From: philip@ziggy.stanford.edu (Philip Machanick)
Subject: Re: The ANC and the SACP
Reply-To: philip@ziggy.stanford.edu (Philip Machanick)
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:03:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.004626.202379@uctvax.uct.ac.za> hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za  
writes:
> 
> Philip Machanick writes:
> 
> > In article <1992Aug11.132449.202317@uctvax.uct.ac.za> 
> > hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> >
> >> "Minority rights at the expense of majority rights"? I think you're  
confused
> >> Linda - I don't think that there exists such a concept as "majority  
right".  
> >> You are surely referring to a conflict between minority rights and 
> >> individual rights.
> > 
> > How about a minority group that happens to be in the majority?
> 
> Logical contradiction I'm afraid - what did you have in mind?

I was trying to highlight the absurdity of the claim that minorities have  
rights that the majority does not have. This is not a right but a privelege.


As to the rest of your argument: a good counter-example is English-speaking  
South Africans who could be claimed to have been denied participation on  
government since 1948 except on a highly tokenistic basis. This was unfair and  
not representative of the portion of the population that was allowed to vote.  
It also meant that most "socialist" projects launched by the government since  
1948 (overmanning the railways, Iscor, etc.) were aimed at Afrikaner  
advancement rather than English advancement. In the end, I must ask: so what?  
English speakers in the long run have not really been disadvantaged relative to  
Afrikaners because they already started from a favourable position and couldn't  
be sidelined because their skills were needed.

What is needed then to defuse this ethnicity issue is to take away the idea of  
threat to minorities as identified by ethnicity (or whatever the criteria in  
the specdic case happen to be). Going for a political system based on ethnicity  
is not the only mechanism for this nor is it necessarily successful (e.g.,  
Lebanon). If a minority is already well off economically and has a monopoly on  
important skills, it is in a strong position to maintain its position if a  
future government wants to achieve economic advancement. If the group concerned  
is in a position to wreck any future system that leaves them out they are also  
in a strong position (Joshua Nkomo in Zimbabwe). This covers the "minorities"  
most often spoken about in South Africa (the far right and Inkatha - NOT the  
Zulu people, many of whom support other parties). Whether there are other  
weaker minorities that need to be considered is perhaps something to give  
attention to.

More important than accomodating ethnicity - which is usually in practice a  
thinly disguised code for racism - is understanding the basis by which  
individuals are empowered in a society to ensure that they do not feel  
threatened and do not get stampeded into supporting competing warring factions.
These factors include separation of powers and a strong independent judiciary,  
the means for ensuring accountability of the police force, a strong economy  
with a wide range of opportunity and an open political process. Accomodating  
ethnicicty is a distraction rather than a means to attaining this goal.
--
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu