5 ms·

Isn’t the root cause the people and culture that put incompetents into positions of leadership?

mousetree 4y ago
In this case most of the voting population is not educated enough to vote otherwise. There is also strong community/family pressue to continue voting for the ANC - the party that freed the country from apartheid. For many people it would be very difficult to openly vote for another political party. This is notwithstanding the shenanigans that occur at election time. Likely not outright election rigging but there is certainly a lot of pressure and threats of violence on voting day (and also free t-shirts and mattresses). disclosure: I am South African
- googlryas 4y ago
  How would they confirm you actually voted the right way? Will your ballot get opened up and inspected after you turn it in?
  - zo1 4y ago
    Unfortunately, due to the level of education and overall intelligence of the majority of the voting people here, they will believe what they are told. And they can easily be fooled to think that their "vote" will be "checked" to make sure it's for the right party.
- rob_c 4y ago
  An quick question. Without the current "leading up to the day" pressures would it be fair to say the populist vote is strong in this direction enough to carry the next forseeable election? I just wonder as I've known 2 people from SA and I neither seemed a fan of the ANC and the rep it was getting for the country internationally. Both of different race backgrounds although I doubt it mattered.
  - mousetree 4y ago
    Yes, although the ANC is losing voting share every election - especially in the major urban areas. Part of those votes go to the either the DA or more recently the EFF. The DA is historically a white party but mostly has black leadership now. It's _mostly_ unaffiliated with the National Party (ruling party during Apartheid) but still has the stigma among most of the population as being the "white party". The EFF on the other hand is the real populist winner lately. They're extremely left leaning (Marxist-Lenin inspired) and want to nationalise most businesses (including mining) and get rid of all white capital ownership. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to gain more power - they're purpose built for the current SA population. But also 1 thing to keep in mind is that the people you've met are probably not representative of the vast majority of the country.
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      The DA has been shedding its black leadership for years now though, leaving the top echelons of the party much more white than black. Most of its black leadership have left for the same reason: That the mostly-white old guard, exemplified by Helen Zille, are resistant to adopting slightly more left-wing policies that would appear to the majority of the population, are too blind on the needs of social redress, and run the party as a clique rather than a meritocracy. As long as that remains the DA will be a special interest party that won’t get enough votes to be able to govern the country. It’s a pity, because we really need sane alternatives to the ANC with broad appeal. As for the EFF, while they would in theory be well-placed to take advantage of this their growth rate has been much smaller than you’d expect. They’ve made many missteps that have plateaued their level of popularity. That might change in future of course.
      - _djo_ 4y ago
        I meant appeal, not appear.
    - alienthrowaway 4y ago
      > The DA is historically a white party but mostly has black leadership now. It's _mostly_ unaffiliated with the National Party (ruling party during Apartheid) but still has the stigma among most of the population as being the "white party". The DA is not doing itself any favours though, with Zilles gaffes and how often it sheds black leaders - how many have been ejected now after factional battles? 3 in 6-ish years?
seydor 4y ago
countries that didn't have a functioning bureaucracy before becoming democracies, struggle to develop one after they become democracies. That's because democracy is very prone to corruption on a massive scale , in ways in which authoritarian regimes are not (they are oligarchic).
- vkou 4y ago
  Authoritarian regimes are incredibly prone to corruption, you just have less opportunity to complain about it in them, than you do in a democracy (even in an ailing democracy).
- SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
  I'll have to disagree, everywhere I look it seems that authoritarian regimes foster corruption way more than democracies. They tend to weaken institutions, specially those that would provide checks against corruption, in order to consolidate power. Developing a functioning burocracy free of corruption from scratch is very difficult under a democracy, but it is even harder under an authoritarian regime.
  - seydor 4y ago
    IF they are weakening institutions, then those institutions were already developed, hence it does not apply. The advent of authoritarianism does corrupt a functioning state. But statebuilding with democracy has been tried countless times, especially in ex-colonial countries and i don't know many cases where it worked.

In this case most of the voting population is not educated enough to vote otherwise. There is also strong community/family pressue to continue voting for the ANC - the party that freed the country from apartheid. For many people it would be very difficult to openly vote for another political party. This is notwithstanding the shenanigans that occur at election time. Likely not outright election rigging but there is certainly a lot of pressure and threats of violence on voting day (and also free t-shirts and mattresses). disclosure: I am South African

googlryas 4y ago
How would they confirm you actually voted the right way? Will your ballot get opened up and inspected after you turn it in?
- zo1 4y ago
  Unfortunately, due to the level of education and overall intelligence of the majority of the voting people here, they will believe what they are told. And they can easily be fooled to think that their "vote" will be "checked" to make sure it's for the right party.
rob_c 4y ago
An quick question. Without the current "leading up to the day" pressures would it be fair to say the populist vote is strong in this direction enough to carry the next forseeable election? I just wonder as I've known 2 people from SA and I neither seemed a fan of the ANC and the rep it was getting for the country internationally. Both of different race backgrounds although I doubt it mattered.
- mousetree 4y ago
  Yes, although the ANC is losing voting share every election - especially in the major urban areas. Part of those votes go to the either the DA or more recently the EFF. The DA is historically a white party but mostly has black leadership now. It's _mostly_ unaffiliated with the National Party (ruling party during Apartheid) but still has the stigma among most of the population as being the "white party". The EFF on the other hand is the real populist winner lately. They're extremely left leaning (Marxist-Lenin inspired) and want to nationalise most businesses (including mining) and get rid of all white capital ownership. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to gain more power - they're purpose built for the current SA population. But also 1 thing to keep in mind is that the people you've met are probably not representative of the vast majority of the country.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    The DA has been shedding its black leadership for years now though, leaving the top echelons of the party much more white than black. Most of its black leadership have left for the same reason: That the mostly-white old guard, exemplified by Helen Zille, are resistant to adopting slightly more left-wing policies that would appear to the majority of the population, are too blind on the needs of social redress, and run the party as a clique rather than a meritocracy. As long as that remains the DA will be a special interest party that won’t get enough votes to be able to govern the country. It’s a pity, because we really need sane alternatives to the ANC with broad appeal. As for the EFF, while they would in theory be well-placed to take advantage of this their growth rate has been much smaller than you’d expect. They’ve made many missteps that have plateaued their level of popularity. That might change in future of course.
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      I meant appeal, not appear.
  - alienthrowaway 4y ago
    > The DA is historically a white party but mostly has black leadership now. It's _mostly_ unaffiliated with the National Party (ruling party during Apartheid) but still has the stigma among most of the population as being the "white party". The DA is not doing itself any favours though, with Zilles gaffes and how often it sheds black leaders - how many have been ejected now after factional battles? 3 in 6-ish years?

seydor 4y ago

countries that didn't have a functioning bureaucracy before becoming democracies, struggle to develop one after they become democracies. That's because democracy is very prone to corruption on a massive scale , in ways in which authoritarian regimes are not (they are oligarchic).

vkou 4y ago
Authoritarian regimes are incredibly prone to corruption, you just have less opportunity to complain about it in them, than you do in a democracy (even in an ailing democracy).
SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
I'll have to disagree, everywhere I look it seems that authoritarian regimes foster corruption way more than democracies. They tend to weaken institutions, specially those that would provide checks against corruption, in order to consolidate power. Developing a functioning burocracy free of corruption from scratch is very difficult under a democracy, but it is even harder under an authoritarian regime.
- seydor 4y ago
  IF they are weakening institutions, then those institutions were already developed, hence it does not apply. The advent of authoritarianism does corrupt a functioning state. But statebuilding with democracy has been tried countless times, especially in ex-colonial countries and i don't know many cases where it worked.