No. A policy (and amendments to it) has failed. They’re changing it.
Right. And we’ve totally succeeded in the U.S. when it comes to equal education. :dubious:
So agencies outside of S.A. can determine what’s a failure? 
…do you really want to get into their debt?
I explained my position in regards to my skepticism of the ANC. In quite a few posts. You’re welcome to read them if you like.
Uh, wut?
Hello? History?
The poster was talking of 300 A.D.
and later, the rift w/a bantu tribe over land.
Hmmmmm. Start giving south African “Afrikaaners”, Boers, whatever, money to leave and move in the Khoikhoi from Namibia.
If you had posted this earlier I would have thought it a joke. Not so sure now that I have read some of your other posts.
Are you seriously suggesting more racial segregation?:smack:
So now it’s a specific policy that failed. I thought it was land reform itself. I see. Silly me. Wherever did I get that notion. Oh, wait
[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
Failed land reform.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Holy Excluded Middle, Batman! You do realise there’s that whole “in progress” bit before you can say an entire process is a success or failure, right?
For some things. For instance, if we sign the NNP treaty, the IAEA gets to say if we succeed in being compliant or not. If we take an IMF loan, they get to say whether we’re paying it off properly or not. Land reform, that’s our own baby.
Who, the WB? Not really, no. I didn’t say we should (any more than we already are)
I read them. They just don’t actually answer the question. I’ll ask it again -* how, exactly, is South Africa undemocratic?*
Apparently because the ANC won 65% of the vote in a free and fair election. Clearly that implies that something isn’t right. At least that’s what I think CitizenPained was implying up above but it made no sense there either. Her logic in this thread has been extremely hard to follow because there’s no objective criteria she’s cited that wouldn’t also be applicable to any democracy on any issue.
If you want to keep taking things out of context, twisting words, ignoring relevant posts and links, all right. That’s fine. Nothing is going to change an oppositional view to my nuanced take on foreign affairs. shrug It’s your cuppa idealism and not one I have to swallow.
Why is criticism of the ANC such a bad thing? Yeah, they can keep changing their goals around, but it doesn’t mean anything. “I’ll lose weight this month…well…okay, by next month…year…well, I can get back to healthy weight within 10 years…20…fifty…oh shit, I’m dead.”
:dubious:
If you have access to JSTOR, you’ll see I’m not the only one that’s a skeptic.
I could toss you a few foreign relations journals that I have on my shelf, too.
Look - the OP’s question was if South Africa would go the way of Zimbabwe. I don’t know. If South Africa is the brainchild of post-colonial Africa, I’m nervous. There is a history of revolutionary ethnic-conscious democratic freedom movements turning into horrid regimes (Sudan, Rwanda are two I can think of…China and Russia are two more.) I’m not saying that all factors are the same. Of course not. But there are certain things that are lacking: comprehensive reform & relief over the last 15 years, international cooperation (as if the ANC exerts its sovereignty so fervently that any criticism it is apartheid incarnate), oversight, and serious infrastructure. Those are a few things that come to mind. A revolution is bloody. If the ANC is still fighting for democracy and pan-Africanism, what is it fighting against?
At first I thought the OP was just meaning policy - redistribution with a dose of violence. Like redistribution was a shocking idea for South Africa. (It isn’t. It was just not very democratic so the government shied away from that even when it was wanted.)
The ANC seems hesitant to move away from its Communist and Socialist ties. I don’t see how that early model will fit well with a 21st C. democracy, but we’ll find out. imho, it looks like one of those square peg, round hole things.
A true test of democracy is the government’s response to criticism and the quest for change. No one would call post-revolutionary war America a success in 1850. We wouldn’t be a successful democracy today if the civil rights movement hadn’t of gained stride in the 1960s. We wouldn’t be a democracy if women weren’t voting. Democracy is an ongoing process, but so far, our U.S. system is capable of change.
I’m not doing backflips over South Africa because I’ve yet to see a healthy dose of debate from the region. 
I’m not saying that some major ideals of the ANC are bad. But it is corrupt, bloated, and has been the ruling government for fifteen years. Their sense of entitlement in the region is not helpful. Its response to the inefficient government criticism is to just centralize power in the ruling party.
The Land Expropriation Bill gives the state power to seize land without giving fair market value.
That’s okay with you? That doesn’t strike you as dangerous? 
It’s like, I have criticism and automatically I’m aligned with apartheid whites, or I’m against Black Economic Power (well, as it is implemented, yes), or whatever. But the ANC hasn’t been working for a black or even a race-blurred South Africa. It has been working for the ANC. These policies aren’t working.
Why?
No, it’s perfectly fine to criticize the ANC and many people have done so in this and other threads. But you are claiming that they are illegitimate and a failed state, claims that you haven’t supported and that fly in the face of what is happening on the ground. Previous regimes have messed up SA pretty badly, and you seem eager to blame the current government that they haven’t solved all of the problems in a relatively short time.
There are laws passed that give the government more power than I’m comfortable with. There certainly is the possibility that those laws can be abused and the rights of some citizens will be curtailed. The political process is not always pretty. But somehow I think the US will survive the Patriot Act, and I suspect the same is true for South Africa.
I’ve quoted your own flipping words. People can see the context for themselves in this very thread.
It’s not. I certainly don’t vote for the ANC or consider them favourably as a political entity. But that’s not the same as making broad, wrong statements about what they do, and then projecting from that to South Africa as an entity itself.
Must mean something to 65% of South Africans, which is all that matters to them.
Yeah. You realise 2005 is a long time ago, right? Butler’s still saying the same things though. He’ll still be saying them in 2016, no doubt.
Skipping over all the rehash that still doesn’t answer the actual question…
I don’t know, is it dangerous when a government can take your land because another private someone wants to build a development on it?
Note that the LEB does give fair value. Just not the "inflated value the current landholders want.
Don’t be a martyr. No-one’s accused you of being aligned with apartheid.
Okay.
I am saying it’s not a success, the current government has failed in the last seventeen (I usually say 15 for transition purposes) years and it’s severely corrupt - to the point that the average citizen has no redress.
As far as the legitimacy factor goes: South Africa’s government (and current Constitution), their ruling party (with majority vote…and power), and their leaders have not shown the rest of the world that they are to be recognized as capable, competent governing leaders of a nation that will exist (as we know it) in the far future. Or even in ten years. Let’s see. The ANC has had a stronghold. A little less than half of South Africans voted in the last election, right? Do you think the ANC will knowingly give up its power? Will we have corrupt elections in five years?
What about proposals to the judiciary? Centralization of government? How is that fighting for a democratic South Africa?
All? No. But I’m asking what they have to show so far. Plus I’m not in favor of their heavily monitored and controlled domestic economics and BBEE program…nevermind their anti-white rhetoric that’s glossed over with ‘one South Africa’ pamphlets. :rolleyes:
The ANC ignores ethnic tribal factors as it claims to unite a black South Africa instead of the ‘one South Africa for all’ position that Mandela held.
Shaky new government.
Many argue that’s already the case.
See my skepticism?
We have longstanding tradition of dealing with these things. :o
I don’t know. I think all peoples all over the world are capable of democratic, citizen-oriented institutions. It’s a process, though - and it has to come from within.
The ANC’s weird love affair with both the West and Eastern communism isn’t flushing out very well. The governmental process in South Africa is so convoluted and confusing that I don’t even know how I passed that Comparative Politics exam my freshman year. 
I definitely had a cheat sheet my senior year when we discussed the theory of capitalism & democracy in comparative format…but that was three years ago and sadly, the predictors many of us made haven’t been proved wrong.
Post-colonized countries tend to emulate their colonizers when creating a new government. In the U.S., that meant a system based on the British Parliament + an analysis of recent history - but one more suited for their needs. And it works. A stable democracy does not have to be one in which everyone’s rights are always protected – always (that kind of utopia doesn’t exist). But it’s open to change by the people.
The ANC has put a foot down (or tried to) on potential changes in the government. That’s not democracy in action. That’s tyranny.
It will be up to South Africa to decide how it governs itself. But if the ANC keeps blaming its problems on white people and colonizers and bad habits - it’s only going to inflame and hurt the process.
These redistribution policies have been talked about by the ANC for over a decade. They are just now officially legislating for it.
I don’t even know what your question is. You don’t take into account anything I say and then you twist my words and go off a cliff. You’re not interested in a debate. You just want to whine, “Not uuuhh!!”
It is. But precedent and standards show in the U.S. that when it is in the government’s interests, the property will be compensated above retail value. It’s part of a good faith effort. 
edit: We also don’t grant ‘land seizures’ to local governments for the purpose of redistribution among government officials and minority groups.
eta: minority in this sense as a group who is not in economic power.
Ooops: I missed the edit window:
Judiciary: I meant to say thatproposals to change the judiciary system could be problematic (as it would further centralize the ruling party’s power)
You haven’t come close to making this case. What you have is a popular party that has the support of the electorate, with other parties winning in some state elections. It’s a vibrant political process, not identical to the US but certainly not a single party state.
They have a majority. Other parties are also very active.
How many voted in the last US elections?
Yes. Do you have evidence that they wouldn’t?
It’s hard to say. I would assume that there will be some manner of corruption and voting irregularities, like there are in pretty much every national election. I don’t think it will have a significant impact on the final results but there have been times in the past where I was not so sure. Florida and Ohio have had some tricky business.
Or did you mean the elections in South Africa?
Sigh. What we you have is a party that has always been in control of the federal government. There’s no time to see democracy. The factions were united under one party and they’ve split since, but the ANC is pretty much in control. Concerning economics, education, health, etc., the ANC has had control. Get it?
:dubious: The obvious centralization of government to the hands of a ruling party isn’t a red light?
yup
Infractions against citizens happen everywhere. In some countries, they are handled. I don’t care what the ANC claims. I don’t care what the Constitution says. (You know how many countries have a constitution they don’t respect?
Not really. As I said, there are some issues and concerns, but you’re taking a huge leap from that to a single party state. It’s a young democracy, one that is doing pretty well for itself considering the problems it had to face. What you are talking about is the potential for problems. As many folks have said in this thread, there have been worrying signs like that in pretty much every democracy on the planet.
Based on what you’ve posted it’s pretty much impossible to distinguish between a popular ruling party and one party state. South Africa is trying to undo decades of apartheid government, corruption, and exploitation. IMO, your expectations are significantly out of line.
On the question of title: No, I don’t think so and I think the main reason is probably Zimbabwe itself. As much as the noises Mugabe and his supporters may strike a chord with many in South Africa, there’s a textbook case right next door to SA (i.e. Zimbabwe) of how pursuing these policies can have a deeply negative impact.
Well, your entire post was your m/o. 
But that’s fine. We can disagree. It’s just that history (and obvious case studies next door) mean little when a people get desperate. We won’t know if South Africa will be a one-state party until the next election or so. It’s kind of up in the air - but the current proposal of bills and rhetoric is not in any way how the country should move if it wants to maintain its democratic status.
I think my expectations are pretty reasonable - I’m not basing their success relative to oppression. I’m just looking at history and its current state and noting that the odds are high for serious failure - or trouble, if you will.
We may have differing opinions on what ‘failure’ means or what ‘legitimate’ means, but can we even agree that the direction the country is headed could be a dangerous one?
[ul]
[li]Making the Judiciary review process something that can be overturned by the ruling party?[/li][li]Corruption in the ANC and in government bureaucracies?[/li][li]Anti-white rhetoric about inciting violence?[/li][li]This unnerving race-obsessed ‘other, white, colored, and black’ thinking that manifests itself in politics?[/li][li]25 per cent of men have admitted to committing rape? [/li][li]Police brutality?[/li][li]One of the reports I read (and I can find it again later if you need) said that around 10 per cent of ANC officials were convicted of crimes post-apartheid? :/[/li][li]Low life expectancy? (not trying to go off the handle, but I’m willing to be that correlates with some of the other problems, such as higher crime)[/li][li]Sluggish court system?[/li][li]State-dominated economy? (Not that I’m convinced there’s a direct relationship between democracy and economy on all accounts, but it’s kind of been the norm)[/li][li]Lack of infrastructure? (which I am not blaming on the ANC - that’s probably the biggest problem that all African nations have - but it does exasperate the situation)[/li][li]Failed (okay, that’s my opinion but if you can show me it works, I’ll rescind) zealous affirmative action policies by the government?[/li][/ul]
South African government should champion a nation for all instead of a nation conforming to the government.
In an effort to unite blacks in an pan-African movement against white apartheid, it’s become pretty obvious that ethnic divides haven’t been erased. And they don’t have to be. It’s kind of like how I’ve posted in other threads - I resent being lumped into one group because of a specific trait, and I can imagine how that translates.
Some people have wondered if South Africa will fall like Egypt. I doubt it. Egyptian Arabs are united in on an Arab front. In South Africa, the ANC rhetoric since, well, at least the last three years, has been pointing fingers at the government before.
For many South Africans – far far too many – conditions are roughly the same. This is a country that has over half of its residents in severe poverty. I don’t care what GDP numbers say. Tell my family in rural Shanghai about GDP numbers and how lucky they are in a post-dynasty, post-Mao country.
Sure, white people may want to take part in the tech and new job opportunities in South Africa (if they can beat their hiring laws), but the black and/or successful people in South Africa are leaving. Brain drain, I think they call it.
I just heard a report that some Chinese firms wil be managing some of the expropriated (white owned farms) in Zimbabwe.
apparently, even a dolt like Mugabe realizes that he needs food.