they do from Europe and the rest of Africa. They don’t deal with the government, they have to live under it, and they choose to live under it.
In that context I think she meant white people being forced off their farms.
If i was forced off my harm I’d feel like I was being hounded out of the country. 
My turn :dubious:
One last time: the land reform process* is still ongoing*, and will be for some time. so please, tell me,** by what objective measure do you say it has failed**?
…and you’re counting South Africa in with them because…
why the fuck, exactly? Be specific.
She said kicked, not hounded. Those are, like, totally unrelated terms!
Indeed. I should point out that although the ANC has had a majority in the National Assembly since 1994, there are two provinces whose legislatures have been controlled by other parties. Currently one province - the Western Cape - is controlled by the Democratic Alliance, and indeed the ANC has never obtained a majority in that province. Cape Town, South Africa’s second city, is also controlled by the DA, as are a number of rural municipalities.
Right. There are plenty of large American cities that have been ruled by our Democratic Party for decades, with no signs of change in the near future. Are these cities no longer democracies? No - the voters simply prefer Democratic Party rule. One might think that this isn’t the best choice, simply on the grounds that uninterrupted stretched of power can be corrosive - but it’s nonetheless been freely made by the people.
fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuckagery!!
If I do that, will my point get stronger?
My objective measure is simple:
Government sets out to do ABC using 123 method. 123 method was not as effective as hoped and ABC was not implemented.
If I fail an exam, I fail an exam. It does not mean I won’t pass the class eventually. It just means I failed.
This article says what every other one has in terms of data:
Here’s an opinion article (yes, opinion) that echoes some of the same concerns I’ve had. Re: ANC: it’s the concern of any democracy-loving citizen of the world.
I don’t understand the purpose of your posts. You compared South Africa’s government with that of other states with the “What do you call this?” game. I responded. I’m sorry you didn’t catch that.
But if those who support the party are almost always put into power by the ANC and the South African government is riddled with bureaucracy and big promises, do you not see the disconnect?
You’re talking about federal policy where ANC supporters are rewarded with really big jobs. So if it’s been 15 years+ since the new government, what exactly is going wrong here?
What does the ANC promise? What does it stand for? What are the goals?
The ANC is a party of charm, no doubt. But can it deliver? So far, it has been questionable.
I am not a glossy-eyed revolutionary. I am not a foreign policy idealist. I just look at how things are, how they were projected to be, what went wrong, and how we are at the current state and what the potential is for the future.
Political parties go through change. Like I pointed out, the “Republican Party” used to be “The Party of Lincoln”. It takes awhile for the voters to catch on that sometimes a party drifts and never returns. Here, I doubt the Republican party will see an abandonment of the religious right for a long, long time.
'tis all.
//cough
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that that’s the state of many places in America today. :dubious:
Even if a government seeks to deny natural rights to a minority population, that government still has to answer to its citizens (in social contract philosophy). I’m sure I’m speaking from a US-centric political science bias here, but it’s kind of a big deal.
The ANC has been promising South Africa a lot for a long time. They don’t have ‘the other party’ to blame.
So far, the majority of the population is satisfied with what the ANC has been able to deliver. Some percentage of the population isn’t satisfied, and they have elected other parties to power in a few states. This seems like a democracy in action, one that is faced with many difficult problems to solve. It’s not clear how you get from that to a failed state.
:dubious: So the 65 per cent who voted ANC in the last election were all satisfied or didn’t think they had an alternative? I’m not satisfied with the Democratic party of the last 10 years, but I still vote for them.
Besides, I said the new South African land reform model has been a failure. That has nothing to do with how I feel about the ANC, though I’d offer up the notion that the ANC has been largely responsible. 
Like I said, who do they point the blame to?
If I were a South African, I’d probably be more inclined to vote for the Democratic Alliance. I suppose I should disclose that. I also come from a US-centric perspective: I’d hate to live in a country where I couldn’t elect my president.
Anyway, nothing you said negates the fact that land reform hasn’t worked. If you want to be an ANC apologist, I suppose that’s your business.
I admit I didn’t really know that until I looked it up. It sounds like South Africa now is similar to Mexico or Japan in decades past: one party is definitely in charge, but it’s not a one-party system. Since it’s a young democracy there’s reason to think it will change.
I hope so. It’s a one party system in the idea that it’s federally controlled by one party and it’s also a parliamentary(ish) system. The major ruling party (the ANC) gets to hand-pick the President. I understand the rationale for the major levels of government (it’s an extremely diverse nation) but I’m not sure how it will play out. Arguments of non-ANC controlled areas are that the ANC dismisses the rights and needs of the areas it does not have power…when it claims to be the people’s party. :dubious:
One of the major criticisms of the ANC (at least when I was an undergrad in a foreign policy class 4 years ago) is that the people who have pulled ahead in society are its party officials. Never mind the Socialist ties of the party; it’s corrupt and in charge.
Since it’s a young democracy, I’d be hard pressed to call it a success at this point.
What you have described is not “failing an exam”, it’s “taking longer to write it than you said you would”. Since the government is also the examiner and can extend its own deadlines, that’s hardly failure. Now, if there was some World Bank deadline or something that was missed, then you can talk about failure. Or if they give up the whole process, which they haven’t yet done. Or if the government gets voted out because of missing their own deadlines, that’d be a failure too.
I referenced them in regards to being undemocratic. Which SA is, how, exactly?
Wait - I just re-looked at this, and I think I misunderstood. I reference *China *in regards to BRICS, which was about *economics *and had bloody nothing to do with politics at all. I *never *referenced **Iran **at all, you did.