What do we mean exactly when we talk about our South African democracy? Some among us (as one of our former Presidents used to say) seem to believe that democracy is only about five-yearly elections in which the ANC gets a mandate from the people to govern the country in between elections as it sees fit. Others think democracy is about allowing ANC members (regardless of who paid for their membership fees) to elect a new leadership and adopt policy positions at its five-early conference, coupled with oversight of the government by the elected ANC leaders at Luthuli House.
Others, yet again, believe (maybe because they will never win elections) that democracy is about “effective opposition” and about opposition parties shouting and screaming and moaning bitterly about the excesses of the governing party. The rich and powerful often seem to think democracy is all about making large donations to political parties or befriending politicians by lavishing them with shares, whiskey and cash in order to secure political influence and contracts or to “buy” the economic and political stability required to continue making obscene amounts of money for CEO’s and shareholders.
And, of course, in selfish South Africa, democracy for many means no more than always getting your own way and screaming blue murder and complaining about a scandalous infringement of your rights (maybe because of a conspiracy/racism/”reverse-racism”/arrogance/or abuse of power) when what you want is not handed to you forthwith.
In South Africa – so its seems to me – most of us are in favour of democracy (even if some are more grudging about the need for this than others), yet we do not share an understanding of what such a democracy should look like. Maybe it is time to start a discussion about the nature of the kind of democracy we would like to see flourishing on this southern tip of Africa.
As a constitutional scholar, my starting point is the Constitution, most notably section 1(d) which states that ours is a sovereign and democratic state based on “[u]niversal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
Accountability. Responsiveness. Openness.
Of course, our Constitution contains all the formal trappings of democracy, which the Constitutional Court has stated contains aspects of both direct democracy (regular elections) and participatory democracy (the right of citizens to take part in the decisions of the legislature and executive). However, in the absence of a culture of accountability, responsiveness and openness, these formal trappings of democracy cannot provide us with more than an impoverished form of democracy.
What is required, it seems to me, is for the political, community and business elites to embrace a culture of justification (as Prof Etienne Mureinik memorably called it) within the disciplining framework of the Constitution. Such a culture of justification must not be equated with a legalistic and formalistic justification of outrageous, immoral or incompetent acts as this merely allows the powerful to hide behind laws, processes and structures to avoid real accountability to those who really matter: the ordinary, long suffering citizens who rely on the state and private institutions to create the environment which would deliver “a better life for all”.
A culture of justification would require ministers to do more than to point to the Ministerial Handbook to justify the purchase of outrageously expensive cars and extended stays in the most expensive hotels. A real culture of justification would require a mayor to explain why her team had never realised that the budget for the Cape Town BRT system was wrongly calculated and would not allow her to justify this by blaming a low-level official for the balls-up.
It would require a Minister to explain to Joe Slovo residence why they are being forced to move to far off Delft when other land much closer to the city (but too close to land owned by powerful business interests) were available. A Public Protector would have to explain why he needed a R7 million golden handshake for merely doing his job and how such a handshake would improve the lives of ordinary South Africans. A mayor would have to go to Phiri and justify to residents why their community was singled out for the installation of pre-paid water meters while the rich white folks in Sandton would continue paying for water only at the end of the month.
A culture of justification seems to me the antithesis of a culture of contempt, which treats voters as gullible children to be bamboozled and blinded with empty promises and legalistic arguments devoid of any ethical substance.
If our society embraced a culture of accountability it would not mean that those in power would always have to follow the wishes or dictates of the community to the detriment of the country or of other communities. Sometimes people in power must make unpopular decisions for the greater good, but when that happens, such decisions must only be taken after the needs of the affected communities have been recognised and considered and after the relevant person or body has accounted to those affected.
In such a democracy, the government of the day will not act contemptuously towards those whom they are supposed to serve, but would respectfully take their individual needs into account. Instead of top down democracy, a bottom up democracy will emerge. Although the needs of the few will sometimes have to yield to the interest of society as a whole, it will not be left up to bureaucrats and political and business elites to decide what is best for communities (but really, would usually mean what is best for them and their friends) and then to implement the policies without having to justify their decisions to those it might affect.
Implicit in a culture of justification is a recognition of the need for an ongoing democratic dialogue between the rulers and the ruled, an openness to change and an understanding that different communities might need different things at different times.
In a constitutional state this dialogue will not necessarily lead to a kind of oppressive communitarianism, because the Constitution – especially the Bill of Rights – places constraints on everyone to act within the pre-determined rules which protect the marginalised and the vulnerable from the tyranny of the majority.
Of course a culture of justification can only flourish where people respect one another, where they talk and listen to each other and where disagreements are not dealt with by issuing insults and death threats. Sadly, most South Africans (and to some extent the media) seem to have a vested interest in the shouting and screaming as it serves their immediate political, emotional and class interests. But maybe, just maybe (I know I am hopelessly romantic and naive here), starting a conversation about the kind of democracy we want and deserve can begin to change all this.
YES! Excellent post! Let the debate on what democracy really means begin!
Don’t expect it anytime soon. Most South African’s no longer care for what is moral. They only care for what they can get out of the system. A system created to be so weak that accountability is impossible.
I agree–but think about the choice of words you have made–”a culture of justification”. Cultures are not something that result from laws or constitutions. Cultures are things that emerge over a relatively lengthy period of time. They depend on peoples expectations, habits of the mind, ways of thinking, all of which are formed over long periods of time, often with education of the young (not only in schools, but in the homes and playgrounds, etc.).
What is South Africa doing to inculcate such expectations and responsibilities in its youth? How is democracy being experienced in schools?
BTW, Pierre, when are you going to get to JZ’s speech on AID’s?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/world/africa/01zuma.html?scp=1&sq=Zuma%20AIDs&st=cse
I suggest we first look at the difference between true democracy and pseudo democracy.
Pseudo democracy retains one legal age person, one vote, but ends there where a form of authoritarianism begins. Zimbabwe, and to a degree Malaysia and other too numerous countries are examples. Certainly to a degree this is now happening in South Africa.
In my view true democracy is the inclusion of all citizens for the consideration of government decisions and the passing of legislation; all sectors and all stakeholders in the country are represented, even criminals who are entitled to democratic human rights in the justice system.
Pseudo democracy favours one or more groupings over all others as in winner gets all. True Democracy works with one single purpose, with the entire country and all its people the winners; a venue through which the servicing of various needs is promoted in a balanced and rational manner for all the people, respecting and incorporating the various stakeholders’ views and concerns. Morality is separate, as in the doctrine of separation of state and church. Ethics is placed highest, because without honesty, democracy fails.
Just thoughts; not lecturing.
sirjay jonson says:
November 2, 2009 at 17:41 pm
“Morality is separate, as in the doctrine of separation of state and church. Ethics is placed highest, because without honesty, democracy fails.”
Please explain the differences between Ethics and Morality?
Ta
In the end, democracy is as democracy does …
The way I understand it, the theory is that an accountable democracy needs citizens who have the will and the means to hold the elected representatives in government accountable. In not sure if we have an accountancy in South Africa. We have a strong culture of political loyalism. The accountancy must be independent, in other words their will to search for what is right in a democratic society must be stronger than than their loyalty to a specific political party. Perhaps we saw a glimps of this in the rate payers associations on municipal level at a time, but I haven’t heard much from them in a long time. A week or two ago I read a newpaper article about service delivery protests. One of the grieviances by residents was the lack of public meetings by councillors. Perhaps that is the return of the accountancy and with it “a culture of accountability, responsiveness and openness”.
Lee: Democracy is… as the people determine and demand.
Prof: To me the Constitution and the Bill of Rights succinctly represent a true Democracy’s foundation. This is why western Democracies hold our South African Constitution in such high regard. They would like to see it repeated throughout Africa. I applaud you for raising this on your blog. Why? Because, and I may sound arrogant here, but Africans in general do not understand Democracy, and I include my fellow whites as well, since whites lived so long under Apartheid and formerly, slave management.
It’s a huge subject. Law is, within Democracy, the mediator/enforcer of all the people’s rights, and the protector of the people from Government, corporate and individual abuse, which is endemic throughout the world when unchecked or fascistic.
In a sense we need to protect ourselves against ourselves, and Democracy has a proven track record.
@sirjay – same thing.
@Chris – I belong to an advocacy group that’s just had to suspend a rates boycott campaign in Johannesburg because ratepayers don’t want to sign on for fear of reprisals by an unaccountable, inefficient and uncaring bureaucracy. I also belong to a residents’ association in the city that is consistently and systematically stonewalled whenever it tries to raise important issues (including major environmental issues) with the city. Ratepayer and residents’ associations have been rendered helpless in the face of a system of governance that, notwithstanding the integrity of the Constitution, is effectively a rule unto itself.
@sirjay – I take that back – not the same thing. Democracy is as democracy does. What the people demand and determine isn’t necessarily democracy, it’s often no more than populism.
Lee: ‘is effectively a rule unto itself’. Is this Democracy? We must remember and demand: the rule is unto the people. I believe that the fight to overcome apartheid was just the first stage of establishing a true Democracy in South Africa. Democracy here is just in its teenage years. And we all know teenagers can go any which way.
Sticking with the title – accountability means if you do your job you get your reward; but perhaps more importantly if you don’t perform to standard, you lose your job (or at least suffer some form of appropriate sanction).
We might get lucky and get some responsible politicians; ones with an uncompromised sense of duty to the position they hold. But on current form they’re going to be few and far between. Certainly not enough to develop any sort of responsible critical mass that could see a government with a conscience.
Until the electorate accepts it is their responsibility to hold their elected politicians accountable for their actions, there is no prospect of an accountable democracy.
Unless you are suggesting that politicians should be held accountable by something else – the judiciary or legal fraternity perhaps?
As an aside and along similar lines of usurping power and responsibility, should the ANC’s NEC have the power to fire underperforming municipal mayors or the ANC’s municipal council representatives? In a way it is undermining those councillors accountability to their electorate and it certainly is undermining a sense of responsibility amongst their electorate.
If you want to have accountable politicians, find better ways of making them accountable to (and actually being held accountable by) their electorate.
I think that accountability in SA would be easier and democracy stronger if representatives were elected from districts as opposed to party lists. I think that this is a critical fault in SA’s constitution.
sirjay, I see you have chosen not to answer the question.
As with the other Lee -’vox populi non est vox Dei – the voice of the people is not the voice of God. I think it was either v Zyl Slabbert or Alex Borain that pointed out at the inception of the new constitution that it would not be worth the paper it was printed on if peoples attitudes were not transformed. Is Democracy therefore not dependent on the individual within the community i.e. the old issue of the morality of our ethics? All the fine sounding words and laws cannot transform society if that inner honnesty and commitment is missing?
So…. answer the question!
The prerequisite for such a culture of accountability is the dissemination of truths. This can only be guaranteed by a contestation within the media and a proliferation of many views. Sadly our country is not characterized by such contestation or proliferation. The SABC largely fails to ignite debate or alternatively denudes debate to ruling party sound bites. The so called independent media proliferates the dogmas and sound bites of capital, liberals and compradors, all of whom have some sort of engendered interest in the maintenance of the status quo. Academics, experts and the professions are themselves not immune, are not original thinkers, and confuse accountability as equivalent to citing some primarily western “authority” rather than finding the much needed solutions to the many crisis of our society.
Right on , Vuyo – well put. And, in response to some of the earlier comments about accountability – yes, a vibrant democarcy depends on the active participation of both citizens and government, but if true power is vested in the mechanisms of the state (through such systemic means as proportional representation and deployment, to cite only one example), that’s easier said than done. I would think our history would have taught us that …
BTW, I don’t buy the argument that our democracy is in an excusable “teen” phase – it was certainly more robust in the mid-90′s than it is now.
AN Lee:
I actually did try to post an answer but at that time the site froze, herewith the answer I was trying to send. I will check back on this posting of the Prof’s daily if anyone is interested in continuing the conversation.
I don’t agree it is populism. Depends on the demands, doesn’t it? And who is demanding? Stakeholders agree on something and then insist on being heard. Afrikaners, Zulus, Coloureds, sex workers, union members, the elderly, others, they all reasonably want their culture, work, education, health and human rights respected and promoted, not damaged, not diminished. Only true Democracy can assure them their rights, and if necessary fight on their behalf.
In a Democracy we are all stakeholders, even the mentally ill. A Democratic government will listen and accept that these concerns are important to the stakeholders they must answer to, indeed are paid to do just so. If they, our representatives, are honest, unbiased, well intended to serve all the people, they will collectively find a balance on our behalf. Does this seem like a unreasonable expectation of Democracy?
Crime is colour blind. Is it populism to demand bringing it under control? Issues like the Death penalty in a Democracy have classically been resolved as cruel and inhumane. Stakeholders demanding capital punishment have their say. Others have their say. A Democracy considers what other advanced Democracies have decided, how the UN and Amnesty International view it. Although these bodies are global, they are stakeholders nevertheless; that is if we choose to be part of the international Democratic nations.
The lynch pin, our Constitution which holds all together, when withdrawn from consideration or democratic authority, collapses everything. And when Democracy fails, there is only one outcome, authoritarian fascism.
Here is an example of accountability
The judges in the Indian Supreme court have voluntarily agreed to put their list of assets and liabilities on the court’s website: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/assets.htm.
It makes interesting reading. Imagine a judge whose only car is a Toyota Corrolla. Does n’t the poor man get a Merc or Beem? Or is the Corrolla only for shopping?
@ sirjay – “A Democratic government will listen and accept that these concerns are important to the stakeholders they must answer to, indeed are paid to do just so.” LOL! If only this were happening in reality …
Lee: it must happen if we are to mature our Democracy.
Sirjay, I go with much that you say however,
“I don’t agree it is populism. Depends on the demands, doesn’t it? And who is demanding? “- This is the crucial thing, There are sectors and ‘demands’ that would ‘enforce’ their version of ‘truth’ and morality. For eg Voyo writes:
“The so called independent media proliferates the dogmas and sound bites of capital, liberals and compradors, all of whom have some sort of engendered interest in the maintenance of the status quo. Academics, experts and the professions are themselves not immune, are not original thinkers, and confuse accountability as equivalent to citing some primarily western “authority” rather than finding the much needed solutions to the many crisis of our society.”
I sense that some on the left have saught to ‘capture’ the market on truth and morality and thus redefine democracy in their own image, that when issues of ‘accountability’ and ‘corruption’ are raised around their ‘untouchables’ they take refuge in labeling this call for ‘moralty’ and ‘truth’ as ‘eorocentric’.
My point being that for us to truly give the constitution its worth, we should stand up to these cultural bullies and refuse to call morality, truth, accountability, by other more acceptable ‘politically correct’ terms. It matters not whether it is Zille, Zuma or Z…. Corruption is corruption, a lie is a lie, unethical behaviour is immoral, lets stop ‘contextualizing’ it!
AN: Your last post a challenge. I’ve re-read it three times to get a grasp of it. I agree with much, but corruption is the trap within Democracy, the temptation that few who come from the previously disadvantaged can resist.
I actually see the corruption process as a natural evolution of all that came before. However, it must change for Democracy in SA to mature.
We need to cut to the core of its danger, perhaps even offer amnesty to offenders, start anew, although I’m not sure the time is yet right
The core to all is the rule of law, as in, all equal under the law without fear, favour, prejudice or personal investment. Once this is settled, then the program shifts to what benefits the people, all the people, who needs what?
So how can we democratically act to promote our Country’s growth, so all benefit?
Simple example, although only one of many: In North America, both the US and Canadian governments gave amazing economic financial backing and incentive to develop inexpensive, continent wide tele-communications, and I am describing post Graham Bell telephone era, then and up to the present. Governments did this to promote the country through Democratic support for the sole purpose of benefiting the people, to promote the people’s growth and their economic well being.
Thats’ Democracy.
I’m getting a headache …
To quote the esteemed Franklin D. Roosevelt, democracy is the establishment and protection of the “four freedoms” – freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from fear and freedom from want.
And, let’s face it, governments (including ours) don’t automatically protect these freedoms benevolently. Here, constant engagement is needed to ensure that the spirit of the Constitution is applied in all cases to all people, even the least poweful amongst us. In a real democracy, the winner does not take all, the “winner” governs on behalf of all the people equally.
That’s democracy …
‘Accountability. Responsiveness. Openness.’
And of course ‘justification’:
“My salary doubled because we were losing all the policy capacity in the federation,” said Vavi.
Surely the most reasonable and acceptable justification of the decade.
The world is in a state in which it is at (i.e. wars, poverty,hunger etc) mainly as a result of activities influenced by the so called ‘democratic nations’, of what good is this democracy then?
The very free press of SA, which lets the electorate know how their chosen leaders
are looting them – in contrast to Angola, Nigeria, Zim, where the looting has been
hidden – is an example of effective indirect control from a higher level. I.e. you
don’t try to directly legislate against the perceived ‘unfair’ price of X.
You remove the monopolistic abuse and allow the market to compete the price down.
So any citizens/residents who can position themselves out of the control of the
abusive authorities can, effectively move “themselves” instead of changing the party.
Like those who fled Zim. and the blankes who flee SA.
So provided it’s not a prison like N. Korea or Burma, it’s not so bad.
====Related anecdoet====
The reason why I claim more than average [especially for a male] medical
knowledge, is that before the ANC was given control [and power to loot
the nation] I knew, based on my Africa touring, that the medical-system
would be overloaded, and was investigating methods of doctors leveraging
their knowledge, eg. via computerised ‘artificial intelligence’, where
unskilled people interface with the patient, before/instead-of the doctor
wasting his own time. And that’s exactly what Lancet-labs are doing.
So when one ‘settler race’ pathologist is driven out, 100 golliwogs lose
their jobs, and 1’000 more have to be fed by the remaining tax-payers.
The skin allergy test worked especially well for me, because the afrikaans
senior nurse used me to train one of the darkies and I joined in, while she
was explainig every thing — so now I can open my own sub-department
at my local witch-doctor, next week. ==end of anecdote ===
If I were a foolis opptimist, I’d believe that
the piekeniens would heed Tutu and Jansen.
Vuyo writes:
“..citing some primarily western “authority” rather than finding
the much needed solutions to the many crisis of our society.”
Before he learned to say WHAT CRISIS, when TM did his B.Sc. Econ in UK, during his
1st year he had to study political history: about Plato, Aristotle..Hume..Marx..etc.
And when I was a piekenien like you, I too thought: “what is all this shit good for”?
Now I realise that it’s because NOTHING IS NEW to be FOUND re.”much needed solutions”
So if we read Naipaul’s descriptions of the ‘independant antics’ in the Caribean in
the late 50′s, we see it repeated verbatim in Zim & Zanzi. The important thing about
reading Naipaul [and his suicid/ed brother] is that he is an east-indian born and
educated in the Caribean and lived in UK …etc. So that he’s got a global view,
not restricted by the incestious mutually confirming ideas like SA-ians.
So to pick up the already existing solutions, from the recorded wisdom of humanity
we can look not only broadly ‘in time’, but in space too. I.e. today, but to distant
location/s. Reading that Zim’s economy was the size of Bloemfontein’s really helped
me get perspective. So too, intellectually isolated in Zansi, it’s easy to miss that
“the problems that you seek to solve have all been solved by ‘western authorities’
who have thousands of times your resources/capabilities of solving them”.
And directly applicable to “the many crisis of our society” I was recently reading:
]You may forward this essay as you like provided that it is sent in its entirety
]and attributed to FPRI.
Well I can’t paste the whole emailed essay, so try http://www.fpri.org/ ?!
] === WHAT AFGHANS WANT ===
]Corruption – Root of all Evil……..
]Rule of Law – Resolving Disputes……….
]..identified the lack of jobs as the second most likely cause of instability..
]Dealing With Illiteracy – Education, Education, Education…
]Democracy – More Not Less…..
]Infrastructure – Roads, Water and Electricity…
]We must improve the quality of life of most Afghans by helping to develop and grow
] an economy that can provide legitimate sources of income for the majority of
] Afghans and fund essential improvements in basic infrastructure…
Reading this [email essay which would be on their website] shows that bigger brains
than available in SA, are investigating the same problems — not issues, not
challenges but PROBLEMS! Perhaps a good first step would be to abandon PeeCee talk ?
There’s one strange thing about this FPRI think-tank, who are very competent, as
I confirmed by their accurate evaluation of the Kenian situation, compared to the
normal PeeCee global journalists: 95% of them have Jewish names. Let me stop now!
… Notational CORRECTION:-
TM’s study of [admittedly western] ancient writings on the various political
systems: Marx..Rouseaux(sp)..Hobbes…Plato is NOT called ‘political HISTORY’ but
rather something like ‘history of political thought’. And yes, probably the
ancient Indian and Chinese philosophers DO have some ideas applicable to “the many
crisis of our society”. OTOH the current and coming conditions of: dominance of
technology, globalisation, over population..etc.; DO present new/unique conditions.
IMO Alvin Toffler’s mid 70′s “the 3rd wave” had a lot of now proven accurate
predictive analysis, which is still not recognised by many. Pity that sub-Saharan
africa, the source of humanity, has no ancient writings, capturing their wisdom, to
contribute.
Um … not. Check out the Timbuktu Foundation for information on ancient African writings covering every subject from mathematics, geography and history to physics and jurisprudence: http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/.
Lee Cahill says:
November 4, 2009 at 10:03 am
“In a real democracy, the winner does not take all, the ‘winner’ governs on behalf of all the people equally”.
LOL!
Right – and Santa brings gifts at Christmas and the Tooth Fairy leaves money under the pillow.
Just like Mugabe’s election is undemocratic and Karzai’s is democratic.
Or Zuma is the bad guy because Shaiky Shaik was medically pardoned after serving two of 15 years, but Zuma is the good guy because du Toit and Mann were pardoned after serving one of 34 years.
Sadly, all too true …
@ Pierre
“Accountability. Responsiveness. Openness.”
And wishful thinking!
Vote one in five years in the hope of a better life for all and working together we can do more – and hope for something generally in that direction to happen.
Then listen to the apportionment of blame on the okes who were there for the previous five years and enjoy the comedy of political vultures raiding the carrion.
And the comedy of opposition politics.
With half of one third still fighting to “Stop Zuma” and half of the balance still figuring out who their leaders are, the best that we can expect is for South Africa to sort of move more positively than not.
1) Having re-read this blog several times over the last couple of days I refuse to believe it was written by the same person who advocated innocent gun owners be punished because the criminal justice system is collapsing.
2) Etienne Mureinik must have caught a glimpse into the future and decided he would rather dive of Ponte.
This is only tangentially related to “a culture of accountable democracy”, but I had
to admit what a dimwit I am [and the SA press too] for not realizing why SATU won’t
rest till Reitz/Jansen is discredited. Didn’t any of you hear the electro-press where
Jansen confessed that the transformation of education since ’94 had been a disaster,
and that a MAIN CAUSE had been the strong SATU ? IIRC the teacher’s union is the
strongest part of SATU ? Again Marx is proven right: our behaviour is largely
determined by our material interests. ITO “leverage for future disaster” the ANC’s
education policy disaster for their descendants is only exceeded by the HI virus.
Like Zim is now depleting the human capital which their good educational system
accumulated during their first decade, so also Zanzi’s exile-educated capital is
depleting. Just imagine the quality of the guvmint officals in 2019.
Any good one that PdV will have produces will have left – and him too.
Lee Cahill apparently wrote:-
] Um … not. Check out the Timbuktu Foundation for information on ancient African
] writings covering every subject from mathematics, geography and history to
] physics and jurisprudence: http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/
That’s why I refuse to call homosexuals “gays”: because it’s part of the conspiracy
to use ambigious terminology to make valid deductive inferences impossible; by
ensureing that the premises can be moved as required. So “negroid” becomes “black”
when they want to pretend it’s about colour: and the Tamil Dravidians are the same
as the Haittians; or Africans: and the Zulus are the same as the Algerians.
I’d be interested in opinions about Haniball & the Phoenecians who sailed around the
Cape in X:BC and the the shipwreck found on the cape-flats ..etc.
———
Maggs Naidu apparently wrote:-
] Just like Mugabe’s election is undemocratic and Karzai’s is democratic.
Things are changing fast. You do know:
* we evil westerners have openly acknowledged that Karzai’s election was fraudulent;
* we invested substantial effort to make Zimbabwe the 1st ever negroid success, and
being so bitterly dissapointed, show it; even tho’m a ain objective of fooling
the blankes that: “it won’t be so bad, because Zim. seems to be OK”; worked well.
–
] Or Zuma is the bad guy because Shaiky Shaik was medically pardoned after serving
] two of 15 years, but Zuma is the good guy because du Toit and Mann were pardoned
] after serving one of 34 years.
Less superficially: how could Zuma influence the irrelevant distant pardoning when
he can’t influence the neighbouring CRITIAL Mugabe behaviour? Or was the distant
match just a training/warm-up bout?
@AliBama – Oh get over yourself! You bemoaned the fact that there weren’t any “ancient writings” in Africa, and I referred you to a web site where you could read about, well, ancient African writings.
Lee Cahill says:
November 5, 2009 at 18:32 pm
Trying to reason with Alibaba?
Good luck!
I suggest we keep the discussion going along the lines of how we see Democracy, not just all our failings, but what is needed to grow the world’s newest Democracy, for which many lost their lives to that end. The Afgan so called Democracy is not yet that, not while the war lords rule.
How does civil society regain the right to participate in Government decisions…. and behavior? As intended.
Correction: “and behavior? As intended.”
Should read: insist on democractic behavior (and ethics). As intended.
@Maggs – eish!
Democracy is comming!
with one m, to South Africa.
AliBama is right.
Especially about the Tamil Dravidians!
Thank you, AliBama.
Respek!