Tribes and shared values.

I hadn't intended to post something else about South Africa at this time. But I had some reward points to cash in and was buying some DVDs, then due to misinformation given me at the shop I ended up having to buy a third DVD in order to use the $65 credit I had. I ended up getting Invictus starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. I was generally impressed with Clint Eastwood's work on this film.

While the accents weren't spot on they weren't annoyingly off. I believe there was one botched "goeiemôre," one of the rare attempts to put Afrikaans into the film. If there is any reason to complain about authenticity it would be the almost total lack of Afrikaans in the film, especially since it was about the Springbok rugby team and their 1995 World Cup win. I admit being gobsmacked to realize that was 15 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago at all.

It appears that they used genuine locations for much of the shooting. Even the scenes showing Mandela on his early morning walks through Houghton appeared to be shot at Mandela's actual home, or one that looks close enough to it to fool me. They did have a scene where the bodyguards get spooked when a delivery van pulls around a corner to deliver papers to a shop, and I suspected that was one of the invented scenes for dramatic purposes—I say that because the area in the film would not be within walking distance of the Mandela home.

But the film was pretty much spot on with everything else. Even the shots at the president's office were genuine. I admit not having ever been in the president's office, but I have been just a few feet from it and the scenes in Pretoria were genuine.

The film shows Mandela at his best, which is fine for the message of the film. My main criticism of Mandela was his attempt to cover-up the murderous work of his second wife, Winnie Mandela, the child killer.

If I had to fault Morgan Freeman's portrayal in any way it would be that he simply couldn't capture the charisma of Mandela. I can't put my finger on it, but Mandela is an incredibly charismatic individual. On the two occasions I have been in the same room with him it was clear that he has a very magnetic personality. And the truth was that most white South Africans, contrary to media perceptions, were gaga over Mandela.

When eating in the same restaurant with the man I watched other dinners literally stop eating to stand up and watch him. Cell phones were out and dozens of people were calling friends and family to tell them that Madiba was in the room. A couple of women even stood on their chairs so they could see him. It was virtually impossible to get service as waiters just froze in spot to stare at him.

At a Diana Ross concert he seemed to make a very intentional, obvious, grand entrance. And he did it in a way that completely upstaged Ross herself. But she, like 95% of the mostly white audience were enthralled, which meant a 30 minute delay in the concert as Ross insisted that Mandela join her on stage, from his balcony seat. At his age he moved very slowly and it took at least 15 minutes just for him to work his way down to the stage. Again the audience were in a trance over the man. To say he was despised by whites is not accurate.

Oddly, just as Freeman fell short in showing Mandela's charisma, Matt Damon made a better François Pienaar than Pienaar himself. The real Pienaar just never seemed to be like the man played by Damon. While he was the captain of the team general discussion regarding the players didn't focus on him as much as on other players like Joost van der Westhuizen, James Small, Chester Williams and others.

I know that hard core conservative Afrikaners, in particularly, didn't like Mandela. But that was not the case for most Afrikaners or most whites, by any means. If anything, race relations in South Africa were actually better than most people assumed. The two races were in constant contact with each other, that was unavoidable. In rural areas it was different, but rural areas everywhere are backwards in almost all senses. Most whites never hated blacks and most blacks never hated whites—I suspect the same is true today. The real conflict tended to be tribal, not racial.

The political process didn't produce what most people wanted, that is also true in most places in the world. Governmental policy does not reflect the culture, but is the result of the distortions of the political process. Apartheid was dead in reality long before the laws were repealed. South Africa's electoral system denied equal votes even to whites. Urban white votes counted less than rural white votes. The system was rigged. The odious National Party won elections with a minority of white votes for two decades before getting a majority in a single election. One man, one vote, was not even true for white voters, but I digress.

Given that this wasn't a documentary, but a dramatic presentation, I was happy with the results. The film certainly caught the mood of South Africa at the time of the World Cup. People really did share a moment together. The final match between South Africa and the All Blacks from New Zealand seemed to put a silence over the entire country. I remember the afternoon of June 24th well. I was in the cottage on my property, which is where I worked at the time. The phone didn't ring, no one stopped by, it was dead. The normally busy road that went by the house was rather quiet as well.

I turned on the television in the office. Even though my interest in rugby is limited, as it is for most sports, there is one thing that does attract me to certain sporting events—I love to see people achieve something they have dreamed of doing. I yearn for the "personal best" in others and celebrate with them when they reach a goal. The World Cup itself didn't mean much to me, but the dream of winning it, did.

Life in South Africa was, and is, difficult. The crime situation is so out-of-control that there is a constant tension in the air, a constant fear. True, many people do get "used" to it, but it always takes an emotional toll, no matter how you try to cope with it. So, if there was something that everyone could celebrate together, it was important. Shared experiences are very powerful things—and very dangerous things as well, if misused, as they often are.

Consider the way Hitler used the shared rallies at Nuremburg to inspire tens of thousands of faithful National Socialist to do his bidding. Watch Triumph of the Will, by Leni Refeinstahl to get a taste of it for yourself. (I think she got a bad rap by the way.) When millions of people share the same experience the emotional impact is reinforced and more powerful. Another example was 9/11, something the Bush administration used to rush into ill-conceived and unjustified wars. Because of the shared emotional trauma of the event critical reasoning was shut down, people responded emotionally, not rationally.

Just as there are bad emotions, there are good emotions. And the excitement of achievement is a good emotion. That 43 million South Africans got to share that excitement helped the nation as whole. The process out of apartheid was a traumatic one. Everyone lived in constant threat. Every shopping mall inspected purses and briefcases of people on the way in—to check for bombs. Guard towers were scattered throughout the parking lots to watch for anyone placing bombs under cars. Because African politics is often tribal in nature, the conflicts are made even worse.

The Zulu, of the Inkatha Freedom Party, and the Xhosa of the ANC, were in constant conflict. Hundreds of people were killed in those conflicts. Contrary to popular notions most of the deaths were in black-on-black violence, mostly tribal politics. In reality almost all South African politics was tribal. Among black South Africans you had conflict between Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Pedi, Sotho, Tswana, Swati and Venda for instance.

And among whites there was conflict between the English and Afrikaners. Certainly the Afrikaners never forgot what the English had done to them during the Boer Wars. Over 26,000 Afrikaner women and children died in the British concentration camps. Most of the deaths were among the children and it is estimated that half of all Afrikaner children died under the British incarceration. This set the stage for seven decades of conflict between the two main "white tribes" in South Africa. A great deal of the socialism of the apartheid governments was anti-English in nature because English-speakers tended to own the major businesses.

Understanding the dominant divisions in South African culture and politics will help you understand why the World Cup match in 1995 was so significant. I dare say that nothing prior to it, or since for that matter, actually gave all South Africans a united goal or purpose. Something needs to bind people together, often religion or language has done that. Nations, that are made up of people who share no commonalities, divide and civil war is often unavoidable. \

South Africa was a tender keg because it was made up of multiple tribes that didn't like one another. There were eleven different languages spoken across the country. And the Afrikaners controlled the political process, causing resentment with everyone else, including the English-speaking population, who were the backbone of the anti-apartheid movement.

I don't care for sports that much, except for the pure thrill of seeing victory and achievement, especially for the underdog—I really love that. But in South Africa, in 1995, rugby gave people a shared value. Even I sat in front of my television cheering on the Springboks, hoping against hope for victory, but never sure it was possible. I cheered when the winning kick was made and probably shed a few tears of joy.

When the final whistle blew the silence that had gripped the country was shattered. A collective cheer pierced the air and a cacophony of car horns blasted out a celebration. The streets that had been emptied as people sat glued in front of televisions filled with celebrants of all races. For the first time, the disparate tribes that had long despised one another shared a common value or goal. And, for a few minutes, long-time enemies had put aside their hatreds for something else. That is why, to this day, I can name more of the Springbok players in the 1995 World Cup than I can name for all of American baseball today.

Eastwood's Invictus understood this. Get it, watch it, enjoy it.

Strange Reporting from the Economist.

Compared to most news publications the Economist is brilliant. But brilliant in the mass media is like being the most honest man in Congress, someone always qualifies but it isn't necessarily much of an honor. Recently the publication was put under a new editor, who is supposed to be a conservative—and since then, in my opinion the publication has taken a nosedive, at least in regards to its prior commitment to freedom.

But, that aside, it is the current series on South Africa that I want to mention. I just found that it makes remarks that simply are not true, or highly inaccurate. Perhaps it is small potatoes in the realm of journalism, but given its disappointing diversion away from its historical liberalism, these small errors become particularly irksome.

I have just started reading the series but already found two such matters in one article. Take for instance the publication's claim—individual authors are not identified so the blame must be placed collectively—that there is very little public transportation and most blacks are carless.

While most blacks don't own cars the claim that there is very little public transportation is simply false. Let us first start with a history of mass transport in South Africa. Prior to deregulation transit, like so much of the rest of life, was controlled by the omnipotent apartheid state. Transportation was offered but only in furtherance of racial policies. Government control of transit was used to channel black workers according to racial policies. The reality was that black commuters, during the struggle against apartheid, boycotted official government transport. What state transport there was, buses and trains, were intentionally boycotted as tools of oppression. When the state controls everything eventually it is run by people who use the "everything" as a means of stripping people of rights.

The "black taxi" industry exploded in response to the boycotts. Hundreds of thousands of illegal taxis flooded the country. By this time the apartheid governments had pretty much lost control of the country and illegal business exploded, not just the taxi industry but casinos, porn shops, and grey—that is racially mixed—areas.

The reality is that these taxis are everywhere—not just in the urban areas. Intricate webs of overlapping taxis crisscross the country. Josephine, who worked for me three days a week, came from deep in the Free State, hours away. Yet she fairly regularly travelled home to visit family, mainly her grandchildren. From her home in Gautang she would take a couple of taxis to the terminal for the long-distance taxis. There she would usually take one taxi to the Free State and then another two taxis to the village where her grandchildren lived. These taxis are black-owned and black-operated and relatively inexpensive.

There are some real problems with the industry, mainly because the government does nothing, or next to nothing to protect honest taxi drivers from violent ones and thus crime is out of control. Despite such real problems it is simply false to say that there little mass transit for black commuters. In reality, South African blacks have more access to mass transit than most Americans, though Americans have less need for such things.

The second comment I found odd was a comment made about the Democratic Alliance, the main opposition party, one that is fundamentally classically liberal, I might add. The magazine mentioned that the party still gets a relatively small percentage of the vote and says this is because many black voters simply can't vote for their former oppressors. This is so out of kilter with the facts that I have to wonder how ignorant the writer was.

The Democratic Alliance is the party of anti-apartheid activists. It is the one party that consistently stood up to the National Party in parliament and for years, its lone member of parliament was the heroic Helen Suzman. Suzman constant opposition to apartheid put her life at risk, and her regular visits to activists imprisoned by the State is credited with keeping many of them alive.

The anonymous writer mentions that the head of the DA is white. She is, and the mayor of Cape Town, but being white is not synonymous with being pro-apartheid. If anything the Far Right accused the DA, in its various forms over the years, as race traitors that refused to stand up for a "white South Africa."

The Communist Party, on the other hand, was a major proponent of apartheid when it was first introduced. Yet the African National Congress literally hands over one-third of all seats in parliament to the Communist Party. When apartheid was imposed it was the creation of the Communist-led Labour Party and the National Party, a socialist white supremacist party. Where is the National Party? It folded up camp and basically joined the African National Congress, the majority party.

The absurdity of the remark thus becomes clear. Instead of the DA being one of the oppressors of black South Africans it was a leading opponent to apartheid and fought it, often a great personal risk to those who were members. And two parties that were intimately involved with black oppression, the Communist Party (especially in its early days) and the National Party (throughout its history) were major architects of the racialist policies that created the very oppression that the Economist mentions. The magazine has the facts completely backwards.

Photo: Taxi rank in Soweto, South Africa.

Right-wing buffoon murdered.

Eugene Terreblanche, a right-wing buffoon in South Africa was murdered on his farm. The leader of the extremist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement - AWB) was hacked to death as he was napping.

This follows a racist outburst by the leader of the African National Committee Youth League, who led ANC members in signing a song calling for the murder of white farmers. The ANC is the ruling party in South Africa.

Terreblanche was a nasty man who appeared more comedic than threatening. The AWB attempted to engage in some terrorist activities, but never on the level of the ANC, and were viewed by most as more entertaining than threatening.

Terreblance was the sworn enemy of classical liberal groups in South Africa, a role now filled by the ANC and its Tri-party alliance (the Communist Party, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions).

I can't say he'll be missed.

Helen Suzman: 1917 - 2009

It is my sad duty to report that Helen Suzman died on Thursday in her home in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Mrs. Suzman was well-known for her persistent opposition to the inhumane system of apartheid in South Africa. Mrs. Suzman was a proud liberal, a proud classical liberal who advocated free markets, individual rights and limited government. As such she was hated by the socialists who controlled the National Party which ruled South Africa.

The National Party, which first came to power with the support of the Labour Party and the Communist Party, had rigged the electoral system so that rural white votes counted more than votes within the cities. This meant that even when a majority of white voters opposed the National Party it was still winning elections and controlling the state. One result was that for many years Mrs. Suzman was the only voice against aparthied in parliament.

With the media tightly controlled the only place the truth could be revealed was in the halls of parliament where Suzman enjoyed parliamentary privilege and couldn’t be censored. The New York Times, in reporting her death, gives a bad interpretation of South African history. They write that apartheid “would ultimately be ended not by a small band of white dissenters, but by the more powerful forces of the black freedom struggle and external political pressure.”

They are wrong, stupendously wrong. Yes, the freedom struggle played a major role in bringing liberation to black South Africans. But “external political pressure” was almost meaningless. I spent time in South Africa during the world-wide boycott against the country and these pressures had little impact on the country. The simple reason was that everything that was forbidden to be sold in South Africa was on sale there. Africa is a corrupt continent and all the other African countries were conduits to ship goods to South Africa.

I use a Mac and Apple was boycotting South Africa. Yet I had no problem buying Apple products and getting my Mac repaired when that was necessary. I even bought replacement computers there when I upgraded. All of it came into the country via other nations. In fact, the external pressure that the Times refers to hardened the opinion of lots of whites who continued to back the National Party to spite the world. The boycott of South Africa was as counterproductive as is the boycott of Cuba. Trade embargoes are bad.

And I remember well the graffiti I saw on the walls in Soweto where the urban poor lived. The signs were appeals for jobs not embargoes.

What ultimately undermined apartheid and destroyed it were two things. One is that the economic climate had changed. Originally apartheid was pushed by the farmers and the white trade unions. Both wanted to keep black rural workers from migrating to the city. A decrease in rural labor pushed up labor prices for the famers. An increase of competition for jobs in the cities pushed down wages. So the farmers and trade unions cooperated to keep blacks in the “homelands” and away from the urban areas.

But as less and less of the economy was dominated by agriculture the power of the farmers declined. And the increase of non-union buisnesses in urban areas demanded more labor than can be supplied by the white population alone. Enitre areas of Johannesburg started ignoring the apartheid laws. The Hillbrow section of Johannesburg, where I had an apartment, was quite illegally integrated. Landlords had the choice of renting to blacks or having a vacant apartment. They choose profit over “race”. The best academic treatment of this can be found in Merle Lipton’s Capitalism and Apartheid. For a honest look, by a Communist, of the role of the Left in forming apartheid read Time Longer Than Rope by Edward Roux. He also covers some of this in his biography of communist trade unionist S.P. bunting.

Another important factor in the end of National Party rule was the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were funding communist terrorist groups in Angola, Namibia and Mozambique. This Soviet interventionism in the region cemented the will of the Nationalists to stay in power. When the Soviet system fell apart the National Party finally felt it was safe to negotiate a transfer of power without risking communist domination. (Whether such domination was likely is not the issue, whether they thought it was, is.)

Helen never stopped her criticism of aprtheid and its evil and she never backed down even though her life was constantly in danger from the police state that formed to protect apartheid. She was equally opposed to the trade sanctions however. As she told demonstrators in the United States that while sanctions made them feel good she couldn’t see “how wrecking the economy of the country will ensure a more stable and just society.”

Suzman used her position in parliament to visit prisoners like Nelson Mandela. Her regular and constant visits to high profile prisoners is probably one reason that many of them survived their time in prison.

Suzman remained a vocal advocate of classical liberal values throughout her life. In 2002 the Liberal International awarded her their International Freedom Prize while Robert Mugabe proclaimed her an “enemy of the state.”

The Helen Suzman Foundation continues her advocacy. I see that a good friend, Temba Nolutshungu is a director of the Foundation now and that one of the more libertarian members of parliament, Raenette Taljaard is the current Director.

David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute wties:

In South Africa they knew the difference between liberals and leftists. Plenty of leftists and communists opposed the National Party and its apartheid system. But so did liberals like Suzman, people committed to human rights, freedom of thought, and a market economy. She did not forget her liberalism when apartheid finally fell and the African National Congress came to power. She continued to speak out against repressive policies and the Thabo Mbeki government’s continuing support for Robert Mugabe. I loved reading about her quick wit in parliamentary debates. She sent the minister of law and order a postcard from the Soviet Union, saying, “You would like it here. Lots of law and order.” Once she told a government minister to go into the black townships and see their appalling conditions for himself. He would be quite safe, she said, if he went “heavily disguised as a human being.” In a famous exchange a certain minister shouted: “You put these questions just to embarrass South Africa overseas.” To which she coolly replied: “It is not my questions that embarrass South Africa – it is your answers.” When an Afrikaner in Parliament sneered at her Jewish roots and asked what her ancestors were doing when his were bringing the Bible to the “savages,” she snapped, ”They were writing the Bible.”

Suzman exhibited a rare combination of compassion, courage and a commitment to liberty.

Mugabe wannabe slated for South Africa's presidency.

South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, is to vacate his office at the request of the power structure within his own party. Mbeki has been in a power struggle with Jacob Zuma. Zuma is currently not eligible to become president but it is expected that he will shortly run for parliament, be elected to that office and thus become eligible. At that point Zuma will probably take the presidency.

This is just another of the slow steps that South Africa is taking toward Third World destruction. Mr. Mbeki was a big step in the wrong direction, after he took over from Nelson Mandela Mbeki was inspired by power lust. Zuma has even a worse case. Mbeki took some major steps away from markets and toward political control of the economy. Zuma will go even further down that disastrous road.

The New York Times ran a story on this, as expected, which needs some correction. They have either misstated facts or left out pertinent information.

They claim “Mr. Mbeki brought a moribund economy back from its death bed.” Interesting. They didn’t seem to think that Mr. Mandela had taken South Africa to its economic death bed when Mr. Mbeki took over from him. An article the Times printed in 1999, just before Mbeki’s election, mentions high unemployment but says nothing about the South African economy being led to its death bed by Mr. Mandela. But then then “journalist” Suzanne Daley falsely claimed that during the “election season, whites hoarded canned goods and ammunition, while blacks died by the thousands in grisly clashes.”

This blogger was actually there and half this claim is false and the other half exaggerated. No doubt some whites somewhere in South Africa “hoarded canned goods and ammunition” but none that were actually noted at the time. To imply that all, most, or even many whites did this is simply false. And Daley exaggerates when she says “blacks died by the thousands in grisly clashes”. She also entirely left out the cause of those clashes, which was Mandela’s African National Congress supporters going to war with other black political parties. Daley’s comment, immediately following the lie about whites hoarding ammunition, makes it sound as if whites were involved in these clashes. That simply is false. The clashes were entirely within the black community and between black factions. Regardless of her distortions there is no mention that South Africa’s economy was on its death bed at the time. Now the Times reports that it was. They fail to explain how they didn’t notice this then.

The Times says that in spite of Mbeki’s supposedly resurrecting a dead economy he “moved too sluggishly to lift up most of those in need. Unemployment, variously estimated between 25 and 40 percent, has remained a manacle on the millions of South Africans living in shanties.”

This is true but also false. The Times neglects to mention that Mr. Mbeki and the ANC passed law after law to “lift up” the poor. Labor regulations were tightened and businesses forced to hand out all sorts of benefits. Mbeki and the ANC put into practice the very sort of labor laws which the Times promotes. The net result of those laws were an increase in unemployment.

The Times also neglects to mention that in the years leading up to election of an ANC government that economic advancement for blacks was quite strong. From 1985 to 1994 the disposable income of black South Africans had increased by 35%. That of Indian and colored South Africans, who had higher income to begin with, had increased by 24%. In comparison the disposable income of white South Africans had increased by only 3%. In 1967 only 7% of university students were black but by 1993 40% were. It would have been higher but during “the struggle” the ANC actively encouraged black youths to drop out of school, a policy that lowers the income of the dropouts to this day.

The reality is that the tonic the ANC forced onto the country was one of regulation, controls and restrictions. It followed the advice of publications like the New York Times and unemployment grew. Labor is heavily regulated and many workers were regulated out of jobs.

For instance, many homeowners hired maids to help clean their homes and gardeners to work in the yard. Pay was not great but significantly above zero, which was the alternative. The ANC passed legislation requiring each homeowner to provide retirement benefits to these individuals if they worked over a certain number of hours per week. Few homeowners could do this. Many just ignored the law. But many didn’t. And those who didn’t reduced the hours of employment, along with the total pay package, given to staff members. Others who were going to hire staff full time simply didn’t do it. The level of unemployment went up. The amount of compensation that workers received declined in total. True those who remained hired full time were better off. But the bulk of workers were worse off.

Repeatedly the ANC tried to lift up the poor through legislation. And repeatedly the results were the opposite of those desired. It should be noted that these same policies are chic policies in the circles of the New York Times and the preferred tonic for all that ails you in Left-wing circles. Unfortunately those policies don’t work.

Zuma is the man promoted by the trade unions and by South Africa’s powerful Communist Party. And it is there intention to move rapidly toward policies that they find acceptable. Their complaint about current ANC policy was that it wasn’t radical enough. The very tonic that is poisoning the country is being demanded in heavier doses.

Mr. Mandela already moved South Africa into a dirigist direction with a multiplicity of labor laws and racially-based legislation. Mr. Mbeki went even further. Doses of such legislation made the situation worse for workers not better. Other policies, such as in fiscal matters, helped alleviate some of the problems. But Zuma is a fiery radical with no sense of proportion at all. He will take South Africa further away from policies that work and is likely to adapt to populist measures which, while politically appealing, will have dire long-term consequences. Mr. Zuma is a consummate, albeit corrupt, politicians. As such the long-term is of little interest to him. His goal is short-term popularity no matter how devastating it will be to South Africa’s poor.

Mr. Zuma calls himself a socialist and has the support of the Communist Party and the communist-dominated Congress of South African Trade Unions. Zuma has no education and didn't finish grade school. He is a practicing polygamist and one of his wives was Minister of Health. She was particularly inept and corrupt and helped destroy hundreds of working hospitals. She was notorious for squandering most of the country's AIDS budget on a play that cost millions but was only shown to a few hundred people. Mr. Zuma is also well know to share Mugabe's hatred for gay people. He attacked South Africa's gay marriage law saying it was a disgrace but ignoring his own polygamist lifestyle. And he said that no homosexual, when he was growing up, would "have stood in front of me. I would knock him out."

Whatever his faults, and he had many, Mandela was no Mugabe. Mbeki, however, did have a tinge of Mugabe about him. He was inclined toward the petty machinations of Mugabe and used his power to settle personal scores. Zuma is much closer to Mugabe than Mandela. He shares Mugabe's desire to enrich himself through the powers of office. He proposes the same sort of destructive, but populist policies. And he works with the same sort of rhetoric as Mr. Mugabe. With Zuma on the rise South Africa is one giant step closer to becoming the new Zimbabwe.

SA's president covers up for dictator Mugabe again.

This blog has repeatedly warned that the crisis in Zimbabwe is made worse by the support that South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, gives to Mugabe. Mbeki, who was a prominent member of the Communist Party, had regularly played up to Mugabe and supported him. I wrote:

But just as this election will tell us much about Zimbabwe it will actually tell us more about the African National Congress in South Africa. While the West refuses to criticize the party of their "saint" Nelson Mandela the reality is that the ANC is an authoritarian party very similar to Zanu-PF. And South Africa's regime, dominated by the Communist Party, has continued to help keep Mugabe in power and lied on his behalf. The South African government notoriously declared one election in Zimbabwe "free and fair" before the voting actually started -- yet the election was dominated by Mugabe's thugs beating and killing opposition party supporters.

South Africa’s president, the “former” Communist Party member Thabo Mbeki, has come out of the closet and openly defended the thuggery of Robert Mugabe. Mugabe has refused to release election results which are widely believed to have shown he lost the election. This was followed up by attacks on opposition leaders by government goons. Yet Mbeki says there is no “crisis” in Zimbabwe and said: “It’s a normal electoral process in Zimbabwe.”

Mbeki calls his strategy “quiet diplomacy” but what he means is that he goes and meets Mugabe and encourages him to continue to stamp out political freedom. The West is still enamoured with the African National Congress and wants to believe the fantasy that they are modern, liberal and open to a free society. The ANC has always been dominated by authoritarians and that tendency has only become worse in recent years.

The ANC is in a close alliance with the Communist Party of South Africa, a fact the mainstream media in the West tends not to mention. The government is officially made up of three organizations. One is the ANC, the second is the Communist Party and the third is the Congress of South African Trade Unions. Each gets to nominate one-third of the seats in parliament. The SACP nominates their third. Then COSATU, which is controlled by the SACP nominates a third, most of whom are also members of the SACP. Then the ANC nominates a third, many of who are SACP members. Mbeki was a member of the SACP and his father was a prominent leader of the party trained in Moscow.

The African National Congress will NOT condemn the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe -- they admire him for it.

One member of the Mbeki family, however, is not buying into the propaganda of the ANC and the SACP. That is Moeletsi Mbeki, who I had the privilege of meeting in London a couple of years ago. Moeletsi has been a strong advocate of private sector development as opposed to having the State operate the “commanding heights” of the economy. He authored a paper for the Cato Institute on the topic of private development.

Moeletsi’s brother’s government made sure that he (Moeletsi) was banned from appearing on the government owned broadcasting system. The Washington Post reported that the creation of a blacklist which banned critics of the government from the airwaves, “emanated from SnukiZikalala, the top news executive for the agency, a publicly funded behemoth that many fear is reverting to its apartheid-era roots as a tool for government propaganda.”

This is true. The SABC is wholly-owned by the government. And regulations prevented private cable channels from presenting news. The so-called Truth and Reconciliation Committee targeted the private newspapers and raked them over the coals for reporting on the rampant corruption under ANC rule. That was enough to stifle much of the criticism. The reality is that the SABC, at least under the latter days of apartheid, was actually freer than it is today. Critics of apartheid did appear regularly on the SABC before the ANC took power. I know many such people and appeared on three or four television shows myself.

The Post, hardly a “right-wing” publication, noted that nine commentators have been banned by Zikalala, “a former government spokesman who received his journalistic training in Communist Easter Europe.” A report from the SABC itself confirmed the existence of the blacklist. The government then tried to prevent the report from seeing the light of day. The Post describes the new SABC:

Many newscasts are dominated by the pronouncements of government officials. Critical reporting into societal problems remains rare. And controversy often is played down, making the SABC on some days resemble less the BBC than the state-controlled newscasts common throughout much of Africa.

It appears that many on the ANC blacklist were banned from the airwaves entirely over their criticism of Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwean journalist Trevor Ncube has been banned from discussing the situation in his own country. Journalist Elinor Sisulu, Zimbabwean Archbishop Pius Ncube and Moeletsi Mbeki have also been banned from appearing -- all because of their outspoken criticism of Mugabe. Journalist William Gumede was banned for writing a book about President Mbeki. The Post writes:

"The big influence there was the Communist Party," Moeletsi Mbeki said of Zikalala. "The ruling party must control the way people think. That's the school of thought that he came from."

Karima Brown, a former ANC activist is one of the journalists banned from appearing on the air said: “The ANC may have abandoned its socialism, but has it abandoned its Stalinism. I don’t think so.” I believe she has over stated their abandonment of socialism as well since the Mbeki government nationalized all mineral resources not that long ago.

Moeletsi Mbeki has been clear that the Zimbabwean elections have been routinely rigged and that his brother’s government has helped cover this up. The one point I disagree with Moeletsi about is that he believes the ANC regime has a “do nothing” policy in regards to Zimbabwe. I believe they are actively supporting the regime and that includes selling Zimbabwe electricity, on credit, at rates that South Africans can’t get. The purpose of President Mbeki’s policy is to support Mugabe.

What is happening in the Zimbabwean situation?

Official election results in Zimbabwe are still hard to find. Unofficial returns from polling places themselves indicates that two-thirds of the country voted against Mad Bob Mugabe. But vote counts don’t necessarily translate into won elections. Mugabe has stolen elections in the past and won’t be shy to try it again if he must.

His problem is that he knows that attempting to steal an election which was a landslide against him will create an uprising. And uprisings in Africa are never a clean thing. If the mobs get hold of Mad Bob they will literally hack him to death. If they are feeling generous they might use the favorite killing tactic of the African National Congress, to put a rubber tire doused in petrol around the neck of the victim and setting it alight. The ANC called this “necklacing”. While not diamonds this necklace was also a gift that lasted forever.

Mugabe has to know that the real results show him utterly and totally defeated. Now the BBC reports that representatives of the Mugabe regime and opposition representatives are meeting with South African to negotiate a deal as to how the election will turn out. Welcome to Africa where elections are negotiated not won. Don’t be surprised, even the ANC and the parties in South Africa brokered a deal behind the scenes after the first “democratic” election there.

Mugabe has troops patrolling the streets of Harare. Residents have been ordered to remain indoors by the government. That is a sign that Mugabe knows that any results he announces, which show him doing well will lead to riots. And so far they are claiming that the opposition MDC has 67 seats in parliament to Mugabe’s 68 seats. Those results are highly inflated in Mugabe’s favor already.

Mugabe is not just literally mad, but he’s rather old. He knows his days are limited. The question for him and his generals is how to get out of Zimbabwe alive. The generals and Mugabe’s vampire elite would like to take their ill-gotten wealth and retire to a luxurious life. No doubt Mad Bob would purchase a mansion in the ultra chic neighborhood of Sandton, Johannesburg. It is already a favorite place for the ANC elite to live with their sudden millionaire status since “liberating” South Africa. Of course he might prefer the mansions of Houghton, where Nelson Mandela lives in his multimillion rand home, but Houghton is becoming a center for corporate offices more than residential property. And Sandton has some of the best shopping in the Souther Hemisphere and Mad Bob loves to go shopping. Since he can’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at Harrods anymore he might find Sandton City or Sandton Square acceptable alternatives.

The difficult point in negotiating a retreat by Mugabe will be that he has to bring enough of his military people with him. If too many are left behind, and fearful that they will be presecuted for the crimes they commited, they will resist the settlement. Even though the ANC has been kissing Mugabe’s behind for years they might be reluctant to take too many genocidal maniacs at one time. I have little doubt that the ANC would be happy to have Robert Mugabe living in South Africa, his genocidal attacks on the Matabele people never bothered them. They have their own brutality to ignore and what’s a little genocide between friends?

If a deal is worked out here is I suspect we will see the following. The Zimbabwean government will announce bogus returns which show Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party narrowly losing. Thus they will give control to the Movement for Democratic Change but only narrowly to preserve Mugabe’s ego as much as possible. Mugabe will make a sanctimonious speech about how he has always respected the will of the people and how his stepping down, after this loss, proves it. Of course, only the circumstances are forcing him to step down and if he thought he could get away with another totally stolen election he would do so. Mugabe and his vampire elite will then beat a hasty retreat for South Africa making sure that as much of the loot stolen from the Zimbabwean people is transferred to bank accounts there. The ANC will praise Mugabe as a leader for democracy (African style of course) and welcome him with open arms -- hoping that if they are ever put in a similar position that someone will do the same for them one day.

All eyes on Zimbabwe.

All indications have been that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change has overwhelming support from the voters of Zimbabwe. But that doesn't mean they will "win" the election. They have already out-polled Mugabe's Zanu-PF party in the past. And each time Mugabe rigged the election results and announced he was the winner. Adding his percentage at the polls, albeit a fake percentage, to the seats in parliament that he appoints personally has always given him a comfortable majority.

I believe Zimbabwe could be on the knife's edge. Mugabe and his socialist followers have utterly destroyed the country. Even in the districts where his party has dominated the people are lined up to oust Mugabe from power. But there are also indications that Mugabe is planning to commit fraud again, with hundreds of thousands of dead people appearing on the voting rolls and almost an equal number of "extra" ballots being printed up by the government. While an amazing number of deceased are appearing on election rolls equally large numbers of previously registered voters have been told they can't vote for various reasons.

The question is whether Mugabe has enough sanity left to realize that if he defrauds the voters that they may will rise up and remove him violently -- something he well deserves. But Mugabe's sanity has long been suspect, with inside speculation attributing his madness to advanced stages of syphilis. It is questionable whether he can count on the loyalty of the police force or much of the military anymore. He has become increasingly unable to hand them the bribes they want to keep him in power.

It could be that Mugabe realizes he has lost. In which case he will leave the country or risk his life if he tries to stay in one of his many mansions. If he tries to hold on to power revolution could result. With hatred being so widespread he may meet the fate that men like him deserve, unless he flees before the angry mobs can hack him to death. Many Zimbabweans realize that a revolt may take place and are leaving the country.

But just as this election will tell us much about Zimbabwe it will actually tell us more about the African National Congress in South Africa. While the West refuses to criticize the party of their "saint" Nelson Mandela the reality is that the ANC is an authoritarian party very similar to Zanu-PF. And South Africa's regime, dominated by the Communist Party, has continued to help keep Mugabe in power and lied on his behalf. The South African government notoriously declared one election in Zimbabwe "free and fair" before the voting actually started -- yet the election was dominated by Mugabe's thugs beating and killing opposition party supporters.

I remember an old advertisement in a South African magazine some years ago. It was from the Zimbabwean tourist agency encouraging South Africans to come vacation in Zim. This was at the time when everyone was pretending Zimbabwe was the model for reconciliation and successful governance. The headline to the ad said: "Come to Zimbabwe. See your future." And that headline echoes the thoughts of every South African at one time or another. Is the future of South Africa going to be that of Zimbabwe? Hundreds of thousands have answered "yes" to that question and left the country. Millions more would leave if they could. And so far President Thabo Mbeki has only given his people more reasons to worry.

UPDATE: MDC poll watchers have said that their party is winning an overwhelming majority at local polling stations. They said that all the Harare based seats in parliament went to the MDC as well as all the seats in Bulawayo but one. Mugabe's cronies, especially those in the military, are calling the announcement a "coup d'etat" which is a dangerous sign. They are indicating, by this, that they will not respect the vote results. They insist that only the results that Mugabe's regime announces on Monday will be legitimate. But in district after district local counting is showing Mugabe losing and the public is celebrating. If Mugabe tries to steal this election that celebration will turn to rage and Zimbabwe could explode. 

Pity the poor South African.

Pity poor South Africa. From all accounts Jacob Zuma is headed to become the next leader of the African National Congress. And in what amounts to a one party state like South Africa that means he will be the next president. Zuma will be the first of the “liberation” presidents who is clearly on the level of the corrupt, inept, immoral leaders who have plundered the African people and created so much misery, war and famine across the continent.

The first president since the collapse of apartheid, Nelson Mandela, was well-meaning. He established some policies that were relatively decent, especially by African standards, but in many areas he began the long descent into hell. Mandela concentrated the power of the state on labor issues for instance. That meant massive interventions that succeeded in raising the level of unemployment to new heights.

As the cost of labor was raised, without labor becoming more productive, the result was that more and more low paid individuals became “no paid” individuals. The labor elite, those with jobs, didn’t even really benefit by much. Many of them were already doing better than the government required. Some workers at the margin saw their income artificially raised but this was done at the expense of the least productive, poorest workers in the country.

These measures were demanded by the ANC’s partners in government: the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party. Both groups want a redistribution of wealth but the labor they push redistribute wealth from the poorest workers in the country upwards. That is the perverse result of these groups being totally ignorant about basic economics.

Where the economy did relatively well was that the government held to some reasonable monetary policies. Unlike Zimbabwe where the printing presses have been churning out so much money that it was running out of paper (the paper has more value as paper than as money) South Africa has been far more restrained. But still the net result of ANC interventions in the labor markets has been to virtually double the level of unemployment. However, they redefined how unemployment is measured and were thus able to pretend this didn’t happen.

The second policy that Mandela implemented that was highly detrimental was the use of affirmative action. The problem here was that the individuals being affirmed were mostly unable to perform in the fields where they were hired. One dramatic example was with the police. Crime skyrocketed and one reason for that was that the government hired police based on skin color. This meant they didn’t check for criminal records among the individuals hired to police crime.

The police themselves became a major source of crime. If a private criminal robbed you calling the police to investigate was compounding the problem by helping themselves to valuables the thieves left behind. Police were routinely implicated in hijacking rings, bank robberies and murders. There was a time, and perhaps this is still true, where the chances of a police officer engaging in crime were significantly higher than for private citizens.

In the numerous armed attacks that I experience in South Africa the police were utterly useless. After one such attack the police were trying to “search” the house even though they were aware that the armed attackers had never entered the premises but took aim from outside the house. Only a very loud insistence from myself prevented that search where valuables would have disappeared. In other incidents the police officers were unable to write a report because they didn’t know how to write. Officers were hired who were incapable of driving a police vehicle -- which apparently didn’t matter since the government didn’t have police cars for them anyway.

At every level the criminal justice system was put into the hands of individuals who, for the most part, were unqualified for what they were doing. And the result was an explosion in crime. And contrary to the racist verbal attacks by Mandela and others on emigrants the main reason people left South Africa was crime not prejudice.

Under Mandela’s successor, Thabo Mbeki, the nation moved closer to the sort of rule that has kept Africa poor. Mbeki turned the ANC into a personal fiefdom. He refused to condemn the antics of Robert Mugabe and government became the quickest way for the ANC elite to become millionaires. The crime situation didn’t improve but it didn’t become worse and the unemployment rate stagnated at the new levels. The main thrust of the Mbeki government was self-aggrandizement for the ANC elite. Beyond that it didn’t change things dramatically.

As they saw it there was no need to rock the boat as the boat was doing what it was meant to do. It was turning the new ruling class into millionaires at the expense of taxpayers and the poor. Unfortunately this sort of misrule and corruption opened the door for the worst sort of politicians, those in the mould of Mr. Mugabe and Jacob Zuma is one of them.

His personal life is disgusting, having father numerous children by multiple women. He was accused of rape by a young woman who is HIV+. In a he-said, she-said scenario there wasn’t enough evidence to convict but Zuma admitted to the encounter claiming it was voluntary. However, he said that he took precautions since the woman was HIV+ -- he showered after sex. Apparently this new method of AIDS prevention is unknown to the mainstream medical community. Zuma has publicly attacked gay people, taking another page from the strategy book of Mr. Mugabe.

Zuma panders to the most bigoted, most ignorant segment of the three main ruling parties. He is utterly uninformed about basic economic issues and is not above selling out the long-term prospects for the country through ill-conceived, short-term populist measures. Again this is similar to the tragic shortcomings of Mr. Mugabe.

One can only hope that the more sane elements within the ANC will hold Zuma in check. But I suspect that as he accumulates power these groups will be sidelined. Mugabe took power in 1980 and has held it as a virtual dictator since then. As the old saying goes: “One man, one vote, one time.” The rest has been sham elections with large numbers of votes already counted before the first ballot was cast. South Africa will not go that route. It will take several regime changes to happen. But each one will be a step lower on the ladder than the previous one. Mandela was saintly compared to Mbeki who will look reasonable compared to Zuma.

Zuma has split the ruling party fairly heavily and he will face some internal opposition. But the power of office will be used to stifle that. The opposition Democratic Alliance has found it difficult to make much progress. Right from the start, under Mandela, election law was manipulated in ways to reduce the vote for the opposition. Long-time DA leader, Tony Leon, has resigned and Cape Town mayor Helen Zille has taken the reins. But it remains to be seen whether she will be as strong a party leader as Tony was before her. Certainly the deck is stacked against her and over the years ANC manipulation of the electoral system will skew the results even more.

Eventually, and I hope I’m wrong, the Zimbabwe scenario will play itself out.

South Africa's opposition has new leader.

In South Africa the opposition Democratic Alliance has a new leader, Helen Zille, the mayor of Cape Town. Former leader, Tony Leon, stepped down after 13 years in the position. Leon became a member of parliament after he took over the seat of famed apartheid opponent Helen Susman. Tony was a high profile classical liberal which is one reason the ANC despised him so much. He was someone I liked and who was always kind to me, South Africa is poorer with his retirement.

The BBC report on the has to throw in the usual dig at the DA from Western media, particularly from those on the socialist Left. It writes; “The DA has long been criticised for being too white and middle class.”

In reality, and contrary to the rubbish the BBC just gave out, support for the DA is more racially mixed than for any other party in South Africa including the ANC.

Whites in South Africa make up around 9% of the population yet it got more than 9% of the vote. The reality is that the DA is the most multiracial party in South Africa today. It does have strong support among white voters but so too among Indian and mixed-race voters. And in the last election it did well in numerous all Black election districts. The ANC is more predominantly black than the DA is predominantly white. So why doesn’t the BBC say the ANC is criticized for being too black?

South Africa shafts poor Africans again.

Once again South African President Thabo Mbeki has shown his scorn for democratic rule and his support for tyranny. And he was joined in this hatred for freedom by the governments of Southern Africa, who have decided to again endorse the tyranny of Robert Mugabe.

The 14 countries of the Southern African Development Community expressed their support for Mugabe. And they appointed the biggest supporter of Mugabe, Mr. Mbeki, to “negotiate” a settlement of the “conflict” in Zimbabwe. The conflict is, in reality, Mugabe using Stalinist tactics to harass, intimidate, beat, and murder anyone who opposes his tyranny.

The New York Times recently expressed confusion and discomfort over South Africa’s consistent refusal to support freedom. If they had done their research they would discover there is a reason for this. First consider that contrary to popular assumption South Africa is ruled, not by the African National Congress, but by the Tri-Party alliance of which the ANC is just one member.

The three main participants that form the ruling class of South Africa are the ANC plus the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. Now consider what this means? First not only does the Communist Party automatically get a third of the ruling alliance seats in Parliament (without running a single candidate) but they also dominate COSATU. So a large number of COSATU appointees are also members of the Communist Party.

On top of that many of the ANC officials are themselves either active members of the Communist Party or supporters of the ideology. Mr. Mbeki was himself a long time member of the Communist Party. But that was expected. His father, Govan Mbeki, was one of the top Communists in Africa.

Now consider that Mugabe is also an advocate of a “socialist one party state”. The very idea that Mbeki would ever oppose Mugabe is absurd. Only the most extreme pressure on South Africa will cause Mbeki to support a free election in Zimbabwe.

His government has intentionally manipulated election law in South Africa in order to disenfranchise opposition voters. That the ANC has yet to resort to the open intimidation tactics of Mugabe is not due to a commitment to democratic values but due to the lack of necessity. Their other tactics have basically created a de facto one party state with the liberal Democratic Alliance sitting at about 20% support in the polls.

Mugabe has only resorted to open violence when he thought it necessary to protect his control. In the past he mouthed the slogans he knew the world wanted to hear -- all the better to fleece Western countries of foreign aid which is the lifeblood of every African dictatorship. Mbeki’s regime is not much different. They know that open intimidation would cut off the aid and they love the aid. They use it to line their pockets and buy power. Foreign aid turns poor dictators into rich ones and needy tyrants into secure ones. What it doesn’t do is encourage economic development or uplift the poor. Foreign aid makes Western activists “feel good” and makes African dictators feel “really good.” It doesn’t help the poor.

South Africa will go the way of Zimbabwe if, and when, it is necessary to do so. If the ANC feels that its hold on the country is endangered it will become as ruthless as Mugabe. That is why it will not condemn Mugabe. He is their soul mate.

The vampire states of Africa have sucked the blood of their impoverished people. And they continue to do so on a daily basis. That the SADC has endorsed Mugabe’s regime is no surprise. Like Mugabe they are destroying prosperity in their own nations, confiscating foreign aid for their ruling elites, and lining their own pockets. The time has long passed to end foreign aid. It only solidifies the power of the vampire states that are harming their own people. Foreign aid is the most vicious, uncaring thing that is being done to Africa. it is far worse than the trade restrictions (which also need to go).

Photo: Two old communists waltzing on the graves of poor Africans. Mbeki on the Far left and Mugabe on the left.

Another sad day for liberalism.

It is sad to report another death in the firmament of liberalism. Michael O’Dowd recently passed away. Mr. O’Dowd was, among other things, an author, an executive director of Anglo American and the chairman of the Anglo American and De Beers Chairman's Fund, as well as chairman of the Free Market Foundation of Southern Africa for 27 years. Leon Louw, of the FMF, writes of the many faces of Mr. O’Dowd:

“When I mentioned Michael O’Dowd the economist and the author of The Problem of Government Failure published in the Journal of Economics to members of the English Academy, they said I must have his name wrong because he was probably the brother of the Michael O’Dowd known in literary circles. Later, my mother referred to another Michael O’Dowd in the Historical Association. It turned out there were many Michael O’Dowds. There was the scientist published in the Journal of Science, the Sunday Times Business Man of the Year, and the social worker, known to social workers throughout the country, who would give guest lectures for Professor Cecile Muller in the Wits University Social Work department.”

“The best-known Michael O’Dowd was the political scientist famed for the controversial Rostowian “O’Dowd Thesis” vindicated by the role economic growth played in ending apartheid. But there were others: the jurist writing authoritatively on constitutional law and the meaning of an “open society”; the author of books on diverse topics from Dickensian literature to Marxism and the history of the industrial revolution to strategies for the new millennium; the NGO activist; the educationalist on the Councils of Universities and recipient of honorary doctorates; the social scientist chairing the HSRC, and so on. They were all, of course, one remarkable man.”

Margie Keeton, an associate of O'Dowd's said: "He believed passionately in freedom and human potential, and he was a formidable advocate of the liberal cause, politically and economically."