More on the US Presidential Election Race

Just a quickie on this fascinating presidential race…

Given my previous remarks regarding my profound doubts about John McCain (‘A Few Thoughts On The American Presidential Race’) I was very interested to read in the online ‘Rolling Stone’ a detailed and thorough expose of the man behind the self-publicising myth upon which McCain has created his public persona.

Of course, no-one attains the grand age of 72 without having accumulated a few skeletons and demons within one’s closets. I have, however, rarely before seen such brazenness in self-promotion in the face of direct and contradictory evidence.

You can see the ‘Rolling Stone’ article here. (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1). It is quite lengthy, but worthwhile.

I feel vindicated in my initial assessment of John McCain.

Spearpoint.

28^th October 2008

A Few Thoughts On The American Presidential Race

Some years ago in South Africa, when insomnia or rebelliousness took hold, one could while away the wee hours by watching the BBC or CNN on feeds provided by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) after the SABC’s normal broadcasting hours. It wasn’t the most exciting television, but it gave night owls some quality viewing whilst also providing a bit of exposure to news and commentary beyond the narrow confines of South African political and social interests.

Then the SABC decided to get sophisticated and nationalistic, beginning to run late night local content rather than exposing the small number of after-midnight viewers to potentially subversive (that is, thought-provoking) programmes of news and opinion emanating from places considered to be colonialistic, imperialistic and capitalistic.

Thus it is that nowadays all we can get on the SABC after midnight is either SABC news (not bad but rather parochial), sport (limited usually to soccer or rugby – neither of which gets my juices pumping) or mindless and repetitive hip-hop type ‘music’ which, for a man of my age, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for crimes uncommitted.

Even the SABC’s arch-rival, eTV, ever the populist ratings chaser, can only muster either repeats of programmes from earlier the same night or a truly dumbass and mindbendingly boring ‘game’ involving dirge-like monologues from a single presenter purportedly taking phone calls from supposed contestants trying to ‘win’ ridiculously small prizes.

On top of which, in a cunning conspiracy against Spearpoint, broadcast signals to my home from both the SABC and eTV are apparently scrambled as part of a shrewd plan to force me to subscribe to the local satellite TV carrier (DSTV). This wouldn’t be so bad if I could afford the lunatic sums required to be able to access those channels – such as the History channel, the Discovery channel, the BBC, CNN, a couple of cooking or travel channels, and so on – with some interesting content. But no, Spearpoint is financially limited to the most basic of satellite packages and which consist of the three SABC channels, eTV, al-jazeera English news (actually quite good if overly centred on southern Asia), a single sports channel, a poker channel (which I quite enjoy on occasion since there used to be a time in my dissolute youth when I used to make quite a bit of money and a few enemies playing the game) and a feed from Botswana Television.

Now Botswana TV (BTV) during normal viewing hours is pretty much the same as many African national television stations; very focused on its own affairs (although it sometimes carries good movies and documentaries). However, BTV after hours can be very interesting – as in recent weeks – when it doesn’t shut down its late night transmissions. Prompted, no doubt, by the Presidential race in the USA, BTV has recently been carrying a feed from the American TV station MSNBC.

Of course, the programmes transmitted are governed by the time difference between deepest, darkest Africa and the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, so the full range of what MSNBC offers is not available to us paupers here.

Nonetheless, what a joy!

For the first time in my life I have been able to follow, in some detail, the progress of an American Presidential campaign – from an American perspective rather than as edited by non-American anti-Americans in places outside the USA.

And even allowing for an apparent bias towards the Democratic Party by the hosts of those talk shows that I am able to watch, I have been greatly enlivened by the style and content of hosts such as Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and their stables of expert commentators. Thanks guys (you know what I mean, Rachel).

(I’m just praying that BTV hasn’t been pirating the feed from MSNBC, gets caught and has to shut it down. If that is the case then I’m praying, equally hard, that MSNBC doesn’t find out until well after November 4^th.)

Anyway, based (in part) upon MSNBC’s influence upon me, I humbly proffer the following Spearpoint-assessment of the Republican Party Presidential candidates as I understand them at this time. Justification for being so brazen as to offer opinion on an electoral process that is not mine is based upon the simple fact that, no matter what America does, how or to whom it does it, we in the Third World (and elsewhere) will be directly affected in some way, sooner or later.

To begin with, I have to say just how intriguing it is that, for what is probably the most advanced and sophisticated country on the planet, America and Americans appear to be so engrossed in the style and packaging of their Presidential candidates rather than the content of the policies being proposed.

This pre-occupation with presentation leaves Americans open to a number of dangers. Take, for example, the present incumbent, George Dubya.

Riding on the coat-tails of his father (who, it would seem, knew at least enough to be able to start and stop a just war without bankrupting both his own country and the rest of the planet), George Jr., although probably spoiled and indulged as a child and youth, exuded an apparent air of toughness during his campaign for the White House. The American public seemed to love it, with results that everyone on the planet will have to live with for generations. What was missed, unfortunately, was that the air of strength was, in fact, a rich kid’s petulance and poutiness backed up by daddy’s position in life. And, I suspect, an overindulgence in Tom Clancy novels.

Beyond that, and although supported by clever and ambitious political hitchhikers, George Dubya has proven to be an intellectual and moral lightweight with the attention span of a snowball in a blast furnace. Poor George always was in over his head.

It would seem that the great packaging flim-flam is again being perpetrated on the American public again with the Republican Party Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

John McCain, to this outsider at least, appears to have made a political career based upon his earlier (and unfortunate) experiences as a POW in North Vietnam. His POW status looks as though it is the central plank of his definition of his service to the American nation and he seems never to tire of speaking about and referring to it. This, of course, falls in well with America’s apparent perception of any uniformed service (military, paramilitary or civilian) as being tantamount to semi-divine elevation.

Now Spearpoint has had the very real privilege of having known and worked with a fair number of ex-servicemen over the years. In all that time, most of those individuals known by me have always been so modest and reticent about their war time experiences as to be, at times, infuriating. But, if anything, their reluctance to speak of and to take advantage of their past glories (if one can use that term) only served to heighten their stature in the eyes of all those around them. I remember one with particular affection; a quadriplegic who, for some reason, seemed to take pleasure from sharing conversations and cigarettes in the sunshine with a young and callow Spearpoint, only ever conceding that his terrible wounds had been sustained at Gallipoli but never, never, referring to or otherwise speaking of his military experiences during the Great War. Or another, captured during the North African campaign in World War II and so savagely tortured by the Germans that his feet and legs carried the disfigurements and pain decades later. These were men to be revered and respected.

There was one, however, who reached field rank in a combat unit during the Burma campaign of World War II. In addition to insisting on the use of his military rank in civilian life, this man then calculatedly used his previous status to never cease talking of his (presumably real) experiences as he relentlessly carved out a commercially successful niche for himself and his business, forever trading on the natural awe and respect most people have for old warriors. His eventual reward was to be regarded with disdain, dislike, distrust and, in certain instances, with outright contempt.

None of the above comments is intended to take anything away from either John McCain or his experiences as a US serviceman. However, and at a personal level, Spearpoint will always be skeptical and suspicious of those who make self-glorified capital (of any kind) from past experiences that were, to a greater or lesser extent, shared by many, many thousands of others who survived those same types of experiences. It should not be forgotten that, aside from those who managed to make it back home, there were many thousands who, killed or missing in action, didn’t get home and whose stories and histories– perhaps more glorious than those of McCain – we shall never fully know. And, as is often the case in war, pure blind chance all too frequently determines survival, rather than skill, prowess or battlefield bravery.

It is also the experience of Spearpoint that, career soldiers/airmen/sailors aside, the main effect of military service – particularly when drafted against one’s will – was to provide the mettle in one’s character upon which could then be formed a better citizen in any of a thousand different ways. Most military experience is gained when one is very young, when one’s knowledge and experience of the world is extremely limited and when one tends to be most enthusiastic and unquestioningly accepting about one’s beliefs, norms and values. It is also the time in the lives of most individuals, before the advent of spouses, children, mortgages and a million other social responsibilities, when young people are adventurous and carefree, able and willing to embark upon reckless exploits before the true value of human life is properly comprehended by the participants. It is only in this way that wars have been such a permanent feature of human existence; the young are too stupid to understand the effects and costs of the jingoism being thrust before them and are, therefore, perfect cannon-fodder. Middle-aged men make for poor grunts since their age and general life experience tends to allow them greater powers of threat-recognition and subsequent circumspection.

The point here is that it is fallacious to base one’s entire persona and identification on just a couple or so years’ experience in very early adulthood. Especially when, as with John McCain, one is on the final, steep dip-slope of life. Because, surely, a person is – or should be – more than what they were for a few years as a youth or young adult, even if those early experiences lent or swayed them towards certain pre-dispositions.

Perhaps Spearpoint is being less than fair towards John McCain, in which case an apology is extended; I know little of the man beyond what I have seen on television and read in the press over the past few months. But Spearpoint is old and experienced in his own way, has no particular axe to grind, and has a history of being right much of the time about people and their motives – even at a remove. And Spearpoint has, at the moment, a firmly negative opinion of the man.

It is also unfortunate, perhaps, that John McCain presents himself as hugely competent and experienced whilst constantly appearing to be taken unawares when the unexpected happens. His willingness and propensity to prevaricate and then to attack from a position of weakness has, I think, been clearly demonstrated during this presidential campaign. Similarly, when caught out or under pressure he has a distressing tendency to look like a rabbit caught in a spotlight; gambler he might claim to be, but a poker player he is not. The body language is, somehow, not right.

And, speaking of body language, Spearpoint has noticed something about McCain when in the presence of and when talking about Sarah Palin, his Vice-Presidential running mate. The guy is distinctly uncomfortable – and Palin is equally discomfited.

The public embraces have been perfunctory and decidedly cool. No kisses on the cheeks have been seen to land. The arms in the embraces are stiff and defensive. There has been little eye-contact – Palin’s eyes sweep over McCain as if he is not there, whilst McCain’s eyes are everywhere except on Palin where there is any chance that she might notice.

When McCain speaks of Palin it is as if he suddenly switches to a ‘Palin sub-menu’ on his list of ‘correct-things-to-say-about-party-and-running-mate’. He flashes a stunningly insincere – and immediate – manufactured smile measured in milliseconds and then changes the subject as quickly as possible.

Spearpoint suspects that, (and despite other commentators suggesting that he is merely embarrassed at having inappropriate thoughts about his attractive running-mate – although have you noticed how fiddles with his wedding band when he stands behind Palin on the rally platforms?), John McCain does not like his Vice-Presidential candidate. Spearpoint further wonders whether John McCain had any say in the selection of Sarah Palin for the coming task – that, in other words, Palin was foisted on McCain against his better judgement. (Which, if true, would somewhat raise McCain in Spearpoint’s estimation).

There is little doubt in Spearpoint’s mind that Sarah Palin is reasonably smart and fanatically ambitious. There is equally little doubt that Palin is not averse to using her – at first glance – good looks to charm and sway those she would seek to influence and that she uses her sexual weaponry, together with her homey hockey/soccer mom image and populist and fundamentalist views and certainties of life, in place of any significant breadth of knowledge or interests beyond what she grew up with as a child. Palin has, I suspect, little room or use for the very real philosophical and existential uncertainties of life as experienced by the majority of the people of America and the rest of the world.

If that is, in fact, the case then one must feel not only very sad for America in terms of the quality of the leadership being offered by the Republicans, but also extremely fearful for the consequences of pitting a Palin against, for example, a Putin or a Medvedev – both of whom are just as ambitious but far, far more educated and worldly-wise; there is not much doubt in Spearpoint’s mind that both those gentlemen not only know by name the titles of their national newspapers and magazines, their editors and where they live but they also know, to the millimetre, the position of every one of their national borders.

To expect someone – even as photogenic and outwardly attractive as Sarah Palin – to somehow assimilate all of the necessary and basic information and background to the role she has been chosen by the Republican Party in a matter of days is clearly too much. The woman is, I believe, in her early forties, set in her ways and opinions and the task is simply beyond her; neither she nor America has the luxury of boundless time in which to improve and hone her brain.

Nor is it purely a matter of style. The job of Vice-President requires substance more than anything else – particularly when there is a very real and distinct possibility of an aged John McCain being unable to complete even his first term as President. Palin might be sufficient for Alaska and Alaskans (I don’t even want to think about what that might say about that State and its inhabitants), but it is manifestly clear that being an airhead (one might be tempted to go so far as to say a ‘bimbo’) is not heavyweight enough for the job of running the most powerful nation on the planet – unless, of course, one wishes to fulfill the prediction of the Iranians that the American empire is about to disappear. Look at the trouble George Dubya got us all into – and he grew up with smart parents in a political household.

The prospect of a further George Dubya administration under the title of ‘McCain and Palin’ does nothing to quicken Spearpoint. The likelihood of a Palin administration is just too terrible to contemplate.

The USA will lose tremendous credibility around the world if the McCain/Palin ticket wins in November.

The problem is, I suspect, that McCain will, true to form, stoop to whatever level he thinks fit in order to achieve his personal ambitions. I would be surprised, for example, if, come the vote in the House on the $700 billion ‘bailout’ package, McCain does not engineer an ‘intervention’ by himself so that he can claim that he – and he alone – managed to heroically sway the dissident Republican members sufficiently to agree the package and thus to save America and the world.

Spearpoint’s high regard for and respect of the United States of America cannot here be proven or demonstrated – but it is there. I just wish, now and then, that America would realise that, in selecting its own leaders, it is also selecting global leaders with a reach and impact far beyond your own shores. We outside America often dream of achieving what you have achieved and we are fearful of what it would mean to have an America no longer capable of not giving us not only wonderful science and technology but also the aspiration and standard of the love of freedom together with a chance to follow your example. Just please give us a good example.

Spearpoint.

2^nd October 2008

Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights…

 

 

So here we have it, at last. It has been a while coming, but come it has.

 

Not that it has been unexpected. It was bound to happen eventually, in one way or another.

 

Many very astute and able writers have been trying – for some considerable time – to show how South Africa has been slowly descending into the abyss. More recently Spearpoint has (with far less ability and effectiveness) added his own voice to the warnings that have been increasingly thronging the various media available to us in this country.

 

I fear that it will all be to no avail.

 

The pessimism, even despair, which has silently pervaded South African society over the last decade or so, is now gaining increasing momentum even amongst those who celebrated the most after the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Now we begin to see the true colours of our Rainbow Nation; colours that were once purposefully and skillfully hidden behind shimmering nebulae of rhetoric and political razzle-dazzle are now being glimpsed more often as the perceived need for global political respectability is, more and more, discarded as the ANC and its puppet masters gain in confidence and arrogance.

 

Today, the legislation to disband the elite crime-fighting unit known as the Scorpions has been tabled in Parliament.

 

Modeled broadly on the FBI, the Scorpions have proven to be a formidable and largely untouchable crime-fighting force that has shown little or no favour and has appeared to be indefatigable in the pursuit of those who would place themselves above the law. They have been a very necessary foil to the poorly performing South African Police Service.

 

Why the ANC has bothered to involve Parliament escapes me. South Africa is a dictatorship of the elected majority party (the ANC), with absolutely no prospect of any realistic challenge to the current status quo being mounted through the ballot box anytime in the next couple of generations.

 

The ANC might as well come clean and rule by decree. It would save them and the rest of the world time, effort and embarrassment over the increasingly amateurish attempts to legitimise their fumbling realisations of their ambitions.

 

The signs have around for a long time.

 

• The selection of a party leader – soon to be the country’s President – who is awaiting trial on corruption and related charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and public protection by the current President of the country – with the tacit approval of the ANC – of the national Police Commissioner who faces serious charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and unashamed protection of numerous public officials and office holders who have either admitted or have been convicted of innumerable offences ranging from drunk driving through fraud, embezzlement and worse.
• The blasé and indifferent approach to, and acceptance of, crime levels unparalleled outside of war zones such as Iraq. (An example – it is generally accepted that a rape occurs in South Africa every 23 seconds. Do the math – 1.4 million rapes per annum in a population estimated at around 45-50 million people).
• The awesome drift from reality embodied in the continuing and, until very recently, unquestioning support of rogue and repressive states such as Zimbabwe and Burma – behaviour which has led to the ridicule and scorn of the rest of the world, to say nothing of the loss of life and liberty of those poor unfortunates living in those countries.

 

And these are but a very few of the straws that have been blowing in the wind in recent years.

 

The Scorpions are but a single example of the lengths to which the ANC, COSATU and the South African Communist Party (all members of the tri-partite alliance which rules South Africa but of which only the ANC presents itself for election before the people of the country) are prepared to go in order to exclude themselves from scrutiny by both the courts and the electorate.

 

When will the people of South Africa – as well as the rest of the world – awaken to the fact of the immense confidence trick being played upon them at their expense?

 

Do we have to wait for the raids on the newspapers and televisions stations to become more frequent? (It has already happened). Will we only realise our plight when the Internet and blogs are monitored, controlled and restricted? Will we have to wait for the situation in Zimbabwe to become a reality for South Africa (and so memorably and eloquently expressed by the unknown Zimbabwean who voiced it by saying “We have freedom of expression; we just don’t have freedom after expression”)? Will we wait until the cadres of the ANC and SACP are joined on their nightly dissent-suppression street patrols by armed MK war veterans? Will we wait for the type of bloodbath that surely lurks, Kenya-like, in Zimbabwe’s near future?

 

The writing is on the wall. We ignore it at our peril. We run the risk of a bovine-like acceptance of the denial and corruption of the hopes and aspirations of an entire country already brutalised in the not-too-distant past. Or, simultaneously, we run the risk of opening the door to hotheads and armed reactionaries eager to turn back the clock.

 

And as much as Spearpoint harbours hopes for this country and its people, it is very much my profound fear that already it is too late and that the time is nigh for the call to go out, “Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights”.

 

 

Spearpoint

13^th May 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is “One Man, One Vote” Democratic?

You just know, don’t you, before even I start this little discourse, that I am going to be a bit perverse and argue in some way or another that “One man, one vote” is not, in fact, democratic. And, yes, that’s what I’m going to do.

Now (obviously) I don’t want you, gentle reader, to think badly of poor old Spearpoint, skip this post and then shun future posts. So let me make clear that I am a democrat.

I believe very firmly in democratic ideals and aspirations. Having (once upon a time ) lived in a non-democratic one-party state for a couple of years, I am all too aware of the actual and potential benefits of democracy. The experience of living in a place where democracy was an enemy ideology made precious those freedoms of thought, expression, movement etc. – and which I had taken so much for granted in the past.

Not that those two years were, in and of themselves, bad; in many ways they were not. But what was salutary was the growing realisation that one had to be careful – sometimes in the extreme – of what one said and did and the manner in which it was done. Because one’s ability to walk around and enjoy the fresh air, because one’s ability to obtain, keep and prosper in a job, and because one’s ability to secure halfway-decent housing was all totally dependent upon the unfettered whim of some minor government or party flunky, the recognition of, and obedience to, political correctness in a one-party or quasi-one party state is a vital survival strategy. For someone brought up in the relatively free and easy-going Western democracies it was, indeed, salutary.

For those who have never had such an experience it is easy to forget that there are places where tolerance to diverse points of view or lifestyles is slim to non-existent. It is no wonder that, economic considerations aside, people try to flock to some of the Western multi-party democracies, away from their more restrictive origins.

So I am a great supporter of democratic ideals.

 There are several differing types of democracy around the world, but all are pretty much based upon the concept of “one man (read “person”), one vote”.

Generally the vote is granted to persons of legal majority age (varying from territory to territory) and restricted only to citizens or legally permanent residents of those territories. Most, if not all, countries which practice their particular version(s) of democracy now include women on their voters’ rolls.

The original concept of democratic power determination appears to have come about in the ancient Greek city states but would not be accepted too widely today as a good democratic model. Only land-owning mature males who were citizens could vote. Women and slaves were excluded – I guess the thinking was that property could not have a voice as to how property could and should be managed. Interestingly, there was no body of professional politicians such as we have today; leaders of each city were seconded – often against their wishes – to rule and manage based upon the record of each seconded individual as an upright, loyal citizen and successful businessman. Normally, each selected individual was seconded for a period of about one year and was barred from making any financial gains during his tenure; political leadership was not, therefore, something that was actively sought after by most people – it was too expensive and, if the incumbent was inept, unlucky or crooked, the penalties could be severe.

How strange it is, then, that we in our modern world - which is so much more complex that that of the Ancients – have chosen to re-work the original concept in a way that is counter-productive to the ideals and realisation of the democratic concept and to which so much lip-service is given.

We have allowed everyone a single vote of equal value. We place the voting power and wisdom of the untutored peasant on a par with the individual who has striven to better himself and those around him through, for example, education and community service. And because (such is life – in Richard Bach’s words; “The higher, the fewer”) the peasants outnumber the men of letters and other achievements, our modern democracies tend to use processes which select the elect based upon lowest-common-denominator-thinking.

This is dangerous.

It is dangerous because the majority of voters are those most amenable to manipulation and coercion. It is dangerous because it permits those most hungry for personal power to gain ascendancy without necessarily seeking the benefit of the wider community and those who are targeted by the aspirant politicians to elect the power-hungry into office. It is dangerous because the power-hungry are not necessarily armed with the mundane operational skills of daily power management which translate the theories of any particular government into the daily realities of those who gave their votes in return for the various promises made; this results in the creation of a sub-strata of less ambitious and less capable individuals who, often riding on the coat-tails of their political patrons and through the provision of the more prosaic skills, generate their own niches by which they can gain social status and their own brand of power.

Society today is too complex to safely continue along this path. Surely we have learned from the Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mugabe’s and others in our recent history that populism and dictatorship (included elected dictatorship) are too easy to acquire through our current democratic processes and methodologies to continue as a viable model of government selection.

We will always have people who are ambitious for personal power. Their motives might range from ideological to egotistical, through to financial.

But why make it unnecessarily easy for such people to gain and hold power? All they have to do is to figure out what the bottom stratum of society most craves, translate those cravings into simple and simplistic terminology and promises and then present those promises in an irresistible manner – be it in the form of gifts of food and land, social elevation, power sharing or, even, genocide – come the time of the election. We are, ultimately, too reliant upon the good will of those we elect to power and, far too often, we have paid terrible local, regional and global prices when that reliance and trust has been abrogated.

Perhaps a solution could lie with something written as a novel back in 1959. “Starship Troopers” by Robert Heinlein is a science fiction novel that pictures a society in the fairly far future (and released as a rather gory – but good – movie a few years ago). The following thoughts are based, loosely, upon my own personal reading and understanding of the book.

The basic premise is that in order to enjoy the benefits of a complex technological society those born into that society must earn their position and fulfill certain obligations before reaping the rewards. All societies throughout history have, one way or another, been meritocracies based upon the then perceived needs of those societies – even if some regarded merit as being defined by birth, class and caste.

Generally speaking, Western societies today are broadly technological and monetary meritocracies and access to the benefits of those societies are, broadly, available to those with either sufficient appropriate skills and/or sufficient money. Again in general, money permits the acquisition of skills which, in turn, expose the acquirer of those skills to more money. In other words, society tends to reward those who make the effort to better themselves because society tends to benefit from the acquisition and application of those skills.

But how can society possibly benefit from having the bulk of its political voting power rest with the majority of its people who, rightly or wrongly, are the least educated, least skilled and least able to create for society?

Might it not be better to endow the vote with certain obligations before it can be exercised – rather than simply granting the right to vote just by virtue of the accident of birth and the attainment of a certain physical age? Why not allocate voting privileges, according to published lists of socially acceptable standards and attainments, to those who achieve certain milestones and achievements that are beneficial to the society which is awarding the right to vote?

For example:

• For reasons of personal, social and political maturity do not permit voting in public elections:- 1) before the age of 25 years; 2) following conviction for any series of three misdemeanours or one felony; 3) following the failure, without good reason, to exercise the right to vote in any public election;
• For reasons of intellectual ability to understand and participate in the electoral process, allocate 1.0 vote to each person who has passed scholastic 16+ examinations and is over the age of 25 years or, failing a scholastic certificate, has satisfactorily and successfully completed a two-year period of work or community/military service by the age of 25;
• For the successful completion of either an apprenticeship/trade qualification, undergraduate university degree or professional diploma – allocate 0.5 of a vote;
• For the successfull completion of a higher degree or equivalent professional/trade qualification – allocate 0.5 of a vote;
• For any officially recognised social or business achievement which has demonstrable results for the betterment of the community – allocate 0.25 of a vote per achievement to a maximum of 0.75 of a vote.

There are probably many additions and permutations that could be made to the above. (The vote values are, incidentally, quite arbitrary on my part and are intended only for the purposes of example.)

In this way not only would the electorate have – and be seen to have – the maturity and capability to participate in the electoral process, but it would be less likely to be open to manipulation by the less honest and unscrupulous power seekers through a more critical assessment of the arguments and exhortations. Additionally, the electorate would be incentivised to continually improve itself at an individual and community level both for the personal improvement in voting power and for the improvement of the community in general.

This and similar ideas have, no doubt, been espoused before in one form or another. Since I am not a political scientist/sociologist/politician or the like, I am not aware of those arguments except through Heinlein’s book. Probably there are some better ideas around of which I have no knowledge.

But it does strike me that, in the interests of stabilty, peace, continuity and general social development and progress that a more mature method of guaging the general public’s social and political desires needs to move away from the cynical manipulation of often ill-informed and unconsidered perceptions based upon the drive for immediate gratification that so often characterises electorates.

Spearpoint.

Dictatorship in South Africa

If there was one thing that was a sure-fire bet back in April 1994 it was that the ANC would win the first “universal suffrage” elections in the history of South Africa.

A copper-bottomed certainty – based purely upon the demographic make-up of the country. The identification of the bulk of the populace was squarely against the perceived – and, no doubt, very real – privileges of the primarily Afrikaaner whites at the time. Black people saw the opportunity to redress the balance and the most prominent group seen as best able to deliver on that opportunity was the ANC.

And because the ANC was always first and foremost – although not exclusively – a movement of the majority Khosa people the resultant government was, principally, a Khosa government.

 Well and good. A democratic election produced a government based upon the wishes of the majority of the population of the country.

It must be said that, in the years since 1994, the ANC government has, in general, done many, many good things for South Africa, its economy and its people.

But as time has passed it has also created a number of quite unnecessary problems which, in recent years, have become increasingly obvious and dangerous. Two examples:

1. In keeping with the promise to give land for housing to black people previously living in squatter camps (many of which, incidentally, still exist some 14 years later), the government allocated only tiny handkerchief-sized plots barely large enough to accommodate a one- or two-roomed house per family. As a short-term solution and realisation of promises made to the electorate there was benefit to be had by the recipients – of course, since the very same electorate had been led to believe that all of the country’s problems could and would be fixed in the very near future if the ANC were to be given power. (Politicians are alike all over the world). However, the government actually solved very little. The townships created were crowded and neighbours lived cheek-by-jowl. The small plots did not allow for expansion or extension of the houses and living space, particularly as families grew with time and urbanisational immigration to the towns and cities with little, if any, opportunity for the residents to move away to other, larger, houses as their needs and aspirations grew; the increased wealth and earning capacities of these poor black communities did not match the rising costs of land and houses away from the townships. Result: the government sowed the seeds of ghettos for their own staunchest supporters, the harvest of which is just now beginning to manifest itself and will grow further as time passes.
2. The implementation of affirmative action, whilst, no doubt, generating some benefits for some sectors of the black population in the short-term, has tended to alienate many of the whites who, until 1994 and shortly thereafter, had been the prime movers in the formal economy of the country. Many whites were actively displaced from their ordinary jobs with a resultant loss of skills to industry and government. Many white technicians and managers threatened by their perceptions of crime and economic revenge being exacted by the ANC politicians and hangers-on took the opportunity to take their skills and expertise away from South Africa to places elsewhere in the world where merit and willingness to work were valued more highly than one’s racial or cultural grouping and where crime levels did not threaten one’s achievements. Result: a country losing the battle to supply its own doctors, technicians, managers, actuaries and so on when, with a little more patience and less political haste a comfortable transition and re-balancing could have been organised so that the previous privileges of the white community could have been grown to encompass more and more of the previously disadvantage black community in a way that would have been economically sustainable and perceived to have been fair and just by all segments of society.

Other examples could be cited.

These and other problems have come about because, I suspect, the ANC, having acquired power by massive demographic default, began to believe that its policies were the only policies that would work and, through a combination of over-confidence, jubilation at its success and outright arrogance, failed to adapt and evolve its ideological articles of faith to engage with the real world.

The ANC was in an unnecessary hurry to impose its worldview on its newly conquered territory and, as so often in Africa, steamrollered its particular version of Utopia into existence. Then again, probably understandable, given the euphoria of victory and the prospect of being able to begin righting the wrongs of the past.

The ANC believed it was right. In its ideological heart it knew it was right. And it kept getting re-elected back into power with huge majorities so the electorate obviously agreed.

Yes, but those majorities were supplied by people who, largely as a result of various inequalities and injustices of the past, were not educated enough to sufficiently understand the ramifications and consequences of the wholesale social engineering that the ANC was undertaking. Even the ANC intelligentsia had no complete understanding of what they were embarking upon since the South African situation was unique in the world. And there was (and still is) no-one to temper their actions; there was no pressure to fully consider their intentions because there was no danger (nor is there likely to be in the foreseeable future) of serious electoral challenge – parliament would always have an ANC majority by virtue of the sheer numbers of the Khosa over other tribal and racial groups in the population.

The ANC is, therefore, a dictatorship. A dictatorship that has been elected, for sure. But there are no realistic or viable checks and balances upon the ruling party. There is no significant opposition in South Africa and the ANC can, at will, ignore any views contrary to its own simply by applying the Whip to any parliamentary vote it chooses.

The ANC has been in power long enough to know that it commands widespread popular support and that it has made a number of unnecessary errors during its governance. It also claims to be governing the country to the benefit of all South Africans.

That being the case, why, then, does the ANC not voluntarily give up a proportion of its parliamentary seats to the various opposition parties in order to create a parliamentary environment which will improve the quality and depth of debate?

Let the ANC keep a working majority. But let it be not be so large that, on contentious issues, the government would not risk losing a vote if sufficient of its own MP’s were to cross the floor on a particular issue. Allow the public to see parliament engage in debates with real value rather than those we have today where they are always seemingly tinged with the despair of knowing that the ANC is merely going through the politically correct motions and will do whatever it wants regardless of the merits of other people’s ideas and aspirations.

Such a move would require considerable political courage but neither the ANC nor the country as a whole would stand to lose anything.

Spearpoint.

The Death Penalty and Electioneering in South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa forbids the use of the death penalty in the normal processes of our judicial system.

This prohibition was part and parcel of the new Constitution drafted after the succession to power of the ANC in 1994. It was, I suspect, a reaction to the old constitution under which many ANC and other combatants had suffered during the years of struggle against apartheid prior to 1994.

It was also argued – correctly, I believe – that the death penalty was an irreversibly cruel and unusual punishment that did little, if anything, to deter violent crime; however, this argument was, for many people, counter-intuitive in a society, then and now, profoundly riven by violence and brutality at all levels.

The failure by the ANC government and its various organs to adequately and competently address and correct the problems of violent crime in South Africa following the egalitarian promises of the new Rainbow Nation has resulted in a growing crescendo of popular (if uninformed) demands for the return of the death penalty as the best means of dealing with the current tidal wave of crime swamping this country.

The public appears to be taking the upcoming national elections as an opportunity to try, once again, to get the issue back on the political agenda, particularly now since the influence of the ANC intelligentsia in the form of Thabo Mbeki’s allies appears to be on the wane. Calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty by protesters outside various courts in recent months have become increasingly vocal and have been clearly making a mark on the public at large and, so it would appear, on a number of political hopefuls ahead of scheduled national elections in 2009.

The issue of the death penalty is emotive and is perceived to be a panacea for many ills. It is an all-embracing concept which relies on tempting monochromatic definitions of life for its widespread appeal. For that reason it is most readily embraced and touted by those whose perceptions of the world tend to be unsophisticated and simplistic – and seized upon eagerly by those who would seek to gain the sympathies and affections of large numbers of voters in the quest for elected power.

Not that you can blame them, I guess. President Mbeki and his ministers have failed both to educate the public in their ethics and to demonstrate that a viable society can exist with law enforcement and judicial processes that are not reliant upon the death penalty. Their ethics have been obscure and tainted with pragmatic considerations. Their legislative creations, law enforcement, guidance of the judiciary and subsequent prison management have been selectively erratic, patchy and generally incompetent.

It is of great interest, therefore, that the one person most overtly ambitious for personal power in South Africa, Jacob Zuma, has taken hold of this popular sentiment of restoring the death penalty and made it his own. Not even some of the fringe opposition parties have dared to be quite so forward in their stated desires in this direction.

Sure, at the moment he advocates nothing more than re-opening the debate over the death penalty; for the moment, at least, actual restoration of the death penalty is not part of his declared manifesto.

But it is significant that, in a period of great personal political uncertainty (given his current legal woes), Mr. Zuma has made a very astute move to try to secure, ahead of the elections, considerable popular political support by appearing to be willing to address an issue that is most dearly held by those people (that is, the majority of the population of South Africa) least equipped to consider critically the implications and consequences of a return of the death penalty as a political and judicial tool of state.

(Mr. Zuma is a populist. Mr. Zuma is ambitious. Mr. Zuma is also hungry for personal power and, credit where credit is due, seems honest enough to display that appetite quite openly.

Mr. Zuma, I suspect, also believes that he is due a return for his years of anti-apartheid struggle.

This may be seen in the nature of the charges pending against him (assuming that he is, in fact, guilty of those charges).

It can also be seen in his public appearances when he ensures that he has a prominent entourage and bodyguard detail that is not only royal in its aspect and presentation but also far exceeds anything that I have seen deployed for the State President or any of his Ministers. For a self-proclaimed man of the people he seems to be rather worried about his exposure and physical proximity to those very people…)

The presidential aspirations of Jacob Zuma are, perhaps, a topic best dealt with in another post since, in a direct sense, they are not especially germane to the subject of the death penalty.

However, a strong warning needs to be issued to the people of South Africa at this time.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of any advocacy for or against the death penalty, now is not the right time to be discussing the issue for the simple reason that the apparently cynical raising of the matter for political motives (i.e. attracting potential votes in an imminent election) has to prompt grave disquiet in the minds of the public at large.

This might sound odd, but the argument for or against the death penalty is not a life and death matter in the lives of most South Africans today. Save for the (questionable) deterrent effect, the death penalty is only ever at the very end of the law enforcement and judicial process and tends to be far removed from the daily experience and consequences of crime for many thousands of people.

More immediate, more relevant to the outcome of the forthcoming elections will be those issues which impact more directly and more precisely on the lives of ordinary South Africans.

Thus, I would suggest that South Africans need answers and realistic (and realisable) promises on the following (amongst others):

1. Employment and skills recognition and deployment;
2. Financial probity and professional competence in all spheres and levels of government enterprise and activity;
3. Combating, controlling and defeating crime of all types for all citizens and residents;
4. Illegal immigration.

The issue of the death penalty is too important, too fundamental to the character of our nation for it to be reduced to a mere electioneering tactic and the subject should not be permitted to be hijacked for such self-interest.

By all means, let there be a debate over the death penalty. It is vital that debate occurs and that it is comprehensive and critical. It is even more vital that such a debate should be conducted away from the environment of immediate gratification, euphoria and bitter disappointment which can so characterise elections and their results.

Let the politicians scramble for their grubby spoils; the victors must then open and guide a national debate on capital punishment and open themselves to the outcome – whatever it might be – through a free, no-whip vote in parliament. (A referendum would not work, unfortunately, since our electorate is not yet sophisticated enough to be entrusted with matters of such profound ethical and legal dimensions – witness the lack of juries in our courts).

You will be aware from the above and previous posts that, from a personal perspective, Spearpoint does not condone the concept of not only capital punishment but also current theories and practices of penology, both here and elsewhere in the world.

It all needs some careful thought.

Spearpoint.