Comments | davefreer: Political evolution

davefreer

Political evolution

May 08, 2009 15:16

Democracy beats the trousers off most of the other things on offer out there. That said South Africa is a good place to see that it still has some way to go before being the ideal method of getting the best people into running public service. Most of the electorate is pretty ill-informed, poorly educated, and strongly inclined to vote on tribal and ( Read more... )

Comments 15

mrmeval May 9 2009, 15:01:42 UTC

America is a bit of an anomaly we managed to evolve our system to the point it works not so much because of the trappings of demockracy but because we want it to work, we believe it will work and we see that it mostly does work.

I'm not sure what you'd call a system that is 'alien' or 'foreign' to an area. I do know when they're slathered on there is usually a lot of pain.

luke_jaywalker May 9 2009, 17:00:20 UTC

I would say that hard, fixed limits on the powers of the government (the Bill of Rights - "the government MAY NOT PASS certain kinds of laws") are a good start ( ... )

davefreer May 10 2009, 08:30:25 UTC

I believe your suggestion quite right - and the inverse of the way things are going - with a huge push to centralisation of power. The last election - couple of weeks ago - saw exactly what you propose happening in the Cape for exactly that reason. Central government (your feds) are apparently already planning to redraw the borders. They may not succeed, but they have a record - well established - of trying to break any system outside of their control. That I suspect is normal government behavior anywhere, and needs quite some curbing. Of course - as someone pointed out - all this will mean is, if the Cape does better, it'll suffer a mass influx from the Xhosa in the East Cape (the second poorest area) ... and the newcomers will continue to vote tribally for the people who kept them poor back there, not the party who are successful in the first place ( ... )

reverancepavane May 9 2009, 17:04:02 UTC

The problem is good governance has to be learned from somewhere. It's not something that comes naturally; enlightened self-interest only works if there is a check to that self-interest.
Another example that all to readily springs to mind is Papua New Guinea. Has many of the same problems as South Africa, complicated by the pre-Western legal code of "payback" (it was estimated once that the standard weregild payment to settle all the feuds was on the order of five times the world's current population of pigs). Anyway it used to mean that getting elected to the General Assembly it meant your village got the road and bridge that election period and then everyone else would combine together to oust you and a new village got the road. It was a screwed dynamic that seemed to work. However with multinationals resource stripping, it's now much more open to large-scale corruption.
NB: it's been a few years since I last looked at our northern neighbour seriously and some things have changed for the worse (such as the thuggery around Moresby ( ... )

davefreer May 10 2009, 08:32:16 UTC

Sounds like a foreign minister worth considering for higher office.

riteturn May 9 2009, 20:12:04 UTC

You are quite correct this is not just a South African problem. The city of Detroit which is about sixteen miles south of me is a supposed democratic political entity which similarly shares all the faults and troubles of a tribal culture overriding the way democratic institutions are supposed to be run. They are unable to provide basic services and the police and schools are both under state supervision after an effective collapse. The unemployment rate is a similar 22% recently, likely worse now. We have two things easing the situation here. Tax money coming in from the rest of the state, and the fact anyone can pack a truck and move north of Eight Mile Rd. who can afford the higher cost of living in the suburbs, so population has gone from over two million to under a million. I suppose at some point the state will intervene in Detroit. I'm not sure how bad it must get and who can intervene or will want to in South Africa.

davefreer May 10 2009, 08:39:00 UTC

"I'm not sure how bad it must get and who can intervene or will want to in South Africa."

I wish I knew the answer to that. The state hospitals have reached a 'bring your own bedding state in places. I can still afford private healthcare with difficulty if my family needs it. Most South Africans (about 80% of the people who voted for the ruling party)can't.

I think they will just let some things collapse. Those with money will be fine those without will know even more hardship. Sorry, it makes me very angry.

qbzzt May 10 2009, 11:52:50 UTC

It's the difference between economics and politics.

In economics, your decisions have the most effect on yourself. As a result, you spend the time and energy to investigate what is the prudent course. In politics, I get to vote on what will happen to you - but lets face it, I don't really care. I have other things on my mind. I'll just vote for whatever sounds good.

So how do you make democratic politics work to the best benefit of the people?

Have the right people. Or at least start with the right people, build a working system, and then assimilate immigrants into it. It's what happened in the US, for example. I don't see how to get it working in densely populated South Africa.

How do you avoid leaving minorities feeling disempowered, with all the negative that not feeling part of it brings?Have everybody in multiple groups, where they are minority some of the time. If they primarily identify with a single group, for example ethnicity, it wouldn't work. That's another reason the US has it relatively easy - people usually ( ... )