From: spel@hippo.ru.ac.za (Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse)
Subject: Re: The ANC and the SACP
Organization: Katatura State Hospital, Windhoek, Namibia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:53:44 GMT

In <1992Aug13.202001.202377@uctvax.uct.ac.za> hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:


>Philip Machanick writes:

>point you to countless studies which confirm these claims. Also, I don't hold
>it against blacks that they will vote along ethnic lines - its quite natural,
>"a fact of life".
Rubbish (and quite arrogant too). They only vote along tribal
lines because parties ('black' parties) get created along
tribal lines. Clever move by these parties' leader's actually.
It however does not have to be like this. In Namibia it
certainly is not. Both Swapo and DTA have cover more then one
tribe.


>So, now we have our "democratic" government in which whites as a group have
>virtually no political power compared to blacks. "All very well" you may say,

You don't get it, right? One man, one vote. There is just no
justification in saying jut because I am white I get more out
of my vote then my fellow doctor who happens to be black.

>"at least the election was democratic". But what if the new government decides,
>for example, that the Afrikaans language is a bitter symbol from our Apartheid 
>past, and should therefore be done away with (remind you of the "democratic" 
>demise of the Springbok emblem?). Well, of course, by virtue of the fact that

Afrikanns is spoken by the minority but it is official
language. Xhosa and Zulu are spoken by more people but are
not. Surrely one will not object to Afrikaans as official
language if Xhosas and Zulus can be adressed by for example
Magistrates/Judges in their own language. (Don't tell me about
interpreters)


>our government now reflects the loyalties of the majority of South Africans, 
>there probably won't be an Afrikaner represented in it, and so there goes 
>Afrikaans (too bad, so sad, etc.). Clearly even you can't agree that such a 
>scenario is just - there has to be some way of avoiding it.

Nonsense. Even here in Namibia they got themselves  people who
really know what they are doing for finance agriculture
tourism etc. One thing you can be quite assured off, the
leaders don't want their own standard of living go down
(Plane). By the way, what is wrong with Engish as the official
language? Primary Education can very well be done in any of
the home languages and by Standard 7 everything can have
switched to English whit the exeption of the home language.

>Notice that I haven't even considered the fate of the very small South African
>ethnic minorities, like the Indians and the Coloureds - can you see them being 
[...]
It is quite obvious that one must really stop putting people
into categories just because of the colour of the skin. To
call them different _races_ as I read here occasionally makes
me sick.

>The above exercise demonstrates the need for incorporating minority groups in
>the highest levels of government decision-making and planning, even though (and
>probably especially since) these groups cannot compete for places in a
>democratic government, because they cannot commandeer the requisite number of
>voters. Now this is where a well-defined (and well-understood) concept of
>minority right would be extremely useful. Minority rights don't give
>insignificant groups the ability to impose their will on the majority at all,
>they are merely a recognition of the well-accepted principle that there are
>certain things that people cannot decide for you (even if they form the
>majority). For example, they cannot decide which language you may speak, they
>cannot decide what religion you may practice, they cannot decide who you may
>associate with and who you may not associate with, etc. In homogenous
>societies, a concept of individual rights is sufficient for all of this, but in
>a fractured society, individual rights are not enough, because by its very
>nature a fractured society presumes the existence of various groups which are 
>not necessarily mutually benevolent. In such a case the weak groups have to be 
>protected from the strong - minority rights simply define an area around 
>minority groups and say "within this area the state may not tresspass, even if
>it enjoys majority sanction to do so".
Fascinating, you are actually advocating for the ANC, right?
Why is minority representation so important when it is for the
present rulers but not for the presently ruled?

> 
>> Suddenly because someone identifies with the majority they are only covered 
>> by "indvididual rights".

>That's because if you belong to the majority, nobody is threatening your
>language, your customs, etc. Your group doesn't require protection because its
>strong enough to look after itself (and strong enough to bully smaller groups). 
Why do you have double standards? Is it just because you will
loose influence, power or whatever? (You means not you personally)

[...]

>> This drivel about minority rights is obscuring the real issue: how to 
>> establish a culture of tolerance and how to start a genuine democratic 
>> debate.
Exactly. Here in Namibia they are not doing everything right,
buying this ridiculous plane for example for R70Million but
otherwise one must objectively say that they are doing not too
badly at all. The economic climate has been unchanged,
freedom of the press and justice are there (boy do they pour
it on the government in the newspapers!). 

Raving and ranting won't help. They will have an one man one
vote election, there is nothing you can do about it and then
we'll see.

el
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse    \          /                   (spel@hippo.ru.ac.ZA)
Katatura State Hospital   \        |                            (el@lisse.NA)
Dept of Obstetrics & Gyn   \ *    /                         Private Bag 13215
Windhoek, Namibia           ;____/ (postmaster@uonamib.NA) Postmaster NAmibia
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african