6 ms·

When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals instead of practical qualifications, corruption is much more likely; politicians don't have to do a good

When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals instead of practical qualifications, corruption is much more likely; politicians don't have to do a good job, they just have to appear to be on the "good" side.

alephnerd 3y ago
People vote for the ANC in SA because there isn't an alternative party at the national level. Once you vote for the party, the party then decides who will lead. Even the article notes that the first 15 years of ANC rule saw significant development, as does HDI data [0]. The issue was that Jacob Zuma essentially destroyed RSA thanks to his corruption. And the only reason he became President was because he headed the ANC's intelligence department from the 70s to the 90s, and as such had dirt on everyone. [0] - https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/south-africa https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/south-africa
- cpleppert 3y ago
  The significant development after the end of apartheid was more due to a very favorable international economic environment and the elimination of sanctions that restricted south africa's ability to export resources. Additionally, the end of apartheid was in itself a massive economic boon as it created new sources of labor. The performance of the ANC has always been poor in South Africa. The party engaged in widespread AIDS denialism and dramatically cut investment as it attempted to help poor black africans through a variety of mostly poorly run schemes. Corruption was always present and connections with the ANC became essential in south africa. Today's troubles are the result of decisions made years ago.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    South Africa's HDI skyrocketed from 2007-2013, which can be attributed to a mix of FDI as well was investments in human development in the 90s and early 2000s. Before then, South Africa largely plataued developmentally. Economic growth =/= Development btw
- opyate 3y ago
  > People vote for the ANC in SA because there isn't an alternative party. I'd say that there is not a _viable_ alternative party, due to fragmentation. The DA has good representation in the Western Cape: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_South_Africa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in...
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Yep. I meant at a national level there isn't a real alternative.
    - ashwagary 3y ago
      The EFF seems to be changing that slowly.
      - check98 3y ago
        The Communists? I guess mass famine is an alternative.
        ashwagary 3y ago
        If there is any famine, it will be thanks to western interference aka obstruction. Luckily for SA, in the reality of a declining west, they will probably get Chinese assistance instead of being isolated.
        check89 3y ago
        No, it will be thanks to Communism.
        ashwagary 3y ago
        Incorrect, the historical record of illegal western blockades leading to famines is very clear.
dathinab 3y ago
it's really not that simple don't forget the reason people voted for the nazis in Germany was not because they believed in their values but because they seemed competent to change things to the better, while all established parties seemed to not be able to do so this (in a roundabout way) then put them in a position where they could size the remaining power by force transition into the power which would later start WW2 And it's not just back then. For example today many "right wing" forces in Europe use that arguments too telling people about how they (supposedly) can fix all the issues if you just stop nitpicking about "enter moral/ethic discussion here" and it just because the other parties blocking them for "insert slang for someone overdoing ethical correctness" reasons. Sure all a lie and most thing they propose tend to fall into the category of "looks like it could work until you understand market dynamics a bit better" and similar but people still get tricked. Just to be clear in some parts of the world there seems to be an issue with political correctness and over policing(A) opinions but this is not a reason to stop putting ethical reasons into the selection of you vote, because AFIK the moment people stop that thing will get way worse. (A) Like from outside of the US the US seems to suffer from it, but then when looking at inner US news closer I'm not sure if it's an actual issue or just people highlighting the exceptional case instead of the norm and starkly over exaggerating problems.
- nine_k 3y ago
  Yes, the Nazi have built certain things competently, because their predecessors were colossally incompetent. But, AFAICT, they also run on a lot of resentment in the society, from the loss in WWI, crippling sanctions, huge inflation, and the truly incompetent Weimar Republic government. The Nazi found a bunch of enemies: predatory Jewish capitalists, the evil Brits, the insidious Communists. A common enemy always helps solidarity, and some fire sales and confiscations resulting from the flight or arrests of better-off Jewish entrepreneurs helped the bottom line, too. On top of that, Nazi offered grandeur: some ritualistic cultural revival, "ancient roots", racial supremacy over basically everyone, and increasing military might. This was raising the spirits, even if it was not improving the living conditions. And winning the hearts of the population is utterly important for staying in power, usually more important than filling their bellies.
yongjik 3y ago
I have to disagree based on my experience. In my country (South Korea), many have voted for conservative politicians under the notion that while they might be corrupt, they come with long careers inside the government and hence more "qualified" for the job. More often than not, it turns out these conservatives aren't only more corrupt but actually less competent than their liberal counterparts. Their "successful" past careers mean little when they are built upon backstage deals and friends taking care of friends.
inglor_cz 3y ago
"When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals" Is this really SA's problem, or rather classical tribalism? "A bastard, but our bastard." (See also: Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc. Not just an African phenomenon.)
- pseg134 3y ago
  What made you say this isn’t an African phenomenon and “is this really SA’s problem?”. I can’t figure out what that is in response to?
- mantas 3y ago
  See also many cases in West when politicians are voted in based on gender. E.g. here in Lithuania we had a presidential candidate who is a women. I heard too many people advocating for her based on her gender. I heard some people going as far as saying that all women shall vote for her. Should all men vote for another candidate who happened to be man? Never got an answer :/
  - sneed_chucker 3y ago
    "Identity politics for me but not for thee"
    - mantas 3y ago
      Sort of. Eventually the lady lost. Some people cried that she lost because she is woman. Sexism and all that jazz. But we had woman president for previous 2 periods. Once elected in 1st round with 50%+ vote right off the bat. And we had first woman PM in early 90s. But yeah, it’s just sexism and not coming from a very polarizing party. With a baggage of being finance minister during 08 crisis.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Tribalism is often encouraged by invaders and colonizers. Divide and Conquer is a classic tactic. See Tutsi Vs Hutu for one notable example in Africa. And this was a known strategy in apartheid South Africa.
kriops 3y ago
[flagged]
- sgt101 3y ago
  Remember that a society is not homogeneous and a single concept of right would require homogeneity. How that is achieved will be up to you, if you gain a measure of power and cleave to this idea. In the past it has led to tragedy and infamy. Have a care....
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  That is 100% wrong. Even in the very capital of corruption (in the US, anyway), Chicago, the slogan was "good government is good politics." In other words, doing a good job with the boring stuff is also good for getting elected.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    > In other words, doing a good job with the boring stuff is also good for getting elected. yes and that is fully unrelated to the question of weather politics is about morals or not e.g. you explanation also would go hand in hand with not electing anyone with very bad morals because then it's guaranteed that they won't just do "the boring stuff good" but will try to do other stuff; Or if they are corrupt will not do the boring stuff sustainable good because of corruption sneaking in slowly etc. or in other words voting with ethics/morals in mind _but focusing on candidates with non extream ethics/morals_ is essential for there beeing any chance for good government longterm
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Could we not, with the regional slurs here? Chicago has a lot of public corruption cases largely because it's a huge city. Louisiana and DC have the highest per-capita corruption, followed by Tennessee. It's not that the point you're making here is totally invalid --- there's public corruption in Chicago, to be sure! --- but there are other ways to say it. The actual capital of public corruption in the US is, as it turns out, also just the country's capital.

alephnerd 3y ago

People vote for the ANC in SA because there isn't an alternative party at the national level. Once you vote for the party, the party then decides who will lead. Even the article notes that the first 15 years of ANC rule saw significant development, as does HDI data [0]. The issue was that Jacob Zuma essentially destroyed RSA thanks to his corruption. And the only reason he became President was because he headed the ANC's intelligence department from the 70s to the 90s, and as such had dirt on everyone. [0] - https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/south-africa https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/south-africa

cpleppert 3y ago
The significant development after the end of apartheid was more due to a very favorable international economic environment and the elimination of sanctions that restricted south africa's ability to export resources. Additionally, the end of apartheid was in itself a massive economic boon as it created new sources of labor. The performance of the ANC has always been poor in South Africa. The party engaged in widespread AIDS denialism and dramatically cut investment as it attempted to help poor black africans through a variety of mostly poorly run schemes. Corruption was always present and connections with the ANC became essential in south africa. Today's troubles are the result of decisions made years ago.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  South Africa's HDI skyrocketed from 2007-2013, which can be attributed to a mix of FDI as well was investments in human development in the 90s and early 2000s. Before then, South Africa largely plataued developmentally. Economic growth =/= Development btw
opyate 3y ago
> People vote for the ANC in SA because there isn't an alternative party. I'd say that there is not a _viable_ alternative party, due to fragmentation. The DA has good representation in the Western Cape: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_South_Africa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in...
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Yep. I meant at a national level there isn't a real alternative.
  - ashwagary 3y ago
    The EFF seems to be changing that slowly.
    - check98 3y ago
      The Communists? I guess mass famine is an alternative.
      - ashwagary 3y ago
        If there is any famine, it will be thanks to western interference aka obstruction. Luckily for SA, in the reality of a declining west, they will probably get Chinese assistance instead of being isolated.
        check89 3y ago
        No, it will be thanks to Communism.
        ashwagary 3y ago
        Incorrect, the historical record of illegal western blockades leading to famines is very clear.

dathinab 3y ago

it's really not that simple don't forget the reason people voted for the nazis in Germany was not because they believed in their values but because they seemed competent to change things to the better, while all established parties seemed to not be able to do so this (in a roundabout way) then put them in a position where they could size the remaining power by force transition into the power which would later start WW2 And it's not just back then. For example today many "right wing" forces in Europe use that arguments too telling people about how they (supposedly) can fix all the issues if you just stop nitpicking about "enter moral/ethic discussion here" and it just because the other parties blocking them for "insert slang for someone overdoing ethical correctness" reasons. Sure all a lie and most thing they propose tend to fall into the category of "looks like it could work until you understand market dynamics a bit better" and similar but people still get tricked. Just to be clear in some parts of the world there seems to be an issue with political correctness and over policing(A) opinions but this is not a reason to stop putting ethical reasons into the selection of you vote, because AFIK the moment people stop that thing will get way worse. (A) Like from outside of the US the US seems to suffer from it, but then when looking at inner US news closer I'm not sure if it's an actual issue or just people highlighting the exceptional case instead of the norm and starkly over exaggerating problems.

nine_k 3y ago
Yes, the Nazi have built certain things competently, because their predecessors were colossally incompetent. But, AFAICT, they also run on a lot of resentment in the society, from the loss in WWI, crippling sanctions, huge inflation, and the truly incompetent Weimar Republic government. The Nazi found a bunch of enemies: predatory Jewish capitalists, the evil Brits, the insidious Communists. A common enemy always helps solidarity, and some fire sales and confiscations resulting from the flight or arrests of better-off Jewish entrepreneurs helped the bottom line, too. On top of that, Nazi offered grandeur: some ritualistic cultural revival, "ancient roots", racial supremacy over basically everyone, and increasing military might. This was raising the spirits, even if it was not improving the living conditions. And winning the hearts of the population is utterly important for staying in power, usually more important than filling their bellies.

yongjik 3y ago

I have to disagree based on my experience. In my country (South Korea), many have voted for conservative politicians under the notion that while they might be corrupt, they come with long careers inside the government and hence more "qualified" for the job. More often than not, it turns out these conservatives aren't only more corrupt but actually less competent than their liberal counterparts. Their "successful" past careers mean little when they are built upon backstage deals and friends taking care of friends.

inglor_cz 3y ago

"When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals" Is this really SA's problem, or rather classical tribalism? "A bastard, but our bastard." (See also: Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc. Not just an African phenomenon.)

pseg134 3y ago
What made you say this isn’t an African phenomenon and “is this really SA’s problem?”. I can’t figure out what that is in response to?
mantas 3y ago
See also many cases in West when politicians are voted in based on gender. E.g. here in Lithuania we had a presidential candidate who is a women. I heard too many people advocating for her based on her gender. I heard some people going as far as saying that all women shall vote for her. Should all men vote for another candidate who happened to be man? Never got an answer :/
- sneed_chucker 3y ago
  "Identity politics for me but not for thee"
  - mantas 3y ago
    Sort of. Eventually the lady lost. Some people cried that she lost because she is woman. Sexism and all that jazz. But we had woman president for previous 2 periods. Once elected in 1st round with 50%+ vote right off the bat. And we had first woman PM in early 90s. But yeah, it’s just sexism and not coming from a very polarizing party. With a baggage of being finance minister during 08 crisis.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Tribalism is often encouraged by invaders and colonizers. Divide and Conquer is a classic tactic. See Tutsi Vs Hutu for one notable example in Africa. And this was a known strategy in apartheid South Africa.

kriops 3y ago

[flagged]

sgt101 3y ago
Remember that a society is not homogeneous and a single concept of right would require homogeneity. How that is achieved will be up to you, if you gain a measure of power and cleave to this idea. In the past it has led to tragedy and infamy. Have a care....
AlbertCory 3y ago
That is 100% wrong. Even in the very capital of corruption (in the US, anyway), Chicago, the slogan was "good government is good politics." In other words, doing a good job with the boring stuff is also good for getting elected.
- dathinab 3y ago
  > In other words, doing a good job with the boring stuff is also good for getting elected. yes and that is fully unrelated to the question of weather politics is about morals or not e.g. you explanation also would go hand in hand with not electing anyone with very bad morals because then it's guaranteed that they won't just do "the boring stuff good" but will try to do other stuff; Or if they are corrupt will not do the boring stuff sustainable good because of corruption sneaking in slowly etc. or in other words voting with ethics/morals in mind _but focusing on candidates with non extream ethics/morals_ is essential for there beeing any chance for good government longterm
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- tptacek 3y ago
  Could we not, with the regional slurs here? Chicago has a lot of public corruption cases largely because it's a huge city. Louisiana and DC have the highest per-capita corruption, followed by Tennessee. It's not that the point you're making here is totally invalid --- there's public corruption in Chicago, to be sure! --- but there are other ways to say it. The actual capital of public corruption in the US is, as it turns out, also just the country's capital.