NP and DP exposed
sa...@my-dejanews.com
Opposition loses MPs to ANC
Defector Bukelwa Mbulawa says white DP members are more equal than all others
Farouk Chothia
CAPE TOWN - The New National Party (NNP) suffered a major blow to its
electoral prospects yesterday when three of its black members, including
Western Cape local government MEC Patrick McKenzie, defected to the African
National Congress (ANC).
Observers said the move suggested the NNP now faced an uphill battle to hold
on to its Western Cape stronghold in the elections. McKenzie is the second
provincial MEC to quit the NNP this week. Education MEC Nic Koornhof defected
to the Democratic Party (DP).
McKenzie and Bukelwa Mbulawa, who quit as a DP MP earlier this week, were
sworn in yesterday afternoon in the National Assembly as ANC MPs amidst
rapturous applause from their new party colleagues. This was despite the fact
that the ANC's constitution says a person must be a party member for five
years in order to qualify for public office.
ANC chief whip Tony Yengeni said the constitution did not prohibit anyone from
joining the party and the leadership was allowed to "deploy them accordingly".
McKenzie said more shocks awaited the NNP as there would be further
defections.
NNP MPs David Chuenyane and John Gogotya also defected to the ANC yesterday,
accusing their former party of using them as decorations because they were
black.
NNP spokesman Juli Kilian hit back, saying the three had been seduced
by "carrot politics". She said McKenzie went shopping because he was
dissatisfied with being placed 14th on the party's list.
McKenzie, a former tricameral parliament politician, said at an earlier ANC-
organised media briefing that he quit after Western Cape premier Gerald Morkel
and MEC Pieter Marais failed to "work anything out for me". The ANC, more than
other parties, saw his worth as a politician and he decided to "plug in where
the power is" in order to regenerate the spirit of building a new SA.
McKenzie's defection was the most significant as he was seen to have a strong
following among coloureds in Bonteheuwel, a working class coloured township on
the Cape Flats.
Gogotya said the NNP's soul was being held captive by the rightwing and the
party was not any "different from the Volksfront".
In her maiden speech as an ANC MP yesterday, Mbulawa said the DP was
the "animal farm of George Orwell - where whites are more equal than all
others".
Vote on June 2 and make Democracy Work.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
sa...@my-dejanews.com
sa...@nousa.net <sa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
25 March 1999 01:46 PM Johannesburg, RSA (GMT+2)
UDM: DP chairman resigns - joins the UDM
March 24, 1999
Annelizé van Wyk
Acting Sectretary General UDM
Mr Patrick Shole, Chairperson of the DP in Klerksdorp this morning resigned
from the DP and joined the UDM. Mr Shole indicated that the DP in the past
months have acquired defectors from other political parties whose ideologies
raises serious questions about the direction that the DP has decided to take.
Mr Shole further stated that the DP does not offer a political home to black
South Africans.
He chooses the UDM as his new political home because he believes that the UDM
brings together all South Africans, irrespective of race. Together with many
others Mr Shole wish to enter the new millennium without the baggage of the
past, but rather focused on the future and the building of South Africa as a
world class nation.
Patrick Shole is an experienced politician who worked actively for the DP
during the 1994 elections. He was a member of the executive of the DP for many
years and served as acting leader of the Federal Congress of the DP in Cape
Town.
Mr Shole will assist the UDM in its campaign toward the countdown for the 1999
elections.
stefan
<sa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
South Africa seems destined to become a de facto one-party state (no
significantly effective opposition) and you're happy about it? It has
not been correlated with democratic survival and vitality anywhere
else in the world - but then again it was perhaps not what you were
after in the first place during the struggle?
--
/stefan, valley of the sun
missionman
allowed.
you can hardly compare this to the situation in sa.
if a party were to be elected voluntarily and obtain 100% of the votes
cast, then you would have pure democracy in action.
the fact that this is a problem to some people is irrelevant to the
arguments of democracy, as it could represent a happiness with the state
of affairs, rather than brainwashing and intimidation.
the fact that the anc has diverted more money for its own use, is
consistent with the behaviour of all 'western democracies', it goes with
the territory of party politics. what do you expect it to do, let itself
get trampled on by the riff raff of sa politics?
you have to put your trust in good leaders, as long as the mechanism for
opposition is upheld, there is actually no reason why you need
opposition.
you only need opposition when something goes wrong, to that end much
better to have a system of 'public accountability'
all important issues should be tested by a referendum, all actions
should be sanctioned.
we should actually have a 'no party' state.
i'd vote for teal, but i need to get the acdp elected before it can
happen, rather a pipe dream wouldn't you say? in an open, accountable
system of government, leaders would really take this option seriously,
as they would actually be serious about fixing this country.
i think the anc embodies this spirit more than any other party, despite
it's weaknesses.
missionman
stefan
wrote:
>a one party state is only a problem when there are no other choices
>allowed.
>you can hardly compare this to the situation in sa.
That is why I use the "de facto" terms somewhat loosely. It is still
befitting as literature on democratic transitions usually is concerned
with the likelihood of effective opposition and likelihood of actual
governmental turnovers.
>if a party were to be elected voluntarily and obtain 100% of the votes
>cast, then you would have pure democracy in action.
In one sense yes, but the issue here is that countries with one strong
party have not fared well after democratization. It has usually
resulted in various retrenchments and forms of authoritarianism.
Successful transitions to democracy are based on plural alternatives.
>the fact that this is a problem to some people is irrelevant to the
>arguments of democracy, as it could represent a happiness with the state
>of affairs, rather than brainwashing and intimidation.
There are many different conceptualizations of democracy and the lack
of congruence on this matter is another severe problem for SA. Mattes
and Thiel have a great article on the low committment to and prospects
for consolidation of democracy in SA in one of the 1998 issues of
Journal of Democracy which is a well respected academic journal. You
should be able to download it online from
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy
>the fact that the anc has diverted more money for its own use, is
>consistent with the behaviour of all 'western democracies', it goes with
>the territory of party politics. what do you expect it to do, let itself
>get trampled on by the riff raff of sa politics?
The way the ANC has dealt with dissent and opposition is very
frightening in terms of democratic consolidation. Any party which
will refute all criticism with charges of "racism" that inflames
already bothersome cleavages in society and that is as hostile to a
free press and internal dissent as the ANC is a danger.
Read the 1998 book by British scholar Anthony Butler "Democracy and
Apartheid: Political Theory, Comparative Politics and the Modern South
African State" for a very keen insight of the very undemocratic
origins of the ANC and their persistent problems with developing a
democratic modus operandi.
>you have to put your trust in good leaders, as long as the mechanism for
>opposition is upheld, there is actually no reason why you need
>opposition.
With the current government debacles and corruption problems in SA
government (which can much less afford it than for example the EU) you
ought not to...
>you only need opposition when something goes wrong, to that end much
>better to have a system of 'public accountability'
Today SA has neither to any significant degree.
>all important issues should be tested by a referendum, all actions
>should be sanctioned.
>we should actually have a 'no party' state.
Referendums are usually a good way to end up with extreme politics and
an effective "tyranny of the majority" who can run roughshod over any
other interests.
Ernst van Wyk
just have to say something:
missionman wrote:
> a one party state is only a problem when there are no other choices
> allowed.
> you can hardly compare this to the situation in sa.
>
> if a party were to be elected voluntarily and obtain 100% of the votes
> cast, then you would have pure democracy in action.
Yes, I agree, but we do not have that situation here... we have a 65% ANC
majority rule - but can anyone in all honesty say that more than, oh say
halve, of that 65% really know what they were voting for? I know this
sounds harse but most people that have any (even a vague) idea of what
is/was going on South African politics KNOWS, that a lot of people (guessing
I would say 40%) just voted ANC because
1.) They have been indoctrinated to believe that the ANC and ONLY the ANC
will provide for them, and that any other party will bring Apartheid or a
Zulu majority or whatever.
2.) They were told to by others that have indoctrined in 1.)
3.) Were possibly intimidated (Don't tell me this didn't happen - I
witnessed several different ANC members removed from the voting locations
because the entered the stall with a votee to show them what to do)
4.) They voted ANC because of Mandela
> the fact that this is a problem to some people is irrelevant to the
> arguments of democracy, as it could represent a happiness with the state
> of affairs, rather than brainwashing and intimidation.
This is NOT irrelevant to democracy - In fact it is extremely relevant. It
means that without doing *ANYTHING* the ANC has already won 40% of 65% (=
26%) of the country's vote. You may argue that this is not a problem, but
consider this: Say the ANC was oh.. mad or something and changed their name
and symbols etc before the '94 elections... 26% of this country's population
would not have had a clue what to vote. If we ignore these people, the
results of the '94 election might still have been an ANC victory, but they
would not be so secure in the seat with an almost 2/3 majority...
> the fact that the anc has diverted more money for its own use, is
> consistent with the behaviour of all 'western democracies', it goes with
> the territory of party politics. what do you expect it to do, let itself
> get trampled on by the riff raff of sa politics?
>
I will not go into an ANC slandering, but I just want you to note that
before the 1994 elections a dollar could still be bought for around 3 rand.
That has more than doubled since then with virtually no significant increase
in the living standards of over 50% of the country's population... but the
rich get richer... and government officials even more so...
> you have to put your trust in good leaders, as long as the mechanism for
> opposition is upheld, there is actually no reason why you need
> opposition.
Ehich brings me to the minority groups in SA of which a good 10% to 15% will
not vote in the coming elections because:
1.) They got their ID books before barcodes was introduced,and have not
replaced them.
2.) Don't see the need to vote - they know, they will probably be defeated,
so why vote (the "So if we vote the ANC gets 67% of the votes and if we
don't they get 68%" mentality)
This idiocy I will never understand... this election is the last chance EVER
that any other political party will have to influence the future of this
country... as a recent election poster spelled out: Mugabe has two thirds...
think about that (If ever there was an subtle insult this is it :-)
> you only need opposition when something goes wrong, to that end much
> better to have a system of 'public accountability'
> <<SNIP>>
WRONG!!!! If you don't have any opposition you will not even KNOW there is
something wrong - consider the Nazi propaganda machine of the 1930's. The
government of the day writes the History (and the news)... to understand
this, just think what world history would look like if the Nazi's won
WWII... For that matter - look at the history and feedback we got from
Russia during the 1980's... everything was gray... bleak... featureless...
do yourself a favour go and have a look at the Kremlin and Russia in general
- it's probably one of the most beautiful countries in the world...
I do not want to start a fight but I'm getting FED up with the self
righteous nature of South Africans (no matter their colour). No one wants
to acknowledge that they are/were doing something wrong or that they need
help of any nature... Everyone screams... no one listens...
--
"..will not belch the National Anthem
"I will not belch the National Anthem...
"I will not belch the Natio..."
[Bart simpson on the Blackboard]
Secret Squirrel
bandits that they are voting for ... after all most of them are
simply told that they HAVE to vote for the ANC, if they don't
they will have their houses burnt etc.
I remember during the last election, the ANC wanted "Officials"
to be present to "Assist" voters complete ballots.
What this involved was of course, blatant acts of
criminal intimidation - praying on the less educated and forcing
them into believing that they HAD to vote ANC.
More democracy - African style...
Squirrel