The Chief Justice Mogoeng issue

There has been quite a stir in the lefty spheres when Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng gave a speech in Stellenbosch a while ago, detailing how religion can be used to strengthen the law. He used is own religion, Christianity, as an example. Once again the liberal left almost had a heart attack because of the fact that anyone in the judiciary dare talk about Christianity. Since I believe that this is an absolute joke to start with, I would like to throw in a few thoughts on the issue.

1. First of all, whether our chief justice is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic or Atheist is totally beside the point. Every single person in this world has a word-view, a set of morals, and their own definition of right and wrong. Anyone who serves in our government or judiciary will go into that role with a certain bias, no matter what it is. This is an unavoidable fact of life. So if our Chief Justice were an Atheist, then he or she would have been biased in his/her personal opinion against all religion. And the same goes for any other world-view. The whole point of the justice system is to have a separate set of rule for the country by which all citizens have to adhere, no matter their belief system. And the role of the justices are to uphold that law no matter their personal bias. In this I must applaud Chief Justice Mogoeng, for this is exactly what he has been doing.
2. If the left wants to go off on a tangent because Mogoeng is a Christian, then please, be consistent. Go off on the fact that the DA appointed a Muslim MP and complain about the fact that he will be pushing for Sharia law. Are our women going to be forced to wear burkas very soon? Not one word from the liberal left except praise for their choice. Where is the consistency?
3. Then finally, the fact that people are afraid that a religion will influence our laws is a total joke in itself. Where do they think our laws come from in the first place? Almost all law systems in the world are constructed from religious principles. Most of the western laws are based on Christian values, and look how well it has served them. We no longer have legal slavery in the world thanks to the Christian voice that spoke out against is.

So can the left please just let it go. Religion always has, and always will influence our laws and regulations. Religion always has, and always will be a factor in our moral behaviour and understanding of life. And different world-views always have and always will be competing to have their perception of truth heard. If you want to go off on a tangent because of someone’s personal beliefs, then be consistent and complain about everyone who is set over us. Because no matter who or what they are, they are guaranteed to be biased in their personal beliefs.

Immigrants: Good or bad for an economy?

I was going to post something on immigration in the future, but seeing as Malusi Gigaba brought the topic into discussion, I decided to throw in my two cents. This is one of those interesting times when I actually agree with someone from the ANC. Our Home Affairs Minister has come against the South African status quo, and said that we should not be fearing immigrants. I agree with him, within certain limits.

Now what does the average South African think about immigrants? I guess it’s no secret that South Africa is a Xenophobia hotspot. We are also a riot hotspot… and what happens every single riot? At some stage in the riot, the locals start looting foreign shops and burn down foreigner’s houses. But one must ask why? Why do they apparently hate immigrants so? When asked about it, they always state that the foreigners “steal our jobs”. (Very ironic, because if you run your own shop, your not stealing any jobs, but rather create jobs for others.)

Now let’s go one step further. If you go to your typical employer – someone in the middle class who employs a domestic worker or gardener – and you ask them who are the best people to employ, then they will almost always name some people group from another country: Zimbabweans, Malawians etc. And the reason is very simple, in general, immigrants work harder and better, are more trustworthy and complain less. For obvious reasons, they can’t mess up in this country, because then they can get deported, or jailed in a foreign country. Also, they already left their country in order to grind out a better living for themselves, so their very mindset is more focused on hard work, and that is what transpires.

Now please note that I am not limiting this to South Africa. I believe it can be seen across the globe. In the USA it were always immigrants who fueled their economy. Firstly Irish, then Italians, Jews and later Asians and it just goes on. There is something that I like to call “First generation immigrants”. These are people who gave up their life and country so that their children would have a better future. Their whole lives are focused on working hard and earning a good income. Their children usually have a lot of that as well, but less, and then from the third generation they are just plain locals. So those first generation immigrants are the best thing an economy can have. They will keep your workers on their toes, they will work hard and complain less.

But are there dangers in getting a lot of immigrants into your country? Yes of course, if you do not monitor and control it well. We saw this happen in liberal Great Britain and Europe. They allowed everyone in, for any reason. And the result was that a lot of uneducated lazy people flocked to Europe, only to become a drag on the economy.

So how should you control immigration? I would firstly suggest that you tighten your regulations to only let people in who are more educated than your average locals. Now of course in South Africa that is very easy, as our literacy rates are among the worst in the world. Secondly have a criteria list to see whether they will be able to offer a positive contribution to our economy. If they will, then by all means, support that. If they will be brilliant entrepreneurs, let them open shops and stimulate the economy. Let them do what they do best, and the whole economy will benefit from it. But watch out to make sure that their children also get educated and trained in profession, so that the second generation won’t have to much of a back-lash.

In Conclution: I believe that well controlled immigration is a key to the growth of any country. You should always ensure that you have a healthy amount of “first generation immigrants”, for who knows what they will accomplish before they work their way to citizenship.

2014 election results: Moslty bad, some good – what can we learn from it?

Ok, so here are the 2014 general election results (Source: news24.com):

And here are the results again, also showing changes from the 2009 general election (source: wikipedia.org):

And now for the good, the bad, and the ugly:

The good:

1. There are only three parties that increased their voter-share from 2009. The DA, the UDM and the FF+. So the FF+ is one of the only three established growing parties in South Africa. Well done for them. We saw a slight change in voter sentiment towards the FF+ in opinion polling before the election, and I mentioned that it will be great if they can somehow keep the momentum going. It seems they have. Not only have they increased their share of the vote since 2009, they almost doubled in their vote-share from the 2011 municipal elections. So on the books, they will have to be considered the conservative’s strong suit in South Africa at the moment.
2. Even though the ACDP lost a considerable (proportionate) part of their voter share, they still managed to retain their three seats in parliament. So on the books, the loss will not be felt. But if they don’t tidy this up soon, they might end up fading from existence come next election.
3. The ANC has lost 3.75% of its support since 2009, and did not make the dreaded two thirds majority required to change the constitution. Any loss for the ANC can be considered good for South Africa at this stage.

The bad:

1. The combined conservative vote has decreased a lot. From very small to minute. The IFP lost half it’s support, the UCDP has disappeared and lost their seat in parliament, and the ACDP is shrinking. The conservatives lost a combined 10 seats in parliament (roughly 2.5%).
2. The EFF has exceeded all expectations, and are sitting comfortably on 6.35%. They have more than a million votes and 25 seats. This extremist far-left party can only be bad for South Africa. They are going to be a thorn in the flesh in parliament, and unfortunately, might spur the other lefties in parliament on to become more extreme.

The ugly:

1. Compared to 2009, the ANC has shrunk, and the DA has grown. But if you compare it to the 2011 municipal elections, you will see that not much has changed. The ANC has stopped shrinking for the most part. Even though more than 50% of South Africans don’t trust our president (according to opinion polling), still more than 60% vote for the ANC. This just shows that democracy is failing in South Africa. The opinion polling last year led us to believe that finally after 20 years, the people were ready to move on, but unfortunately it seems like that time has not yet come. We have 5 more years to go until our next reality check. Let’s hope for the best.
2. Everyone thought that the EFF will steal a chunk of the ANC vote, but it seems like they are actually stealing the opposition vote, so this does not help South Africa at all. At this stage we should hope that the EFF goes the way of COPE, even though they had 7% of the vote in 2009, internal politics ripped the party apart, and now they have less than 1%. Will the EFF follow suit?

Some thoughts:

To all the conservative parties still alive I would ask this:

Is now not the time for a merger?

We lost one of the conservative parties in this election, who will follow next? I still hold to the idea that the conservatives will be stronger together than alone. All the conservative parties are shrinking, or barely growing. We have well known, respected leaders in the parties, that people look up to. If they were to combine forces, and stand together, will they not be seen as a more credible opponent? If we have Kenneth Meshoe, Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Pieter Mulder on the same poster, will that not spurt voter confidence? If we can move away from the “Christian party”, the “Zulu party” and the “Afrikaner party”, and have just the Conservative party? Honestly I don’t know the answer to that question, and would like to hear some of your thoughts on it?

Other than that, I would say this to all party members of the above-mentioned:

Put away your champagne glasses (or tissues). 2014 elections have passed, and 2016 municipal elections have began. Start working for your votes today! At this stage in our history, resting is a convenience that the conservative voice does not have.

I dare not fall into despair at this stage, in spite of the results. The conservatives are squashed, but we’re still here. The voters are still here, still looking for someone to convince them that the conservative parties deserve their votes. So come on IFP, FF+ and ACDP, make it happen.

 

 

2014 Pre-election polls: As it stands

There is a very interesting poll done by Ipsos, called the pulse of the people. At the end of 2013, they did a very intensive poll on 3564 people, representing the demographics of South Africa. Pretty much asking them, who will you vote for? The results are quite fascinating, and makes for some interesting predictions. In this post I will be focusing on voting for provincial legislature, according to the stats, because the national stats aren’t in-depth enough to show changes. My focus will be on the leading parties and conservative parties.

I made a table of comparison, comparing 2009 provincial, 2011 municipal, and 2014 polling data. The 2009 and 2011 data comes straight from elections.org.za, they are official stats, but the 2014 stats come from the only decent public political poll we have at this stage. I added the municipal results only in the final column and not per-province, because I want everything to fit on one screen: Click on the image below to see enlarged results.

THE VERDICT:

Winners:

1. ACDP : The ACDP has slipped in support from 2009 to 2011. But they made such a big comeback since 2011 that they almost doubled their support since 2009. Their support level is now almost level with both AGANG and the IFP. The ACDP is also now the only growing conservative party in South Africa.  Is the ACDP going to be the conservative’s last stand?
2. EFF : You can say what you want about the man, but Julius Malema has a way of getting a crowd riled up. After launching their brand new party last year, the EFF is already sitting on 5.32% of the vote, officially becoming the third largest party in South Africa in their entry year. Time will tell if they will last, or fade like previous ANC break-aways. But one thing is certain, if their leadership isn’t in jail come May, then they will be in our Parliament, and the official opposition in Limpopo and North West.

Losers:

1. ANC : The ANC is down 9.2% since 2009. This might be the first provincial election in which their near-two-thirds majority start crumbling. Their still winning for now, but I believe in 2016 municipal election we will start seeing their municipalities slip from their grasp, and 2019… who knows? A coalition of opposition parties govern South Africa? One can only speculate.
2. DA: You will never hear it from the media or from the DA themselves, but the figures show: The DA has lost support since 2011. This make the fact that the DA is proclaiming they will have 30% of the national vote quite laughable. The DA might have hit their support limit, and might never reach the 30% they proclaim. In my opinion, a small minority of people vote for the DA because they want to, but the majority of their voters think they are the only option (if that’s you, read my previous post).
3. COPE: Election after election these guys keep slipping in support. They were never able to show a unified front and leadership, and might have been the cause for their own demise.
4. AGANG : They came in with a bang, with (apparently) heaps of funding, and even an election campaign coordinator from one of the previous victorious American presidents. A year later, they are bankrupt, married and divorced to the DA, and no-one sees them as a viable option any more. What could have been never was. I don’t see them contending the next general election. They will probably be swallowed by the DA (again) in the end.
5. IFP : The IFP has never grown in support in any election. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that they can make a comeback.
6. FF+ : They slipped to near-extinction in 2011, but it seems like they might have gained back some of that vote. Unfortunately, they still sit on less support than in 2009, so their outlook is still bleak. Here’s hoping they can keep that little momentum into the election.
7. UCDP : Slipped to the place where they will not be a party anymore in the next general election.

Conclusion:

The ANC is slipping, and one more term of president Jacob Zuma can see them slip the whole nine yards. But the DA is not growing enough to take their place. Instead, it seems like either another party will grow to become the opposition/leader, or in the end South Africa will be governed by a majority of minorities.

The Northern Cape and Gauteng are up for grabs. No jokes, We might see the DA in control of 3 out of the 9 provinces this year.

References:
http://www.ipsos.co.za/SitePages/PROVINCIAL%20political%20party%20support%20in%20a%20moderate%20voter%20turnout%20scenario.aspx
http://elections.org.za

Minimum wage?

A bit of background information on myself: I was born in Malawi (to South African missionaries), and spent my formative years there. I moved to South Africa at the age of 12, but still visited my folks in Malawi regularly over the years.

Malawi is one of the top ten poorest countries in the world, so growing up I saw a lot of real poverty. Malawi is a country where, if the rain does not fall at the right time of year, then people literally die of hunger. It’s not even like they can beg for food from other people in the village, because no-one has food. In times of hunger, people would swarm in masses to the local missionaries, NGO’s, churches ect. in search of work. They will be willing to work a full day, doing anything required, if that means that they can feed their family a single meal at the end of the day. Now people like my parents, were forced to make extremely hard decisions in those times. Helping everyone was impossible, but how many people can you help with what you have?

Most of my reasoning on this topic stems from my actual experience in life. Growing up with extreme poverty around me, and later, working off study debt and starting a business venture with zero capital.

When it comes to the topic of minimum wage, those in favour (of the concept/law) tend to take the moral high ground and make those opposing it out to be cold-hearted oppressors, who only want to empower the rich at the expense of the poor. The problem is that, if you do not actually sit and run all the real-world scenarios through your head, you will probably tend to agree with those in favour of a minimum wage.

So let’s try a real-world scenario:
Imagine that you have R150 at your disposal, and there are 10 starving people outside your door, all of them are willing to clean your house/garden/car – if you can pay them – so that they can buy food. You are faced with a choice: Will you pay one person R150 to clean your house, and let the others starve? Or will you hire all of them, break the work up in smaller pieces, and pay each one of them R15, so that they all can eat something that night?
If you are pro minimum wage, then you will choose to help just one person, and let the other 9 people starve. How could you!?
Who has the moral high-ground now?

For minimum wage to work, the employer needs to have unlimited funding at his/her disposal, so that the only reason why he will stop hiring people, is because he does not want more expenses, and wants to maximize his profit.
But do all employers have unlimited funding? Or do they stop hiring because they can’t afford more workers? With 60% of our economy comprised of small businesses, I highly doubt that we have a market where employers have unlimited funding. So the only thing that a minimum wage law does, is to cut the amount of jobs. The facts speak for themselves. South Africa is loosing tens of thousands of jobs per year, due to forced wage increases from unions in the various sectors.

So what about the worker? Is it right to assume that they will rather die of hunger than work for what the employer is willing to pay? Are you in their shoes? It is very important to note at this stage, that the people who are protesting for higher minimum wage, are employed themselves. What about those who are not employed? What about those who lost their jobs due to the increase in minimum wage?

I can go on and on with the implications of all this: The entitlement mentality that flows from it, the decay of working ethics and even the complete collapse of an economy in the long run. In fact, I have been writing and rewriting this article over weeks, but as I try to write this blog for casual readers, I decided to rather leave it at that, the core principle.

Minimum wage is an utopian concept that is incompatible with human nature and a real economy. It would have been nice if no-one had any lack, but due to human nature, this is not attainable in this world. You can’t force financial equality through government intervention, it will never be sustainable.

I will put it to you that citizens should rather be encouraged to help others from their abundance (earned through hard work), rather than being “forced to share”, as our hot-headed red beret puts it.

Deuteronomy 15:11 – “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.”

For further reading on this topic, I really suggest this insightful article by Temba A Nolutshungu about the origin of the minimum wage laws in the world.

Freedom Front Plus new mission – a step in the right direction

The Freedom Front Plus launched it’s campaign for the 2014 election last week. The launch focussed on the “new” direction that the FF+ will be taking going forward. This minor shift in their approach can only be described as a breath of fresh air for conservative politics in South Africa. You can read about the launch here: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=401838&sn=Detail&pid=71616

One of the major issues that we have had with conservative politics in SA, is it’s exclusivity. The FF+ is the exclusive Afrikaner party, the IFP is the exclusive Zulu party, and the ACDP and UCDP are exclusive Christian parties. Through this exclusivity, all the conservative parties have been losing votes. It’s not necessarily that voters do not agree with the exclusive values, but they believe that victory can only be obtained through unity, and thus start voting for the DA (which is a misconception, as described in my previous post). Now here is where the new direction of the FF+ comes in. Here are parts of their launch speech: “… will also fight for other minorities to obtain it …“, and also “There is a place for every one of us in this country. The FF Plus’ reworded mission does not only want to motivate the Afrikaners, but also other minority groups.“. And herein lies the crux of what excites me about the “new” FF+ mission: it is inclusive. The FF+ commits itself to fight not only for one “nation”, but for all “nations” in South Africa to have it’s full right to existence. Resulting in “a nation of happy nations“.

Now as always, there are liberals who try to play down what conservatives are doing, or are trying to do. Gareth van Onselen (self proclaimed liberal) wrote an aritcle in Business day live, stating basically that the reworded mission statement is just a new layer of paint on an old car that is the FF+. So nothing will change. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Onselen, and I believe he selectively read the article that he referenced, because he somehow missed this part in the article: “Equally loud applause for a strong delegation of Khoi and San leaders and their supporters was simultaneously an indication of the hand which the supporters of the FF Plus had extended to other minority groups in South Africa, which share a common goal of bringing about a new dispensation in South Africa.” – OK, in case you missed it, I will emphasize: “a strong delegation of Khoi and San leaders and their supporters”. Here we have “the white Afrikaner party” cheering on a delegation of Khoi and San leaders and their supporters. This is fascinating stuff, it shows openness, it shows real commitment to change. The FF+, through fighting their battle for Afrikaners, have (intentionally or unintentionally) become the main voice for the Khoi-San people in South Africa. The “white” party is fighting for the rights of the “coloureds”.

So in spite of what the liberal media wants everyone to believe, the conservatives in South Africa are not just old dudes sitting in churches, discussing “the youth of today”. The conservative South African is willing to adapt, and work with others to accomplish their mutual goals.

Will this be enough to save the FF+? Will they stop decreasing in votes, as they have done since 1994? Can change internally change the external perspective of the “Afrikaner Party”? I will not put a verdict on it yet… it is obviously a massive battle for them to change voter’s perspectives. What I will say is this: Well done FF+ for taking a step in the right direction. May this be the first of many.

I have a dream

Today, 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. gave his iconic “I have a dream” speech. Now while King is not necessarily so well known in South Africa, he still stands out as one of the most celebrated political leaders in the past century. I will gladly pay homage to King today by writing a bit about what he did, and more importantly – how.

According to me, King was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen, and he might be in my top three civil rights leaders, along with William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln. The manner in which King tackled his challenges, and handled his adversaries, is worthy of boundless praise.

Martin Luther King never initiated violent protests or riots, in fact he strongly condemned violence. He rather caused revolution through peaceful protests, shaming the oppressors. Now I know many people will want to hang me for saying this, but in my opinion, the South African struggle heroes fade in comparison to Martin Luther King and what he accomplished. He was a true hero in every sense of the word. He was never seen as a terrorist and never resorted to violence or intimidation – but yet he was successful in what he attempted.

Rather than focussing on King and who he was, I would like to focus on some of the specific “peaceful protests” organized by him, as I believe that in this, we as South Africans have much to learn. I did not write the following text, but got it from an article in the Christian Science Monitor:

1. Montgomery bus boycott, 1955-56

Lasting just over a year, the Montgomery bus boycott was a protest campaign against racial segregation on the public transit system in Montgomery, Ala. The protest began, on Dec. 1, 1955, after African-American Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white person. The next day, Dr. Kingproposed a citywide boycott of public transportation at a church meeting.

The boycott proved to be effective, causing the transit system to run a huge deficit. After all, Montgomery’s black residents not only were the principal boycotters, but also the bulk of the transit system’s paying customers. The situation became so tense that members of the White Citizens’ Council, a group that opposed racial integration, firebombed King’s house.

In June 1956, a federal court found that the laws in Alabama and Montgomery requiring segregated buses were unconstitutional. However, an appeal kept segregation intact until Dec. 20, 1956, when the US Supreme Courtupheld the district court’s ruling. The boycott’s official end signaled one of the civil rights movement’s first victories and made King one of its central figures.

2. The Albany movement, 1961

The Albany movement was a coalition formed in November 1961 in Albany, Ga., to protest city segregation policies. Dr. King joined in December, planning only to counsel the protesters for one day. Instead, he was jailed during a mass arrest of peaceful demonstrators, and he declined bail until the city changed its segregation policies.

The city made several concessions, and King left jail and then Albany. But he returned the next year to find that little had actually changed. Upon his return, he was convicted of leading the prior year’s protest and sentenced to 45 days in jail or a $178 fine. He chose jail. Three days into King’s sentence, an Albany police chief arranged for his release. The movement eventually dissolved, with few substantial results after nearly a year of continued peaceful protests, but the campaign tested tactics that would shape future protests in the national civil rights movement.

3. The Birmingham campaign, 1963

Lasting about two months in 1963, the Birmingham campaign was a strategic effort started by Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference to end discriminatory economic policies in the Alabama city. Some of the protests included boycotting certain businesses that hired only white people or that had segregated restrooms.

When businesses refused to change their policies, protesters held sit-ins and marches, with the aim of getting arrested. King encouraged these nonviolent tactics so that the city’s jails would overflow. Police used high-pressure water hoses and dogs to control protesters, some of whom were children. By the end of the campaign, many segregation signs at Birmingham businesses came down, and public places became more open to all races.

Of the tactic used in the Birmingham campaign, King said, “The purpose of … direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”

4. March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, 1963

Perhaps Dr. King’s most famous act as a civil rights leader came during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, on Aug. 28, 1963. The largest political rally ever seen in the US, it drew between 200,000 and 300,000 police and participants, to whom King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Among other things, the speech advocated racial harmony and economic rights for African-Americans. Observers estimated that nearly 80 percent of the marchers were black.

5. Bloody Sunday, 1965

Dr. King and several other civil rights leaders organized three marches from Selma, Ala., to the state capital of Montgomery, in a bid for voting rights for all.

The first, on Sunday, March 7, 1965, involved nearly 600 protesters who marched east from Selma on US Highway 80, led by Jon Lewis of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Rev. Hosea Williams of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. King was not present because he had church duties. But days before, King had met with government officials to try to ensure the marchers would not be impeded. Even so, mob and police violence caused the march to be aborted on that “bloody Sunday.” When film footage of the police brutality was broadcast around the country, it sparked widespread public outrage and helped to boost support for the civil rights movement.

Of the event, King later wrote, “If I had any idea that the state troopers would use the kind of brutality they did, I would have felt compelled to give up my church duties altogether to lead the line.”

King tried to organize another march, but protesters did not succeed in getting to Montgomery until March 25. The speech he delivered that day, on the steps of the state capitol, has since become known as “How Long, Not Long.”

Bloody Sunday was a turning point for the civil rights movement, building public support and clearly demonstrating King’s strategy of nonviolence.

6. Chicago, 1966

After successful demonstrations in the South, Dr. King and other civil rights leaders sought to spread the movement north. They chose Chicago as their next destination to take on black urban problems, especially segregation.

To show his commitment to the northern campaign, King rented an apartment in the slums of North Lawndale on the city’s West Side. One Friday afternoon in August, King led about 700 people on a march in Marquette Park on Chicago’s Southwest Side, a white enclave, to protest housing segregation. Thousands of white people gathered, taunting King and the other protesters. At one point, a brick hit King in the head, but he continued the march as onlookers hurled rocks, bottles, and firecrackers at the marchers. Thirty people, including King, were injured.

Of the Chicago protest, King later said, “I have seen many demonstrations in the South, but I have never seen anything so hostile and hateful as I’ve seen here today.” He continued, “I have to do this – to expose myself – to bring this hate into the open.”

———-

I would like to conclude by giving my own little spin on the Martin Luther King speech:

I have a dream, I have a vision.
A dream of a South Africa where the color of your skin does not determine the opportunities you receive.
A dream of a country where all men are treated equal in every sense of the word.
I have a vision of a South Africa where black and white children can play together in the streets, 
without fear of abduction or rape.
I have a dream of a country where the most vulnerable and innocent are the most protected,
where a baby will be safe in the womb of it’s mother.
I have a dream of a corruption-free government.
I have a vision of a country where foreign nationals are safe, and can work their way to legal citizenship.
I have a dream of equality, where there is no discrimination against the rich, or the poor.
I have a vision of restored pride in being South African.
I have a dream of a country where people obey the law, fear God, and honor their leaders.
I have a dream.
– – – Nico Smit

Something is astir in the ACDP

Last night I went to my first ACDP branch meeting. I had a couple of preconceived ideas as to what the meeting would be like, but what I found there was not what I expected…

So let me start off by iterating a bit more on the challenges that face the ACDP at the moment. From 1994 until 2004, the ACDP was the fastest growing party in South Africa (some of you did not know that), they were at an all-time high in the 2004 general election. But after that, they fell quite dramatically in voter-share to where they are now. Even though they still have a larger voter-share than in 1994, the current picture is not looking good. I have been in discussion with a lot of people over the years who support the ACDP, but don’t vote for them. When I ask people why they don’t vote for them, the response is always the same: “They don’t do anything” – and in this lies the current challenge for the ACDP.

ACDP President: Kenneth Meshoe

Now to clarify, the issue is not that the ACDP is not doing anything, in fact they are doing a lot! They are championing the conservative cause in all levels of government. The issue is that the ACDP has failed to communicate to their voters and other conservatives about what they are doing. They have been doing their job diligently, but silently. Unfortunately, the average voter does not do research before voting, he/she simply has a look at what the media and his/her community is saying, formulates an opinion, and vote. This is why the DA nearly consumed the ACDP vote in full, because the DA is “in your face” about what they are doing, and the media is continually writing about them. If you do your research, you will see that the DA is not fighting for conservative values, whereas the ACDP is. But alas, “my people perish for a lack of knowledge”.

Wayne Thring: ACDP Deputy President, MP

So now we finally get back to my first branch meeting. I thought that I will find a group of people, good people, but good people who have stagnated into passivity. Almost like an old, super-conservative church with no youth and no “loud noises”. What I found there, was in fact refreshing. In stead of “old people” who became passive, I saw a group of mature vibrant community leaders. In stead of stagnant passivity, I saw a group of people, working hard to win back the youth of their time, formulating plans to “change and adapt” to be more relevant. In stead of a lack of communication, we were briefed by the provincial secretary general on how the ACDP should change, and how they are changing to bring the message across of what they are doing. I heard of all the people who are joining the ACDP, how the party is growing in members, how the community is responding positively to the ACDP, how they are now reaching out to the media and other communication channels.

After the meeting I was refreshed and inspired. I no longer felt like one person who joined a party to change it, I now felt like one of countless South Africans who heeded the call to stand up for what is good and right. In my previous post, I mentioned that by joining the ACDP, I may be joining a sinking ship. But it seems like the ACDP might just change this sinking ship into a submarine.

Grant Haskin: Western Cape MP, ACDP leader in the Western Cape

To conclude:
Whether the ACDP will once again rise to it’s former greatness of the fastest growing party in South Africa, I do not know. Will the average conservative voter have a change of mind when it comes to placing their vote? Will the “new ACDP” make a large enough impression to regain what they have lost? Who can say? I for one can not put a guarantee on what the future will bring. But I know this:
The ACDP is on the right track, and they are going to make an impact in the 2014 general election either way. If this is their last stand, then it will be glorious. And I for one, will be proud to be a part of it.

So DA, ANC, Agang and all other players in this game, beware and take note: Something is astir in the ACDP!

Why you shouldn’t vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 2

This post is part two of a two part series which consists of:

1. Why you don’t have to vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 1 In this part I address the common misconception that conservatives have in believing they have to vote for the DA, and that this is the only option.
2. Why you shouldn’t vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 2 Here I get down to the flaws of the DA and their policies, and why no conservative should vote for them.

The DA’s left wing policies for a socialist welfare state:

Most people in South Africa seem to be voting for a political “label”, in stead of voting for policy and execution. People vote for the ANC because they are the “anti-apartheid” label. People vote for the DA because they are the “Not the ANC” label. Unfortunately due to this lack of policy research on behalf of voters, a lot of conservatives end up voting for the DA even though they will not necessarily agree with their policies.

One such policy of the DA is it’s social welfare policy:
The conservative right political view is that the state should support those who can not support themselves, but that able-bodied citizens should support themselves. The socialist left believes all people, despite their abilities or inabilities, should be sustained by the state.
Support for those who can not support themselves includes grants (in the form of finance and other) for orphans and children who do not have access to life’s basics like food and a place to sleep. Also pensioners who can no longer work and disabled people. Now both conservatives and liberals agree on this point, but when it comes to young healthy men and women, the conservative view is that they should be left to support themselves, support for them is a burden the state can not bare.

On the DA website you can read up about their social welfare policies. One of these policies is that they believe the state should pay a grant of R110 per month to all people who do not have an income above minimum wage. Now at a glance this doesn’t seem so bad… but if you factor in that currently there can be about 8 million South Africans who fall under that criteria (aged 16-65), then all of a sudden it’s a whole different picture. The DA wants the state to pay R880,000,000 per month for unemployed healthy citizens. If unemployment goes up, then this can easily go up to 1 billion Rand per month for social welfare. If all the zero’s do not paint the picture for you yet, I will attempt to quantify it:

• With the amount of money the DA want’s to give away monthly for people who do not work, you can create 80,000 jobs by employing 80,000 more police constables and increase the South African police force by 50%.
• With the amount of money the DA want’s to give away monthly for people who do not work, the SANDF can purchase a whole squadron of 12 Challenger 2 battle tanks (Britain’s main battle tank) per month, or an Apache helicopter every two months.
• With the amount of money the DA want’s to give away monthly for people who do not work, the country can build 44km of highway per month, 528km per year (ironic that they battle against E-Toll).
• With the amount of money the DA want’s to give away monthly for people who do not work, you can pay off Cape Town Stadium in full in 5 months (it took more than a year to build it).

Now please do not assume that I suggest we plough this amount of taxpayers-money into the items above, I am merely stating the insanity in wasting so much taxpayers money on pointless welfare. Furthermore, it has been found, statistically, in both the United Kingdom and in America, that providing grants to able-bodied citizens does not enable them to find or create work, exactly the opposite happens. If you give money to people for doing nothing, then that is what they will keep doing, nothing. Won’t it be so much better to use that amount of money to stimulate the economy, the private sector, and so doing create thousands of jobs monthly?

The conservative parties have a better approach on this, the ACDP’s approach is to provide opportunities for the economy to grow in the private sector and to encourage family-businesses. The FF+ believe any group of people should be able to exist solely by themselves, without any funding from the government/taxpayer. The IFP maintains that government intervention should only happen once all streams of the private sector and NGOs have been exhausted.

Higher tax rates

The natural flow from a socialist government is higher taxes. If you continue giving things away for free, and encourage a begging/entitlement-mentality, in stead of an earning/achievement mentality, the lower class will remain where they are and grow larger. The middle class will continually have to support the growing lower class through taxpayers money. The DA keeps raising the taxes in the municipalities that they govern, even though this raises the burden of survival on the middle class, and stifles the economy. The larger lower class then keeps voting for them, because they are getting things for free, but it is not sustainable. The final result is that you have a massive growing lower class, and you create a massive divide between the classes, working against the attempt to bring the two closer.

The conservative model is to keep taxes low, encouraging growth in the economy and giving incentive to work hard and earn more. Ironically, lower taxes have been found to increase a country’s GDP, in countries like Russia for example.
The ACDP has been fighting against the DA’s taxation in Cape Town yearly, but since conservatives are voting liberally (out of ignorance), the majority DA just ignores the conservative voice. And taxes keep going up.

Spineless stance on abortion

The liberal view on morality and ethics, is that everyone is right in their own opinion, and thus you can’t enforce your views on someone else. What is right for you is right for you, and what is right for someone else is right for them. Now while this viewpoint has it’s merits, there are some limits that needs to be placed, for example: If it is “right” for someone in their own opinion to rape other people, you can’t allow them to live out that opinion, because it will infringe on other people, quite intensely I may add.

Conservatives are more of the opinion that there is an ultimate right and wrong, and everyone, regardless of their views, has to subscribe to these truths. One of these main points of disagreement between the conservatives and liberals is the issue of abortion. Now if you’re not sure whether abortion is right or wrong, maybe you just need to look at the facts, I won’t go into it now, but you can read up all about it on ProLife Generation’s webpage: http://prolifegeneration.org.za/ethics. Not only is abortion the murder of innocent human beings, but more than 80% of South Africans believe it’s wrong.

The DA’s policy on abortion, is the typical spineless liberal stance on abortion, on their website, under FAQ, they state that ” when it comes to issues such as abortion and the death penalty, we let our members vote “with their conscience” “. In other words, they say that they do not have a policy about that, it is in the hands of their members/voters to decide for themselves. Surely this then means that they do not pick sides in the argument and stay neutral right? I cornered Mmusi Maimane (Gauteng premier candidate for DA for 2014, and DA national spokesperson) about the topic, and this is what happened (see image):
I checked with Mr. Maimane what his stance on abortion is, hoping for a voice of reason to emerge from the DA, because, as they say on their website, each member is entitled his own view and can pursue it? He replied by saying the constitution allows women to choose, and the policy of the DA is to uphold this right. So either their website is lying or their National spokesperson does not know what their policy is (which I highly doubt).

So here is what is happening: The DA knows that statistically most South African’s are against abortion, so they claim to allow you to choose for yourself, to win votes. But when it comes down to reality, they are staunch abortion supporters, in spite of what they may say on their website. This is a spineless stance. In stead of defending the “right to life” (constitution) of the most vulnerable human beings, they allow others to violate their right to life, by taking it away.

The problem with liberals is that they never slide in just one area, it always flows into others. In the end they end up defending one religion and not the other. Liberals across the world are continually granting more and more rights to Muslims for example, and taking rights away from Christians, in spite of their “everything is right” approach. Where will this slippery slope lead us if people keep voting DA?

(Not so perfect) Administrative record

The DA’s main selling point is their administrative record. They keep bringing it up at each election. Their track record is that they are good administrators of public works and service delivery. Now I am once again not going to take away from the DA that which they are doing good. I believe Helen Zille is an awesome administrator, but she alone. If you compare the DA to the ANC, then of course they seem like excellent administrators, but that is just because the ANC ended up being a joke of a political party. If you compare the DA to real-world politicians in Europe or America, then they are at best average.

I will explain why I am saying this with one example: In their attempt to win more votes in the Western Cape, the DA merged with ID, and Patricia de Lille became the mayor of Cape Town to seal the deal. Now what Helen Zille has in excess, Mrs. de Lille is seriously lacking. She has an autocratic outlook on politics and runs the metro with a “do-as-I-say” approach. She fails to consult the community or her advisers (if in fact she has any) and makes decisions on her own. Her decisions are many times the wrong ones, and then when cornered by the media, she either ignores them, or blames something as ridiculous as “male chauvinism” – ignoring the issue. If I had a nickel for every time people complained about her choices and decisions on the radio station 567 Cape Talk…

The problem is that, in stead of handling the situation and sorting her out, the DA is now constantly sweeping all her mess-ups under the carpet. They don’t want to look like the party who “chose the wrong mayor” as it will tarnish their precious record. It’s just too bad that that is exactly what is happening.
This IOL article sums up the issues quite nicely: http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/mayor-s-do-as-i-say-approach-under-fire-1.1557643#.UhRkKpJkOQE

In closing

Yes, compared to the ANC, the DA is the lesser of two evils, but they are not the flawless saints they make themselves out to be. Some of their policies render them unelectable to conservatives, and some of their decisions show their weakness. As per my previous post, there is no reason for any right-minded South African to believe that they have to vote for them. And as per this post, there is more than enough reason not to vote for them. As conservatives we should keep voting conservative, or there won’t be anything left of our views and morals in the future South Africa. If  the DA comes to power one day, let there be a decent sized conservative weight in the benches of parliament keeping them in check, restoring the balance. The liberal vs liberal thing we have now (ANC vs DA) won’t get any of our conservative values into South Africa.

Why you don’t have to vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 1

I initially attempted to write this in one post, but then I realized it might be a bit much for the casual reader. So this is a two part series which consist of two posts:

1. Why you don’t have to vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 1
   In this part I address the common misconception that conservatives have in believing they have to vote for the DA, and that this is the only option.
2. Why you shouldn’t vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 2
   Here I get down to the flaws of the DA and their policies, and why no conservative should vote for them.

Now there may be some of you who, off the bat, will ask the question: Why do you target the DA? Why not the ANC? My response: Really? There is absolutely no reason to try and explain to any clear-minded person why not to vote for the ANC, the ANC themselves are on the forefront of showing everyone why you should not vote for them. The whole world in fact is asking questions about why SA is still voting for the ANC, so I have no need to go into that as well.

I have observed under some of the most conservative people I know, a trend of voting for the DA. A feeling of hopelessness, the feeling that there is no other option. I believe this is unnecessary and wrong. That is why I would like to address all those conservative people now.

So let me start off by saying this: I support the DA in various areas, but I won’t vote for them. There is a very important difference. If the coach of the national rugby/soccer team chooses a player whom I would not have chosen – were I in his shoes – I would still support that player on game day against any rival. I would also like to cite the Arabic proverb: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I may not agree with the DA on various issues, but I would rather have them govern South Africa than the ANC, solely based on their better administrative record.

That being said, I will now again address the countless conservatives who have been led to believe that you have to vote for the DA in order to “stand against the ANC”.

The main reason why most people believe that you have to vote for the DA, is because they are the largest opposition party, and they have a good administrative record. They believe that you have to be large in order to stand against the ANC, or else you will not be heard or make an impact. Now there is a very common misconception right here. The problem is that most citizens apparently do not understand how our democracy works, so let me explain the basics.

In all levels of government – municipal, provincial and national – the legislature is made up of a mixture of political party representatives, proportionally to the amounts of votes that those parties received out of the total. The leading party or leading coalition will be the main governing board – the mayor, premier or president – and they choose their main governing team. All legislature made on that level has to be voted on by all parties. So if there is any law to be made in any level of government, the party you voted for will have a say on whether it is passed or not. Your party also has the power to bring a bill to the legislature for voting.

Now some people still don’t get it at this point, so I will further explain:
If the ANC or any other party comes up with some law that will destroy the country, then all the other parties will vote against it anyway, as if they were one party. This is what happened with “The Protection of State Information Bill” for example. So whether the party up there voting is the DA or any other party really doesn’t matter. When it comes to other non-conservative legislature though, like “Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act”, then you would want your conservative party to be voting for your views, and not the DA. So we see here that the “bigger” a party is has no impact on standard legislature in the current political environment, but if there are not enough conservatives voting conservatively, then we will end up with a lot of liberal left laws, which in turn will destroy healthy family/community life and the economy.

So what about who governs? Do you have to vote for the DA in Gauteng in the next election, because they are the only party who has a chance of winning the ANC to govern the province?
What would happen if the ANC got less than 50% of the vote, and the DA got less than the ANC still? The same thing that has happened every time in the past: The DA will form a coalition with other parties in order to be the majority, and doing so, govern the municipality. This is what happened for example in Cape Town in the 2006 municipal elections (and various others) – the DA needed to form a coalition with smaller parties to be able to govern – so they struck up a deal with the ACDP, which was at that time the third largest party. The end result was that the ACDP had the vice-mayor position in the Cape Town, leaving them with more power than even the ANC in the metro.

So we see that any party you vote for will have it’s impact. If you just vote for the liberal left, then that is what you will get – like the (official) annual naked bicycle ride in Cape Town, or our legalized abortion law. If you however vote for the conservative parties, then they will vote for your values in legislature, and be a voice of reason in the decision making chambers.

Any party large enough to have representation, can and will impact South Africa, it is the way our democracy is set up. Our small ACDP has championed the conservative view in parliament, and they will continue doing so. You don’t have to vote for the DA, for any reason, you can vote for your conservative party of choice, be it ACDP, FF+ or whichever may rise in the future.

Stay tuned for my following post: Why you shouldn’t vote for the DA (Democratic Alliance): Part 2