walton@ametek.UUCP (09/24/86)
This is a possibly vain attempt to move the discussion on Poli-Sci
to something other than libertarianism. In yesterday's (Sunday Sept.
7) Opinion section of the LA Times, Henry Kissinger had an interesting
and, to me, sensible article about the current troubles in South
Africa. I will paraphrase his discussion and, I hope, generate some
feedback.
The Afrikaners are descendants of Dutch Calvinists who left Europe
some 300 years ago. The later liberalizing trends of the
Enlightenment have totally passed them by; they have no democratic
tradition. When the British took control of the Cape during the
Napoleonic Wars, the entire Boer population packed up and moved 1,000
miles inland rather than live under British rule. When gold was
discovered in the interior and the British attempted to move in, they
were fought to a standstill by the Boers, at the height of the British
Empire's power.
Current South Africa evolved from completely different roots than
the Western democracies. In Europe, as Kissinger puts it, "the nation
preceded the state"--parliamentary democracies were established in
places which were already linguistically and culturally homogenous.
It was, and is, possible to lose an election there and still remain in
the government, secure in the knowledge that you will win some other
time. In South Africa and the Third World, the state preceded the
nation, and the governments there are attempting to enforce political
boundaries which do not obey the underlying divisions of culture,
race, and tribe. Thus, there is no concept of the loyal opposition,
and disagreement with the government is synonymous with treason.
In 1948, the Boers took control of the South African government
in an election in which only whites could participate. They proceeded
to set up the institutionalized separation of the races called
apartheid, banning nearly all inter-racial contacts and setting up
areas of the country in which each tribe was to be isolated. This was
clearly a dreadful mistake, resulting in a system which the Western
world correctly considers to be morally abhorrent and impractical to
maintain in place.
What should we do? It is clear that, given the Afrikaners'
history, heavy-handed external pressure such as strict sanctions will
only encourage the radical whites to crack down further. Moderates of
all races see the current situation as untenable, but they will not
talk to each other about anything substantive unless they can be
presented with a possible alternative to the current situation.
Western policy now is focused on producing change, but without
offering a constructive alternative. The bloodbath which everyone
fears is inevitable under such circumstances.
Kissinger's answer to South Africa's problem is something
patterned on the American system. Unlike Europe, our federal
government grew out of the voluntary union of previously sovereign
states. Thus, we wrote a Constitution which divided the Legislature
into two houses, one of which was elected by popular vote and the
other of which represented the states equally. We put in place an
Executive whose election represented yet another weighting of the
relative power of individuals and states, and an independent Judiciary
with yet a fourth function. South Africa is divided into about 20
major groups, including Indians, Chinese, Afrikaner whites, British
Whites, and the various black tribes. A carefully crafted federal
system might offer an alternative on which moderates of all groups
could agree. Kissinger suggests a Western-sponsored conference among
moderates of all races and tribes in South Africa, with the express
goal of fashioning a federal government for South Africa. This must
be coupled with clear statements from the entire West that once such a
compromise is formed, we will brook no delays in implementing it, and
that strong pressure will be brought to bear to force the current
government to acquiesce in the change.
Comments?
-------RS@WATCSG.BITNET (10/10/86)
Just some notes (nitpicks?) on SA history. walton@ametek.UUCP wrote:
"When the British took control of the Cape during the
Napoleonic Wars, the entire Boer population packed up and moved
1,000 miles inland rather than live under British rule."
Disregarding the fact that the above is a somewhat oversimplification
of the reasons for the Great Trek, the entire Boer population
definitely did not pack up and move out. Not even if you take "Boer"
to mean what it really means, namely farmer and not Afrikaner as
people are wont to do. It was mostly farmers in the border (frontier)
districts of the Cape Colony that moved away - just as they had moved
away from the Dutch government in the Cape in previous years (they
were a self-willed lot). In fact, some Afrikaners in the Cape were
very much opposed to the trek by their fellow Afrikaners
For an interesting book on the history of the Afrikaners (up to the
early sixties), try "The Afrikaners" by John Fisher.
As for Kissinger's proposals - to me it makes a lot of sense.
Riel Smit +1 519 888 4004
rs@watcsg.BITNET gdvsmit%watrose@waterloo.CSNET watmath!watcsg!rs
-------hijab@CAD.BERKELEY.EDU (10/11/86)
ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu writes: > > Kissinger's answer to South Africa's problem is something >patterned on the American system............................. >............ Kissinger suggests a Western-sponsored conference among >moderates of all races and tribes in South Africa, with the express >goal of fashioning a federal government for South Africa. This must >be coupled with clear statements from the entire West that once such >a compromise is formed, we will brook no delays in implementing it, >and that strong pressure will be brought to bear to force the current >government to acquiesce in the change. > Comments? > The problem with this approach is that it does not takes into consideration the right of the black South Africans to self- determination in their homeland, or majority rule. It presumes to impose a *Western* solution on South Africa. Why? ... Because Kissinger would like to stack the decks in favor of the White Afrikaaners, with whom he empathizes so much. The worst part of it is that the solution would start from a position of overwhelming superiority by the Whites, without any obvious way to redress the balance. The only way for justice to prevail is for the Afrikaaners to *lose power*, and for the black majority to take over, just as happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Kissinger has already messed up South East Asia and the Middle East. We do not need more of his perverted genious. -------