From: hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african,sanet.talk.politics
Subject: Re: The ANC and the SACP
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:46:26 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town


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?

> Why does someone who is (for example) white qualify as a "minority" and  
> therefore have special rights whereas someone else who is (for example) black
> _not_ qualify for this special treatment?

Well, firstly, the overwhelming majority of South Africans are black, and so
whites do quite obviously form a minority. Now, let's consider a future
democratically elected government (if presuming a fair democratic election 
isn't a touch optimistic in the first place) - by observing the results of 
elections in other ethnically divided societies, we see that the overwhelming 
bulk of empirical evidence indicates that the makeup of our government will 
reflect a severe under-representation of whites. Now, there is nothing 
controversial about this - if you want, I can give you hordes of examples and
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".

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, 
"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 
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.

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 
represented at all in a future "democratic" government? The Indians, for 
example, will have absolutely no say over their own destinies - instead their 
fate will lie entirely in the hands of a government which, culturally speaking,
has nothing in common with them. This would be a particularly sad situation, 
because the Indians are a pretty unique community in this country, with unique 
cultural and religious needs. Do you honestly think that a government which 
shares absolutely none of this with them can possibly be in a position to 
decide how they are to educate their children, how they are to live, etc.? Hell
man, common sense dictates that somehow you are going to have to give such a 
community some sort of autonomy, some sort of protection from the will of an 
alien majority. Also, please bear in mind that Indian communities have faced
years of persecution in Africa (remember Uganda?). Even in South Africa this
conflict between black Africans and Indians has reared its ugly head in Natal
on more than one occasion. So what guarantees do you suppose a "democratic"
government is going to be able to give the Indian community that they are not
just going to become victims again? Answer: none, because Indians won't have any
say in their own security since they won't have any say in government. 

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".
 
> 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). 

This has nothing to do with black and white. It is quite conceivable that
certain black ethnies in South Africa may apply for minority status - the Zulus
for example. You belong to a minority group if there are other groups which, by
virtue of shear numbers, are capable of elbowing you out of power. If your
group has access to enforced minority rights, it still won't be able to usurp
power from the majority, but at least it will be guaranteed a certain amount of
freedom from said majority (and freedom isn't *always* bad, is it now Philip?). 
 
> In most societies the number of men and women is approximately equal. Perhaps
> for a few years there are more women than men. We must set up minority rights
> for men. Then (for whatever reason) the number of men increases relative to  
> women and women are the minority. Quick constitutional change in order.

Now you're simply being silly. Even if there are more women than men, it
certainly isn't the case that men are deprived of political power because all
the women vote as a unit only for females. Thus, no need to protect men from
the female majority. However, if the women did claim all the power for
themselves by force of superior numbers, and decided to oppress men in some
way, then there would be a serious need for minority rights for men. Actually, 
this situation is the other way around at the moment - it is quite  clear that 
women are vastly under-represented in all the major decision-making  bodies 
(both at the government level and in the business sector). This means that men
are making almost all the decisions which affect the lives of women (take for 
example company policies regarding maternity leave, etc.). It's more than 
likely that womens' rights have been violated to a frightening extent because 
of this, and so I'm all in favour of developing a concept of minority group 
rights for women (because in terms of positions of real power women are a 
minority). Of course there are differences between group rights for ethnic 
minorities and rights for women, but the fundamentals are the same - certain 
groups need an area of freedom around them within which groups or individuals 
with power may not enter.

> 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. 

Rave on, down through Empiricism, the Nuclear Age,.....rave on, rave on, rave
on....

Hardy Hulley
Lab. for Formal Aspects and Complexity in Computer Science
UCT