29 Years of ANC Rule: A Reflection on South Africa's Political Journey
Demography, Ideology, and the Balance of Power - Examining the Dynamics Shaping South Africa's Political Landscape
Greetings,
Today, on April 27th, 2023, we mark a significant moment in South Africa's history – the 29th anniversary of the ANC's rise to power. This day back in 1994 brought forth a new era of political change.
Over the past 29 years, the ANC's policies and governance have shaped the lives of millions in South Africa. Internationally, the ANC has been praised for its attempts to dismantle the legacy of apartheid and uplift the black majority population, while others argue that the ANC's rule has been marred by corruption and racial tensions.
As we reflect on these past 29 years, it is crucial to examine the political interpretations and narratives that have emerged in South Africa. How have the ideas of race, demography, ideology, and the balance of power shaped the political landscape? What lessons can we learn from this complex and ever-evolving situation?
In my latest book, “When Migration Becomes Conflict - Political Group Dynamics,” I've dedicated a chapter to exploring these important questions. Titled "Political Interpretation: Demography, Ideology, and the Balance of Power," the chapter delves deep into South Africa's political dynamics and offers insight into the struggles the nation faces today.
As a valued subscriber to my newsletter, I wanted to share this chapter with you on this momentous day. I invite you to read, reflect, and engage with the ideas presented in the chapter, as we strive to better understand the intricacies of South Africa's political journey.
Let's continue the conversation and work towards a brighter future for all South Africans.
Best regards,
Jonas Nilsson
Political Interpretation: Demography, Ideology, and the Balance of Power
They say it's a question of land. They claim to want to correct a wrong, even referring to it as the original sin. When the ANC first assumed power in 1994, their initial move was to assist those who had previously been seen as underprivileged. In this context, "underprivileged" refers to the people who had suffered and been exploited during the apartheid era. The ANC sought to address this through a policy called the BEE – Black Economic Empowerment. Their pretext was to create justice in a society that had been marred by the injustices of apartheid. They did so by implementing discriminatory practices against whites in the labor market.
Now, the ANC has been in power for 29 years, and it's evident that they have not achieved their goal of establishing the sense of justice the black population desires. As a result, they're pushing further. They're no longer content with merely rectifying the wrongs committed during apartheid; their focus has shifted to events that occurred even earlier. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa made this clear when he addressed the United Nations:
"We are now discussing land reforms. Land is the original sin in South African history. We are trying to correct what was done during many years, a hundred years ago."
This sentiment echoes that of the former president, Jacob Zuma, who stated during the ANC's 103rd birthday in 2015 that van Riebeeck's arrival in Cape Town marked the beginning of all of South Africa's problems.
This situation highlights the challenges that white minority populations in Western countries may face: racially motivated politics of redistribution that transfer resources from whites to people of color. This process could continue until white populations are overwhelmed by the burdens placed upon them. The white man in South Africa finds himself in this predicament due to democracy and its principles and values. To provide context, it's important to note that the first Europeans arrived at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, eventually establishing what would become Cape Town.
At that time, the whites had no encounters with the black clans that currently dominate South Africa, as they were not present in the area. The only inhabitants were the Bushmen and the Khoi San, both nomadic populations that might be considered more part of the fauna than anything else. Despite this, the black majority ruling South Africa today sees themselves as the native population, regardless of their relatively recent arrival. It's fair to say that they view Africa as their home, and even if they don't use all its spaces simultaneously, they still consider the land theirs. This argument was seriously put forward when Afriforum criticized the land reform.
This interpretation of history is fundamentally flawed, yet it forms the basis for the policy known as “Land Expropriation Without Compensation.” As the name suggests, this policy entails taking land from white owners without providing any compensation. The reform is justified with the claim that "whites stole the country," which is seen as the original sin that caused all other problems. According to this view, all of South Africa's issues can be traced back to 1652, when Jan Van Riebeeck became the first white man to arrive in the area. At present, there's an ongoing struggle over the interpretation of history.
The emphasis is on "interpretation," as the actual events are not as important in this context. What matters most to the current rulers of South Africa is imposing their will and using history in a way that justifies their actions. The fact that whites arrived in a land populated by nomads and didn't encounter a black tribe for 120 years holds no significance for the black population today.
The whites acquired land primarily through three methods:
Exploration of vast, unpopulated areas that were essentially semi-deserts. These lands were uninhabitable because the technology required to drill for water was unavailable at the time. Consequently, no black tribes could reside there. Despite this, some argue that the land was stolen from the native black population, disregarding the fact that it was white settlers who made these lands livable. The descendants of these settlers could justifiably claim that they have a right to the land as well.
Negotiation was another means through which whites acquired land. When the Boers began migrating from the Cape region and moved inland, they encountered black tribes for the first time. It took 120 years after their initial arrival before they met the Xhosa tribe at the Great Fish River, 800 kilometers from Cape Town. While some conflict occurred, they also negotiated and made deals. The whites purchased land, paying for it with cattle, among other things. It can be considered disrespectful not to acknowledge that the black tribes had the intelligence and agency to enter these deals willingly and knowingly.
Conquest was the third method of land acquisition – a common and internationally recognized way to redraw borders during that era. It's important to note that this was also the standard approach among black tribes when they sought new territory. One key difference between the Boers and most black tribes was that the Boers generally respected the agreements they had made. The situation in South Africa is not directly comparable to what happened in America or to the Aborigines in Australia.
The Boers were primarily interested in sovereignty, which was why they chose to break away from the British-controlled Cape region.
The Boers wanted their own country, and they did establish their own independent nations, which were later recognized internationally. However, the discovery of gold in these regions led to conflict between the Boers and the British. The outcome of that war resulted in the founding of South Africa, as we know it today. Consequently, various peoples and tribes were forced to live together within the same borders. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the demographics were roughly as follows: one million whites and four million blacks populated the territory.
During apartheid, when blacks were guaranteed their own countries, their numbers swelled, and the demographics shifted even further in their favor. Today, there are around four million whites, but the black population has grown to approximately fifty million. The continuous increase in the black population, along with massive international support, has significantly tipped the balance of power in their favor. As time passed, it became impossible for the white minority to maintain their monopoly on power. The blacks demanded a larger share of power, more proportionate to their numbers, and they forced the white population to the negotiating table.
However, the whites faced pressure during these negotiations. If the blacks weren't granted access to power, they had the means to force themselves into it. Some prominent white groups were skeptical about entering negotiations with the ANC, knowing that if political decisions were made through voting, then the blacks would be the ones deciding. As a result, they threatened a counter-revolution to ensure that the white minority would retain its sovereignty. During the late eighties and early nineties, the whites still had a level of power that the black population had to respect.
It is worth mentioning that the resistance movement included Constand Viljoen, the most decorated general in South Africa, among its members. This made the black majority somewhat uncertain about their ability to successfully impose their power on the white minority. As a result, the ANC made an effort to negotiate a constitution that could be accepted by the white opposition. If a country is governed by the rule of law, then it should be less important which group is in power, as they would be obliged to follow the law. This was General Viljoen's reasoning, and this line of thought led him to accept the deal offered by the ANC and tell his men to lay down their arms. It seemed like a peaceful solution that both sides could accept, paving the way for the "rainbow nation" that some envisioned for South Africa. However, this constitution is now under revision, led by the same man who the ANC sent to negotiate it, Cyril Ramaphosa, the current president.
Today, Ramaphosa is doing what he could not do back then. The white population is now mostly unarmed and unorganized, and they can no longer pose the same threat as they once did. The balance of power has shifted to such a degree that the constitution, which prevented a civil war in 1994, can now be changed without significant opposition from the white minority. This is the price one pays for empowering a political enemy to such an extent that they can eventually dominate.
We are in the midst of a demographic battle. Some say that it's a battle of ideas, but it's really not. The sooner people realize this, the better. For example, we can consider the principles of individualism and free market capitalism versus collectivism and socialist economy. Different ethnic groups have different preferences when it comes to ideology. The white population in South Africa generally adheres to Western principles of market capitalism because if these principles are implemented, this group will fare quite well.
The white population in South Africa would undoubtedly dominate the social and economic life if a meritocratic system were implemented. Even if such a Lockean ideal would benefit everyone in the country, it is likely that the black population would still oppose it. Their survival depends on political dominance. They would rather govern themselves poorly than see the whites do it well. It's a case of "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven." This is a Darwinist truth focused on survival and securing one's existence. There are no pure ideas or abstract arguments to be won in university seminars. What exists here are interpretations that justify actions taken for the benefit of one's group. The balance of power behind these groups creates the dynamic between them.
This balance regulates the slave-tyrant relationship, forming an existential war between groups. It is based on clan dynamics and has evolutionary effects. Regardless of whether black people suffer in Zimbabwe, their existence remains relatively secure. The same cannot be said for the white populations in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, and soon potentially in South Africa as well. The few remaining whites in Zimbabwe move through the country like ghosts, barely visible. This is why the struggle in South Africa is important to understand. It shines a light on certain realities that we need to acknowledge. By engaging in this war of ideas, we are forced to confront our own society with thoughts on fundamental concepts like ownership and limited government. By choosing specific ideas, we simultaneously choose which group will prevail.
It is as if ideas and race become synthesized into one. The group dynamic that forms the basis of politics cannot be clearer: the ideas arise from the needs of the groups. These ideas are their response to the question of how to position themselves against the political other and which group will dominate the political arena. Thoughts and ideas are merely tools, Darwinist configurations that determine which group will prosper and which will decay. They are no different than the teeth and claws of any animal. In South Africa, we see black unions that are socialist, while white unions are more supportive of the market economy. Why? Because objectivity and meritocracy are favorable to their members. It is under these rules that their members can prosper.
The reliance on socialism and state regulation by the black population in South Africa is a strategic move in their competition against the whites. Once the whites are gone, it is possible that they will abandon socialism for tribalism, with one clan pitted against the next. The purpose of these ideas is the survival of the group, and the ideas will change depending on the threat faced by the group. White unions in South Africa support free market economics because they know that regulations will likely favor the blacks. In contrast, white unions in the USA favored socialism during the 1960s, as it was in their interest to avoid competition with cheap black labor.
Demography is indeed a significant factor in determining the future. As immigrant populations grow, they will vote for policies that benefit them, potentially outmaneuvering the white population through accumulating votes. The future for the children of the current white population could involve seeking refuge in ethnic enclaves, isolating themselves from a hostile majority, much like the situation faced by whites in South Africa today. While it is uncertain whether these enclaves will allow them to flourish, it is clear that as long as they cannot defend themselves, they will be at the mercy of others and unable to control their own destiny.
Government regulations have the power to end these enclaves with a simple political decision. The survival of the white population in South Africa is precarious, and their situation offers a lesson for the rest of the world. It is crucial to learn from their experience and consider the implications of demographic changes and the balance of power in order to avoid a similar fate.