He might turn out to be a great disappointment – just another American President looking after American interest and trying to pull a fast one on the rest of us. He might be more conservative than we are hoping and far less liberal than the McCain/Palin bullies are trying to pretend. He might invade another country like George Bush or forsake the poor and marginalised in his own country. Yet, I am hoping with every fibre in my body that Barack Obama wins the US election in ten days time. This report about early voting in the Presedential election sums up why:
For me the most moving moment came when the family in front of me, comprising probably 4 generations of voters (including an 18 year old girl voting for her first time and a 90-something hunched-over grandmother), got their turn to vote. When the old woman left the voting booth she made it about halfway to the door before collapsing in a nearby chair, where she began weeping uncontrollably. When we rushed over to help we realized that she wasn’t in trouble at all but she had not truly believed, until she left the booth, that she would ever live long enough to cast a vote for an African-American for president.
Moving story indeed… I just hope that this election will not be seen as a black v white but something that will unite that country…
I sincerely hope that one day in South Africa we will witness an election of the party based not ony history alone but on the ability of that party to deliver and develop our country into not only a force to be reckoned with in Africa but in the entire world. I am reminded of the days of Jan Smuts, the man who has never won an election in South Africa but who became Prime Minister twice. In those days South Africa became a co-founder of the League of Nations, the fore-runner of the United Nations Organisation. Jan Smuts was one of the world leaders aboard an American warship in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1945.
Further, it reminds me of the days of JBM Hertzog who worked tirelessly to emancipate South Africa from the yoke and influence of Britain by making it self-sufficient; building industries; think about Iscor, Eskom, etc. It reminds me of the role South Africa played in both WW I and WW II to emancipate Namibia and Ethiopia from German and Italian yokes, respectively.
Gone are those days…
Sne,
are you Black?
lindelani – I don’t think so, but I’m not, yet I fully support Sne’s sentiments. I also think the story about Obama is a moving one, and I hope Obama wins.
I am more inclined to repeat Lindelani’s question Sis Sne, anyway you are entitled to think like that, just that it induces a sense of shock!
Prof, quite a moving story, and to answer Sne, it’s still far too early for us as South Africans, to have a white President especially when regard is had to the fact that even bloggers here still and mostly comment along racial lines, even though better than other sites I have been to, but we are still subjective mostly according to colour, hence our shoch at Sne’s comments!
Mdu – I don’t think Sne said (or even implied) that SA’s President must be white. That is not the only inference that can be drawn from the fact that the examples Sne mentioned, referred to white leaders from the past. The following pretty much sums everything up nicely:
“I sincerely hope that one day in South Africa we will witness an election of the party based not on[l]y history alone but on the ability of that party to deliver and develop our country into not only a force to be reckoned with in Africa but in the entire world.”
If you and lindelani choose to read ‘white’ and ‘black’ into that, then it’s your choice. I don’t. The statesmanship of the past leaders she referred to cannot be brushed aside with a racist gesture. There are, I believe, ‘black’ leaders in this country that will meet with such expectations, but unfortunately there is not currently a ‘black’ party that will live up to such expectations. Perhaps shortly there’ll be one – who knows?
Sne,
If Obama wins you can bet your Blackness it would not have been a Black-White thing; because if the elections turn that way, Obama will never win. But the polls are very much in Obama’s favor that even negative campaigns appear to work for him, instead of against.
Obama needs White votes – a lot of White votes – for him to win. Fortunately these USA are moving away from race as a deciding issue; although there is some fear of a “Bradley effect”.
Funny thing, racism in America exists mostly in the Black people’s mind. Of course, there are still bigots among other ‘races’ but with an increase in multi-racial offspring, racism is becoming a thing of the past.
And Sne, with a increase in South Africa in people with a mind like yours; it won’t be long since your dream (and mine too) is realized. Leaders should be elected on merit and not popularity or the color of their skin.
By the way, Lindelani I am Black too. In fact I am umZulu.
ps. The old woman in that story may have lived under a Black USA President; only she did not know they were Black. Stories are abound that Obama won’t be the first Black USA president; but will be the first one to have acknowledged his Blackness.
Lindelani, Mdu, Mouser
Sne is black, Xhosa and male.
I’ve long come to see that a lot of racism has deeper roots in “class” and “cultural” discrimination/misunderstanding. It actually amazes me how little it surfaces in public discussion of racism.
So when Obama became such a popular candidate I couldn’t help but see confirmation of it.
Tony in Virginia,
“By the way, Lindelani I am black too. In fact I am umZulu”
I see that unguMzulu, ngibona nangendlela ospella ngayo umZulu!
correction uMzulu not umZulu
Z,
“Sne is black, Xhosa and male”
Sorry I knew that, and he works for law school!
It wasn’t a literal question
Ukuba bengibhala ngesizulu, bengizothi ngingumzulu.
So Lindelani, you would write iSizulu, and I would write isiZulu. You would say iSixhosa, and I would write isiXhosa.
You would write uMxhosa, and I write umXhosa.
Thanks, but no thanks for your spelling correction.
Thanks Mouse, Tony and Z,
Mdu, it is disappointing how quickly a mention of our past as a country can degenerate into a racial or rasist one. Whenever there is reference to events pre-1994, there is always someone waiting to pounce on that opportunity to escalate the such reference into something gloomy and rasist.
I cannot run away, and neither can any other South African, from our racial past as a country. However, we cannot take away from the past leadership those achievements that they achieved during the Apartheid era. The same logic can of course be applied to the ANC. While the failures of the ANC have been well documented and therefore do not warrant repeat herein to avoid tautology, the critics of writers of these ANC failures cannot take away those achievements of the ANC during its short stint in power. Admittedly, I am one of the beneficiaries of the ANC rule in more ways than one but that does not fall within this post.
The Apartheid government, regardless of its racist policies aimed at the segregation and marginalisation of blacks through incarceration and other means, had its obvious achievements.
South Africa is today arguably the most industrialised country in the whole of Africa. These industries were not built by the ANC government but were built mainly by the Apartheid government and its predecessors during the Union of South Africa. The leaders at the time were the likes of Botha, JC Smuts, who was very much pro-British, JBM Hertzog, who was very much anti-British, and other great Afrikaner leaders. These leaders, in their quest to make South Africa independent from Britain, had to first make her self-sufficient. This culminated in industries being built to process the raw materials which our country has in abundance. This was done by exploiting blacks as a form of cheap labour. Even blacks from outside the country were transported into South Africa through trains to come and work here in the farms and industries. This improved the standard of living amongst whites and ameliorated the country as a whole, industrially speaking.
Second thing you can look at is the technology that South Africa has. This technology and infra-structure was not built by the ANC. It was acquired during Apartheid to keep abreast with the “terorrists” and to isolate them and thwart their activities. This turned SANDF into the well-equipped forces in the whole of Africa and amongst the best in the world. This prompted even the British to form naval pacts with South Africa; remember the Simonstown Naval Pact in terms of which Britain was to supply that base with warships for the permission to use it in case of war involving Britain. This Pact was abrogated thanks to the breaking of ties due to Apartheid.
I can continue but I would like to end here as I think I have made my point…
Anonymouse & Sne
What gave the bloggers here that South Africa elects presidents based on the color of their skin? That cannot be right.
Tony in Virginia // Oct 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
………………………………………
I agree with you Tony. I refer to myself as umXhosa the emphasis being on ‘X’ and not ‘m’. I would personally put the capital letter on ‘X’ because it is the letter which is always there when I write umXhosa, amaXhosa, isiXhosa, etc. Therefore, I see no reason for it to be on ‘m’. If I were to write ‘amaxhosa’, where would I put the capital letter?
Secondly, when writing isiNgesi (English) the capital letter is on ‘N’ and not on ’s’. The reason to me is simply that the ‘N’ is always there in that word. In Xhosa we refer to it as ‘ingcambu’. Ingcambu never changes in a word but ‘isisekelo’ can change.
Let me break it down as follows;
IsiXhosa =
1. I = iceba
2. si = isisekelo
3. Xhos = ingcambu
4. a = isigqibelo
Number 3. (ingcambu) can never change in Xhosa grammar but all others can. Therefore, to me the letter that deserves to be put in a capital letter when writing nouns necessitating capital letters would be that letter which stays the same regardless of the context in which the noun is used.
I will use another example to illustrate these changes of Numbers 1, 2 and 4 in Xhosa grammar;
1. amaXhosa
2. emaXhoseni
3. isiXhosa
4. kwaXhosa
You must note that the letters that have remained there same in different contexts in which the word has been used are; ‘X’, ‘h’, ‘o’ and ’s’. These words comprise ‘ingcambu’ of what word ‘Xhosa” and cannot change regardless of the context in which that word is used.
I hope I have not confused anyone here…
Sne
No no, not at all. So we should either use “isi Xhosa” or Isixhosa”
(;
z // Oct 23, 2008 at 1:28 pm
…………………………………………
Let use examples to illustrate this by using the word in two sentences;
1. IsiXhosa is one of the languages spoken as official languages in South Africa. (This is the grammatically correct way to write it if the word is starting a sentence.)
2. One of the official languages spoken in South Africa is isiXhosa. (That is how you must write it if in the middle of your sentence or not starting your sentence.)
Sne, you talk a lot of sense.
May Obama win. My bets is he won’t disappoint. You just have to read his book, and listen to his speeches to see he politacally very sophisticated, bright, and he actually passionately believes what he says.
Sne
I was just messing with you by tabling two more alternatives, knowing they were incorrect!
z // Oct 23, 2008 at 1:49 pm
…………………………………………
I’ll ask Malema to tell you what I’ll do to you…
Interesting though… Julius M-A-L-E-M-A…
M-A-L-E-M-A = Mal in Afrikaans interestingly means ‘insane’ or ‘crazy’.
This spells disaster for political leadership in South Africa. Another interesting thing were the utterances of the ANC Women’s League President who said the ANC dissidents (Lekota, Shilowa, etc.) were “dogs” who must be expelled from the ANC as they have already effectively expelled themselves… I am deeply worried about the ANC current leadership…
Sne
“We are not dogs, we only hate crime and corruption”
See below:
“A small group of people were trickling into the Multi-Purpose Centre at Orange Farm, wearing yellow and white T-shirts printed with a photograph of Lekota’s face and the words, “South African National Congress”.
On the back of the T-shirts, the words “Ready to govern and Save South Africa from tyranny” appear.
Posters with slogans, including “Bring back ANC from warlords”, “Malema a danger to democracy”, “We are not dogs, we only hate crime and corruption”, and “Bring back the Scorpions”, were being handed out.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20081023124325899C807349
z // Oct 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm
…………………………………………
Thanks lots man… I could not resist the temptation to quote from that article;
“We will be like AIDS to the ANC.”
Listening to SAFM this morning, I became worried when the so-called spokesperson of the ANC could not articulate understanding of the granting of leave to appeal. To him it was as if NPA had won an appeal, he even hinted that Zuma would challenge Nicholson’s judgment (granting leave to appeal). He could not adequately respond when the host asked him what would the ANC do now that the Nicholson judgment is on appeal and Nicholson himself is saying another Court may reach a different verdict. The insinuation was that the basis for recalling Mbeki is no longer there.
If ANC wants to succesfully resist the attack by their astute dissidents, they need to choose their spokespersons very carefully. Not so long ago I was amazed that ANC had Mo Shaik, as an ordinary member, on TV to debate with Shilowa!
Bongs,
The SABC is just as guilty. They had the caption “Appeal succeeds” to the report on Nicholson granting leave to appeal on the news on SABC2.
lindelani maseko,
how old are you ?
@ Sne
When you remark that; ” sincerely hope that one day in South Africa we will witness an election of the party based not ony history alone but on the ability of that party to deliver and develop our country into not only a force to be reckoned with in Africa but in the entire world.”
Most people fail to realise that this is already happening in Africa, notable in Zimbabwe. If you look at the voting results since 2000, you will realise that the people who have got the largest numbers of votes have been whites. I may self am proud to tell you that in my constitutency the winner was one Goose (Afrikanner)decendants who wallped a stting Minister. Africa is moving, its only that the current leadership is still ingrained within the old mentality of coloniasm, black vs white mentality. I tell the removal of Thabo Mbeki and the eventual death of Robert Mugabe will usher in a new dispension political maturity.
Correction
Gosse-Gossen.
RESULTS
Gossen (MDC-Tsvangirai)=21 345
Orbert Mpofu (Zanu PF)=2852
Mqo // Oct 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm
……………………………………………….
“Africa is moving, its only that the current leadership is still ingrained within the old mentality of coloniasm, black vs white mentality. I tell the removal of Thabo Mbeki and the eventual death of Robert Mugabe will usher in a new dispension political maturity.”
…………………………………………………………………………………….
I sincerely hope so Mqo, I really do. I am tired of this black v white mentality instead of seeing each other for who we really are; South Africans. I become so helpless and hopeless when I realise that this mentality is still deeply ingrained even in professionals despite their education! It causes one to adopt the thinking that being an “educated person” means more than merely a degree or other equivalent that a person has under his or her belt but it goes way beyond that to include the moral fibre of that person, how he relates to others at home, work, etc., how we behave both in public and privately (who we are when we are alone or think we are alone), etc…
Sne // Oct 23, 2008 at 4:26 pm
If only more people could / would understand / accept views such as yours, we’d get closer to John Lennons – Imagine. Like Z’s mind is intriguing and stimulating, so is yours. I enjoy reading what you write and the way you reason.
If all people (specially South Africans) could only see each other for who we are and not what we are. As I’ve said before racism is part of the world and life as a human, but it doesn’t have to be given any clout.
Mqo – I take it the ‘Gossen’ should read ‘Goosen’, otherwise it would not be an Afrikaans name. By the way, ‘Afrikaner’ is spelt with a single ‘n’. But that amounts to ‘nit-picking’, and, I am just another Afrikaans purist fool to point it out. Nevertheless, here in good ol’ SA, we have a Koos van der Merwe (a blood Afrikaner) who is (and has been for several terms) a member of the NA on the party list of the Inkatha Freedom Party, and who is not coy to being called an Afrikaner. We even have a Deputy Minister (from the ANC party list) of Justice and Constitutional Development called Johnnie (Afrikaans version of Johnny) de Lange (who would rather regurgrate than admit that he is an Afrikaner); and a Minister (nowadays from the ANC party list) called Marthinus (’Kortbroek’) van Schalkwyk (who doesn’t know whether he wants to be called an Afrikaner). There are a few others as well – but that is not the big issue.
Race (the whole black/white thing) shouldn’t have a role to play in politics any longer and, as Retsrov says, we should get closer to John Lennon’s Imagine. I think Barack (notice the Jewish name?) Obama should be a good American President. And there are a few (black and white) leaders in South Africa that can make good Presidents. As Khosi points out, South Africa’s President is not chosen on grounds of race. Unfortunately, however, there are still a number of South Africans, especially some bloggers on this site (no names mentioned, no pack drill) for whom their ‘blackness’ is equal to the Holy Grail. I wish many more will start thinking like Sne (my Brother!) and a few others on this blogsite. We should start thinking outside of the box, instead of being imprisoned by our own prejudices and resentments based on history. Then our nation will stand out as a world leader in how states should be run.
@ Rat
Firstly i would like to say that i agree with most of what you say, but in reference to the names that you have used, i think i should have alluded to the fact that even in his rural home town of Victoria Falls Mugabe lost the mayoral seat to a white. Had it not been the fact that he divided the parliamentary constituency in Zvimba, his SISTER was heading for a huge defeat! Just think about it for a minute, a RURAL area which was/is perceived to be Zanu PF territory, with absolutely no campaigning allowed for the opposition but nevertheless managed to pull over 14 000 against Sabina Mugabe’s 14 342! Need I say that President Morgan Tsvangirai trounced him here. Unlike South Africa elections Zimbabwe uses a different system (constituency based) as compared to proportional representation. So whether the ‘whites’ who you identify are holding ‘political positions’, their true popularity is not clearly evident. Most of them are there simple because their names were higher within the party list, not that they are supported by the electorate. I was recently in Umlazi and Inada, and none of the politically active community organizer knew or heard of de Lange.
Khosi is wrong to say that South Africa President is not chosen based on race. That’s been delusional and as always a denialist. Mouse is he now feeding you with cheese. You will be killed/eliminated
To get back to Obama, I would like to say in all honestly I am not advent Democratic, but nevertheless support Obama for President. I have been reading Supreme Court judgements as given by so-called conservative justices ( Scalia and Thomas J) that leaves me depressed. The main thing I don’t like about the Democrats and Obama is their foreign polices. I believe that America as a democratic super power must use its influence (in a good way and consistency) to spread the universal principles of liberty and justice. For a better understanding I post one of the magnificent speeches ever given by a US President. Ideas that millions of Zimbabweans prayed in constant nights that Thabo Mbeki and Africa will say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament — and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people — their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, “It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan.” (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan’s words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)
The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country — ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.
As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world — and I can assure you more are on the way. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.
We’ve witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world’s most influential nation was itself a democracy.
The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place — a bright and hopeful land — where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.
Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control — and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.
Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity — and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.
The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.
The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully — as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for — and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We’ve reached another great turning point — and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement.
Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe — outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever — and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive. (Applause.) Communism, and militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. And we will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives. (Applause.)
Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China’s people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China’s leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible — that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country.
Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East — countries of great strategic importance — democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)
Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This “cultural condescension,” as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would “never work.” Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, “most uncertain at best” — he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be “illiterates not caring a fig for politics.” Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.
Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are “ready” for democracy — as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.
It should be clear to all that Islam — the faith of one-fifth of humanity — is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries — in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.
More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.
Yet there’s a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has — and I quote — “barely reached the Arab states.” They continue: “This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development.” The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism. Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They’ve left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.
Other men, and groups of men, have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power. Ruling cabals like the Taliban show their version of religious piety in public whippings of women, ruthless suppression of any difference or dissent, and support for terrorists who arm and train to murder the innocent. The Taliban promised religious purity and national pride. Instead, by systematically destroying a proud and working society, they left behind suffering and starvation.
Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere. But some governments still cling to the old habits of central control. There are governments that still fear and repress independent thought and creativity, and private enterprise — the human qualities that make for a — strong and successful societies. Even when these nations have vast natural resources, they do not respect or develop their greatest resources — the talent and energy of men and women working and living in freedom.
Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems, and serve the true interests of their nations. The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects — they deserve to be active citizens.
Governments across the Middle East and North Africa are beginning to see the need for change. Morocco has a diverse new parliament; King Mohammed has urged it to extend the rights to women. Here is how His Majesty explained his reforms to parliament: “How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence, and marginalization, notwithstanding the dignity and justice granted to them by our glorious religion?” The King of Morocco is correct: The future of Muslim nations will be better for all with the full participation of women. (Applause.)
In Bahrain last year, citizens elected their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades. Oman has extended the vote to all adult citizens; Qatar has a new constitution; Yemen has a multiparty political system; Kuwait has a directly elected national assembly; and Jordan held historic elections this summer. Recent surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for political pluralism, the rule of law, and free speech. These are the stirrings of Middle Eastern democracy, and they carry the promise of greater change to come.
As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. (Applause.)
For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They’re the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.
The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region.
The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it’s the only path to national success and dignity.
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop — as did our own. We’ve taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice — and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.
There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military — so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying — selectively applying the law to punish political opponents. Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions — for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media. Successful societies guarantee religious liberty — the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people. (Applause.)
These vital principles are being applies in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. With the steady leadership of President Karzai, the people of Afghanistan are building a modern and peaceful government. Next month, 500 delegates will convene a national assembly in Kabul to approve a new Afghan constitution. The proposed draft would establish a bicameral parliament, set national elections next year, and recognize Afghanistan’s Muslim identity, while protecting the rights of all citizens. Afghanistan faces continuing economic and security challenges — it will face those challenges as a free and stable democracy. (Applause.)
In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy — and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization. Our coalition is responding to recent attacks with precision raids, guided by intelligence provided by the Iraqis, themselves. And we’re working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test. (Applause.)
Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women’s rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves — police and borders guards and local officials — are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.
This is a massive and difficult undertaking — it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed — and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran — that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom — the freedom we prize — is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.)
Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we’re strong of heart. And we’re not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.
With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this Endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)
Pierre, to me you come across as hopelessly naïve when you say that Obama “might turn out to be a great disappointment [and] … might be more conservative than we are hoping.”
There is no room for “might” here. Read a little beyond the surface, and look beyond the silly idealism of Obama’s vast campus support base. Think past the scare-mongering of the Republican media machine. You will grasp that Obama is, indeed, going to a terrible disappointment to the soft left. In fact, just take your hero’s stated commitments seriously: Pro the war in Afghanistan (if effectively waged); Against a divided Jerusalem; Pro the death penalty.
Your idle hope represent the great deluded faith of “progressives” everywhere. You assume that overt intelligence, eloquence, a pleasing countenance, and dark complexion, go naturally with what you call political virtue.
I personally abhor America’s uncritical support of Israel – because it is no good for Israel itself. I despise the death penalty. Nonetheless, I look forward to an Obama presidency for the reasons that you should most fear it, given your revulsion of U.S. power. Obama will be a more credible, and therefore effective, steward of U.S. global hegemony than Bush was, or McClain could ever be.
Mark my words: Obama’s vow to withdraw US troops from Iraq in 16 months WILL be broken. Even as he cynically promises it, Obama know well that early withdrawal would be a catastrophe.
[Mqo, I am very much with you: except that I think Reagan was a very ignorant man who stumbled quite inadvertently into doing the right thing, occasionally. A bit like George W. Bush.]
Thanks Retsrov, Mhambi, Z & Mouse…
Thanks for the speech Mqo.
Michael I agree with you on your analysis of Ronald Reagan…
I have just heard on the radio that Ms Palin has done her profile, and accordingly her campaign some serious damage in the midst of world financial crisis, by reportedly having spent of $R1.3m in the last couple of weeks on clothes, hair and make-up!! For a self-professed hockey-mom from Alaska, she certainly has elevated herself with great alacrity.
As a woman, I feel she has done great damage to the profile of women in leadership roles in her actions. By spending the vast amounts she has on “frivolities” she has done little more than perpetuate the stereotypical perceptions of women as clotheshorses who require “pretty” things and good hair days!!
Perhaps I am reading more into this than I should, and there is nothing wrong with any person wanting to look good, but I feel she has done both her campaign, and the credibility of woman a real disservice.
Retsrov,
I am 24 years.
Admitted, black male attorney.
I can vouch for Lindelani’s credentials.
Samantha // Oct 24, 2008 at 8:25 am
“…she has done little more than perpetuate the stereotypical perceptions of women as clotheshorses who require “pretty” things and good hair days!!”
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Do not read too much into it ma’am. Both Barrack and McCain have spent millions of dollars despite the looming economic depression on their respective campaigns. I suppose the reason why that has not been highlighted is because they are men so it is in the critics’ sub-conscious mind that they cannot be viewed in the same light as women. Moreover, a man’s clothes costs more than a woman’s so for that amount of money she has bought most certainly three times more clothes than Barrack alone…
lindelani,
Thanx for the update. I am saddened by your prejudice. Now that I know your age, I am wondering why you hate white people so much. You where never part of the “struggle”. What has made you so bitter? You were but a boy when we had our first free and fair elections in this country. You are kwedini and you think like kwedini. As long as you never been to that mountain, you’re a boy. Grow up, pass from boyhood into adulthood, and then when you sound like a man and can talk like a man, we can listen to you.
Mqo // Oct 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Correction
Gosse-Gossen.
RESULTS
Gossen (MDC-Tsvangirai)=21 345
Orbert Mpofu (Zanu PF)=2852
___________________________
And wouldn’t the runner-up’s surname suggest that he was an Ndebele candidate standing for a Shona party? I agree, times them is a changing!
Sne, $1.3 is one hell of a lot of clothes and lip gloss! Even for a former beauty queen.
Retsrov // Oct 24, 2008 at 9:47 am
…………………………………………………….
LOL! Just an update though… Lindelani is a Zulu and Zulus do not go to the mountain to become men. Initiation or circumcision school among the Zulus was abolished by their great king, King Shaka, who was their ruler during the early 1800s, during the time of Mfecane or Difaqane. He said that going to the circumcision school delayed the process of recruiting males into his regiments and therefore weakens the ability of the Zulus to be stronger in the battles of Mfecane or Difaqane.
He actually was their strongest king ever, in my opinion. He was born in 1787 by King Senzangakhona and his youngest wife, Nandi. Because she was a youngest wife amongst the King’s wives, he was not fit to be a King of Zulus though he had very good leadership skills in battle. Her mother fled with him to join a small tribe where he learnt to be a strong warrior. He became, as pointed out earlier, a very good warrior such that the king of the tribe he was in decided that he will help him to become the king of the Zulus and to make him an ally as the Zulus were much stronger. Unfortunately as this is off my head I cannot recall the name of the king who helped him.
Anyway, in 1816 King Senzangakhona, Shaka’s father, died and Shaka became the chief or King of the Zulus. That is when he revolutionalised the Zulu Impi (Zulu warriors or regiments) and procured many changes and one of which was to abolish circumcision school. He was enventually killed by his half brothers, Dingana and Mhlangana, with the assistance of Shaka’s bodyguard called Mbopha in 1828. He was so strong that even these two plus the bodyguard did not confront him but they stabbed him literally in the back during a meeting and when other soldiers were still returning from another battle. These former two, Dingana and Mhlangana became chiefs of the Zulu nation. Dingana became the paramount chief of the Zulus when he killed Mhlangana. This was the start of a weakened Zulu tribe as Dingana was a very weak ruler who made pacts with other tribes instead of attacking them and incorporation them into the Zulu tribe as Shaka was doing.
This was also the start of the “Groot Trek” or Great Track” of the Afrikaners (1838) from the Cape Colony into the interior of South Africa to establish three Boere republics, namely, Natal, Transvaal (Zuid Afrikanse Republiek) under Johannes Paul Kruger (after whom the City of Johannesburg was named) and Orange Free State under MT Steyn. The rest, as they say, is history.
@ Mpho
Correct observation, are you an Advocate?
@ Mpho
Seriously though, Zanu [PF] ceased beign an exclusive Shona party when it merged with PF Zapu, to become the now know ZANU PF
SNE&RETSROV
I dont talk to XHOSA BUSTARDS
Retsrov,
I forgot to tell you I am 24 yrs.
admitted umuZulu male attorney.
@ Micheal
What a wonderful observation. I really envy South African for [presumably if you are South Africa] having an observate person like you. Wonderful analyses.
MICHEAL OSBORNE FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Sne for president. A Black leader that can take the positive and negative from devistating era will turn this country into a world power. I admire black people with your vision.
Sne // Oct 24, 2008 at 10:22 am
lindelani maseko // Oct 24, 2008 at 10:38 am
Sne,
Thanx for the update. Shaka was a military genius in his own right, a brilliant warrior, however driven by hatred and bitterness. As far as I know he was a bastard child and later never had a woman (isiShumane). Lets leave inja alone.
@ Dang
Jacob Zuma is already doing that.
Sne
Sne // Oct 24, 2008 at 10:22 am
…………………………………………………………………………
Good history lesson, consistent with my sources – I gues, after all, ‘history is not only a fable which has been agreed upon’.
One thing though (just amounting to a purists ‘bit-picking’ and nothing serious) the ‘trek’ of the ‘Groot Trek’ when written in English remains ‘trek’ and does not become ‘track’ (’spoor’). I once went trekking through the Himalajas on a donkey and a few Yaks to visit Mt Kailash and, on the way we saw the tracks of snow tigers, which spooked our yaks and we had to take a few extra days tracking them down again.
Mqo
Agree to disagree
It’s just dawned on me that Pierre is hoping Obama doesn’t turn into an Oh Bummer
Mqo, I think it’s the political domination of old Father Zim that is the biggest historical warning to the MDC that NO ONE other than Grace should get into bed with Uncle Bob.
lindelani, brother, what’s with the tribalism now? Please, black people have it hard enough without brother fighting with brother.
@ Mpho
Laugh out loud, that’s a nice way to put it. I admit i’m chafed. I envy Bongani now
What a maudlin lot some of you are. If I ever get to be 90 you won’t find ME shedding happy tears at the prospect of being able to vote for a white president. I’m de-racialised, see?
One reason I would like Obama to win the elections is because the sub-prime crisis was started by a Democrat, namely Bill Clinton. So it would only be fair and just to get another Democrat – Obama – to sort out the mess that the global economy finds itself in now. Aren’t any of you worried about your investments/debt repayments/pension funds?
Obama bin laden.
I dont really want to appear a bitter man at Sne being showered with praises for being a ‘progressive black man’. I am amazed at the comments made esp by anonymouse a racist herself that suggests that the problem is with the blacks who live in the past and vote with pre 1994 hearts. What is it that the white man has done to make the black man forget his pain and anger? All that u do is bitch on about affirmative action and BEE and lie about white child having no prospects of employment in this country bcos of pro black racist policies yet the truth remains fewer companies even attempt to comply and the white child remains their preferred employee. With the status quo some of us will always vote along racial lines just like the white people do notwithstanding what the confused Sne say. You can insult Jacob zuma and malema all you like we will vote for them and you can vote for your racist DA and lose. There you have it.
Stalin // Oct 25, 2008 at 1:09 am
Stalin,
What do you really want? What are your ultimate plans and desires for this country? Do you want white men who are not even responsible for your pain and and anger to do something so you could forget? Most of the guys who caused your anger and bitterness is dead now or very old. Take lindelani for example: he is filled with hatred and anger and bitterness towards the white man, but he is only 24 yrs old. He knows jack about the “struggle” – i guess his parents are to blame, because when he was a kid they pumped him full of poison. (it seems he hates Xhosas too)
AA & BEE was implemented wrongly…too fast and apartheid from the “previous regime” in reverse. AA & BEE tried to heal wounds caused over 40 years in a matter of 5 years. Its not the right medicine. Dropping the hatred and bitterness (whites and blacks) is the right medicine, and the media could help, but they are controlled by bitter angry blacks now. What are we to do, to give peace a chance?
I posted something here last night which did not appear, so I’ll try again.
I’m interested in Michael’s comments about a ’soft left’. I would like for you to define exactly what you mean by a soft left Michael, do you imply that there’s another left?
The left has often unfairly criticised the US and defends countries and dictators with terrible human rights records.
The election of Obama will show clearly that while the US is no angel, it has been a major force for stability, openness and good in the world as well.
In the UK there’s actually a new left movement under way that tries to bring thle left back to its core values. Just google ‘The euston manifesto’ and you’ll get a very interesting document.
I agree with Michael that Obama might disappoint the ’soft left’ on some issues. I agree that the US for instance should not so blindly endorse Israel, because its stopping Israel from having to take difficult decisions which they must make if they were to secure a future in the long run.
However, just like Obama might disappoint ’soft’ lefties re Iraq, he might disappoint right wingers that think he wont come round to the two state solution with a divided Jerusalem.
Obama has to say what he is saying now. He is a black candidate, and it puts him at an disadvanatge in a country where just 10% of the population is balck.
And with swing states like Florida having a 5% jewish population he does not need various pro Israel lobby groups ganging up on him now.
Bush after all went into his first election as the face of compassionate conservatism. Don’t expect Obama not to change his tune as well.
You might well be correct re Iraq. Obama might well want to stay longer. Reports are that the growing peace in the country is extremely fragile, the government weak and that massive sectarian violence will follow any sudden US withdrawal. Women rights in particular are bound to suffer in an environment of extreme religiousness.
But the US, facing record levels of public debt, without the high levels of international confidence in its abilities is hardly in a unassailable position to stay in Iraq even if they wanted to.
In that sense, Obama might not help increase US hegemony, but will most probably manage a more uncertain, riskier world where the US needs to cooperate, much better.
Wessel, by the “soft” left I mean the “left” that is willing to accommodate, theocrats, homophobes, misogynists and assorted neo-fascist thugs, like Saddam, for instance. The soft left’s tolerance reflects in part that they have absorbed, from liberalism, and in particular, from post-modernism, a certain lazy relativism. For the soft leftist, there is but one lodestar: anti-Americanism. Almost anyone who hates America, or whom America hates, is on the right side of history, and sometimes a hero, be it Fidel, Saddam, Giscard, Ghadaffi or even (in the case of Noam Chomsky), Pol Pot.
Few soft leftists even know that the Iraqi Communist Party (a viciously persecuted survivor of the “hard” left, if ever there was one), welcomed the U.S. invasion. And if he had to choose, you can be sure that your soft lefty would have sided with Saddam against both the US and the Iraqi communists.
I agree of course that the US cannot (and should not) stay in Iraq forever. But it irritates me that Obama should make a promise that he knows very well he cannot keep – that he will withdraw in 16 months. Yes, I know all politicians lie. But doesn’t Obama ask to be held to a higher standard?
Restrov, what has got my knots twisted is the impression that this country is like this because of racist blacks, u even got the point of accusing lindelani maseko of drinking fron a poisoned chalice. As a black young man no one needs to teach you anything, u only have to live in this country with plenty racists everywhere u look. U give the impression that white parents dont contribute to racist white kids that are fed misperceptions that they have no future here infact stats say something else yet the racist media still purports to feed this distorted information thus breeding angry white kids. Curiously i often wonder if this is not a ploy to make AA appear a failure when there are plenty successes to show for. It’s high time that blacks became subtle racists, it worked to uplift afrikaners, it worked to give respect to Jews and has worked to make SA INDIANS top financially viable. Not all racism is bad unless it ends like Rwanda. Peace
Stalin, what is also helpful to recall is that, as any American race academic would tell us, blacks cannot be racist. Racism is a matter of a power relations. Since blacks remain subordinated, they are not, by definition, capable of racism.
Q.E.D.
Michael Osborne,
Would the reverse then not apply in SA? Given that nowadays, Blacks hold the most powerful positions in this country, and legislation subordinates whites, surely it then stands to reason that whites in SA are, accordingly, not capable of racism?
Samantha, of course. What I wrote was intended ironically. (Of course, whites do still exercise massive economic power over blacks, a reality which, on a day to day people is, for most people, more important than abstracted political power.)
@ Micheal. Ouch!!! I like the sarcasm! With apologies to the likes of Sne and Mpho for whom I have loads of respect.
It matters because he is black.