Die opskrif hierbo, is Reusedwerg se bewering aan Jan Rap, nie myne nie.
Hierdie bewering is so onjuis as wat kan kom, en spreek net bevooroordeling uit, indien nie as rassisme te kan kwalifiseer nie, want die bedoeling is ooglopend ‘n meerwaardige blank op minderwaardige swart politiese vergelyking, neerhalend gestel.
Ek self is hewig anti-ANC agv hulle rasbehepte benadering tot die politiek, en dit weet lesers hier op SêNet ook, maar een ding wat my van hulle veral opval, is juis dat hulle die Westerse demokratiese stelsel getrou navolg, meer getrou na my menige as die vorige Afrikanerpartye soos die HNP, KP en NP.
Dat die ANC-party se kongres sy president (Mbeki) openlik en demokraties kon ontsetel en dat Mbeki die uitslag gelate aanvaar het en steeds die ANC ondersteun, is bewys van volwasse en gesonde Westerse demokrasie binne die party. In PW Botha se geval, was dit ‘n kliek gelei deur FW en ander in die kabinet wat onder agterdogtige omstandighede die staatspresident ontsetel het, en wat op sy beurt dit met bitterheid moes aanvaar tot so ‘n mate dat hy met die volgende verkiesing nie vir sy party gestem het nie. Die hoofleiers in al die Afrikanerpartye deurgaans het meer, self-outokratiese, gesag in die party beoefen, as wat die hoofleiers van die ANC ooit gedoen het. Die VF+, na die 2009 verkiesing het sonder party toestemming, ‘n ANC-pos in die kabinet aanvaar en ondemokraties teenoor sy teenstander in die party opgetree, tot so ‘n mate, pleks dat hy onder sensuur geplaas moes gewees het, het hy die vermetelheid gehad om sy kritici, soos Willie Spies, in die party onder sensuur te plaas. Dit was geensins Westerse demokrasie nie.
Waar sal jy in Brittanje, een van die stigters van Westerse demokrasie, daarmee wegkom indien jy die koninging in haar gesig beswadder en selfs die middelvinger wys soos wat Floyd Shavimba van die EFF dit met Ramaphosa, die adjunkpresident, sonder enige ernstige vervolging, mee weggekom het! Selfs in die VSA is dit strafregtelik indien die president sodanig belediging in die openbaar ondervind het. In sekere ander Europese lande, en nie net in ander Afrika lande nie, sou hy met langtermyn tronkstraf gestraf word, indien nie deur agente van die staat vermoor word nie.
Die ANC is telkemale met konstitusionele hofuitslae wat hy verloor het, verneder, en tog, al is dit teësinnig, aan die gesag van die hof gehoor gegee het. Dit is beslis ‘n voorbeeld van Westerse demokrasie!
Jaco Fourie
Kommentaar
Beste Jaco
Lees gerus die volgende artikel soos dit verskyn in:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/thabo-mbekis-fall-the-anc-and-south-africas-democracy
Jaco, soos die Ingelse dit stel, "I bow to your superior knowledge". My en jou siening van demokrasie verskil dan beslis. Ek het beslis nie genoem dat die vorige bedeling enigsins demokraties was nie. Ek het egter baie meer van jou verwag as om die ou uitgemergelde geykte deurtrapte eentonige aanname te maak dat my siening aan rassisme grens. Moet asb nie in dieselfde sloot val as baie mense dat sodra hulle in 'n hoek vasgedruk is te skree alles is rassisme nie. Dit is pateties en uiters onvolwasse.
Jaco, die navolg/nie-navolg van protokol is nie aanduidend of 'n regeringstelsel werk of nie werk nie. Welvaart, stabiliteit, voorspoed en vrede is goeie indikators dat 'n regeringstelsel werk As hier in SA 'n regeringstelsel X bedryf word en hier is welvaart, stabiliteit, voorspoed en vrede dan werk daardie stelsel X. As hier nie welvaart, stabiliteit, voorspoed en vrede is nie dan werk stelsel X nie. Wat Reusedwerg dus sê is dat hier nie welvaart, stabiliteit, voorspoed en vrede is nie. As jy die stelsel hier dus 'demokrasie' wil noem dan werk daardie demokrasie nie hier nie.
Jan Rap
Reusedwerg
Nou toe nou! Behalwe vir jou veralgemening sonder enige feitlike stawing, vertel my eerstens in watter opsig pas die ANC nie demokratiese beginsels in hul party toe nie, en tweedens waar is ek in 'n hoek gedryf, 'n verdere veralgemening sonder feitlike stawing.
Beste Jan
Soos die spreekwoord lui, "'n goeie begryper het 'n halwe woord nodig" is hier van toepassing. Die begrip of gonswoord "Demokrasie" word te ligtelik gebruik. Vir elke situasie word demokrasie in die land voorgehou. Volgens my is demokrasie baie meer diepliggend as chaotiese parlementsittings, eenvinger rughand gebare of geskel. (Dit spreek vir my van beskawingspeile). Demokrasie is volgens my op min plekke van toepassing.
F.C. Boot
Ek het jou “link” gelees. Lywig lank, tog interessant. Eerstens ek is nie seker van watter gedeelte jy spesifiek onder my aandag wil bring nie, en tweedens moet besef word dit is ‘n rubriek, maw ‘n eensydige mening van die skrywer. Ander rubrieke (menings) kan ‘n ander vertolking aan dieselfde gebeure van die dag toeken, afhangende van sy politieke steun, net soos hierdie skrywer se rubriek volgens sy politieke steun beïnvloed is.
Ek kwoteer vanuit jou bron die volgende vir wat dit werd is:
“It is true that doctrine (national democratic revolution) does not translate automatically into practice, and that in reality the ANC's position on the constitution is far more complicated and inconsistent. For a start, there is little doubt that the ANC continues to take enormous pride in the constitution, of which it was the principal architect. It may at times have leaned towards demagogic denunciation of opposition parties (notably the DA) as promoting sectional (often white minority, hence racial) and by implication, "illegitimate" agendas; but it has equally espoused the virtues of freedom of association, speech and elections”.
“historians may yet judge that the ANC leadership struggle, however tawdry, has actually served to entrench constitutionalism and democracy”
Jan Rap
Demokrasie, outokrasie, diktatorskap, oligargie, ens is elkeen 'n politieke stelsel en leerstelling. Die politieke stelsel en die ekonomie is twee aparte konsepte. Enigeen van genoemde politieke stelsels kan 'n suksesvolle of onsuksesvolle ekonomie bedryf.
Die voormalig Suidslavia (Yugoslavia), was 'n kommunistiese diktatorskap onder die gesag van Genl Tito. Die ekonomie van die land was gesond, gesonder as selfs die van Rusland. Griekeland is 'n demokrasie, en sy ekonomie is opgefok, die dat die EU poog om hulle weer op die been te bring.
Net 'n verdere beskouing. Gee respons op die onderwerp van enige brief hier geplaas, JA, maar moenie namens iemand anders skryf nie, want jy kan jou werklik nie in sodanige persoon se skoene plaas nie (in hierdie geval Reusedwerg). Laat hom tog vir homself praat.Jy het geensins uitgewys waar die ANC nie demokraties binne die bestek van sy eie partykonstitusie en binne die bestek van die land se konstitusie opgetree het nie.
Dit sal interesant wees indien jy kan uitwys waar die outokraat Dan Roodt demokraties optree.
Onthou. Ek is en bly heftig anti-ANC, maar gee toe dat hulle wel demokraties optree. Hulle skroom nie om blatant teen wittes, en veral die Afrikaner op te tree nie, maar nieteenstaande tree hulle steeds binne die definisie van "demokrasie" op
Beste Jaco
Sonder 'n definisie van demokrasie waaroor almal saamstem , sal dit 'n onderwerp bly waaroor daar verskillende opinies is.Dalk sal webvoet die volgende onderaan plaas en dan kan almal hul siening daaroor plaas.
DEFINING DEMOCRACY
http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm
Government of the People Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.
In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.
Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.
Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.
Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.
How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.
Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law."
These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.
Democratic Society
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.
Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.
These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.
In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.
In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people
.Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.Minority rights.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
Free and fair elections.
Equality before the law.
Due process of law.
Constitutional limits on government.
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
F.C. Boot
Dit lyk vir my Wouter het van SêNet verkas met sy ellendige langdradige aanhalings. Ek hoop net nie jy het in hierdie opsig nou sy erfgenaam daarin geword nie.
Ek het geen probleem met bogenoemde nie indien jy daarin sekere stellings, (nie omtrent die hele boek nie) aanhaal om jou argument te staaf, met verwysing na die betrokke skakel.
Ek gaan dit liewer anders stel, weens die langdradige aanhaling, omrede ek daaruit nie eintlik weet wat jou spesifieke punt is nie. Dink jy die ANC tree demokraties op of nie mbt tot sy eie party, die parlement en die konstitusie en indien nie, spesifiek in watter opsig nie, en wat sou jou aanbeveling aan die ANC wees om wel in die betrokke opsig demokraties op te tree?
Die aanhaling vanuit jou bron wat die gepaste definisie vir Suid-Afrika se demokrasie is, is:
"Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good."
Beste Jaco Fourie
Die doel is om 'n breë aanvaarbare definisie te kry wat verstaan word onder demokrasie wat vir almal aanvaarbaar is.
Jy het 'n vorige skrywe afgesluit met "Onthou. Ek is en bly heftig anti-ANC, maar gee toe dat hulle wel demokraties optree. Hulle skroom nie om blatant teen wittes, en veral die Afrikaner op te tree nie, maar nieteenstaande tree hulle steeds binne die definisie van "demokrasie" op."
Dit is totaal teen die gees soos vervat in die artikel wat ek aangehaal het en goedgunstig deur Webvoet geplaas is, want die blatante optrede wat jy aanhaal is juis 'n skending van die regte van 'n minderheid, wat deur die meerderheid behoort beskerm tw word.
F C Boot
Wat ek van jou waardeer is dat jy jou onderwerp erngstig opneem, asook dit logies probeer uiteensit. Ons twee kan verskil, want daar is gewoonlik meer as een benadering tot enige onderwerp. Jou argumente is darem nie in die vorm van slagspreuk, of tussenwerpsels aangebied nie.
Ingebou in demokrasie is dat daar altyd wenners asook verloorders gaan wees. Mag word outomaties gesetel in 'n rapsie van meer as 50% stem. Maw 'n aansienlike minderheid (die opposisie) verteenwoordig ontevredenes met die optredes van die meerderheid, dws die verloordes.
Na my mening 'n ideale tipe regeringstelsel sou wees "Konsensus-regering", nie op party-politiek gebaseer nie. Die "all for one and one for all" tipe konsep.
'n Belangrike eienskap van Konsensus-regering, is die outomatiese ingeboude vetoreg. Die Europese Unie asook NAVO is voorbeelde van Konsensus-besluitneming. Indien selfs een land, hoe klein en swak ook al, nie met 'n voorgestelde wetskonsep of optrede saamstem nie, kan dit nie deurgevoer word nie.
Met ons multikulturele gemeenskap, sou dit ideaal gewees het, want enige nadelige voorgestelde wetgewing asook optrede wat 'n minderheid raak, kan geveto word op basis van konsensus-besluitneming.
Natuurlik gaan dit nooit in SA gebeur nie, want ons beoefen die westerse demokrasie waar die wenner vat alles, 'n stelsel wat deur die meerderheid verlang word.
Beste Jaco
Ek dink jy sal nou verstaan hoekom daar onder:
Majority Rule and Minority Rights ;verklaar word dat:"
"All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens."
Hierdie beskerming moet daar wees om te voorkom dat daar 'n 'tit for tat" toestand ontstaan waar die opposisiepartye wanneer hul aan bewind kom wraak neem op die ander party deur die instelling van diskriminerende wetgewing onder die dekmantel dat dit ongelykhede van die verlede wil regstel.
Die gevolgtrekking kan dus gemaak word dat die Suid-Afrikaanse demokrasie nie 'n ware demokrasie is nie,want soos jy self erken word die regte van minderheidsgroepe, in ons geval dan die Blankes, op alle terreine aangetas en word ons taal en kultuur op alle vlakke, veral in die onderwys eenkant toegeskuif.
Daarom kan 'n mens in die Rapport lees dat:
"Afrikaans is ’n hindernis op baie studente se pad om aan die Noordwes-Universiteit (NWU) te studeer. “Daarom werk ek om ’n enkele getransformeerde universiteit tot stand te bring wat vir die kind in Ikageng net so oop sal wees as vir die Gimmies-kind,” het prof. Dan Kgwadi eergisteraand gesê by sy amptelike inhuldiging as visekanselier van die NWU.
Dit is dus duidelik dat minderhede al meer en meer 'n opdraande stryd gaan voer teen die meerderheid
om dit wat onder hul bewind tot stand gekom te beskerm en bewaar en dus gedwing word om as't ware
weer van voor af te begin om instellings op die been te bring waar hulle hul taal, kultuur, geskiedenis kan uitleef.
FC Boot
Ek en jou sentiment is deurgans eenders mbt die aantasting deur die ANC van Afrikaner-regte rakende sy taal, kultuur, sy opvoeding, geskiedenis, sy privaat eiendom, asook sy reg op gelyke behandeling in die ekonomie van die land, veral in die arbeidsmark.
My vertoë hierbo is dat ek nie met Reusedwerg se stelling dat "demokrasie nie in Afrika werk nie", saamstem nie, veral in die lig soos deur beide my en jou response hierbo erken is dat demokrasie in al die westerse lande die beginsel van "wenner vat alles" tot die misnoë van verloordes behels, deels as bewys van hierdie vertoë.
Dit is nou 'n voldwonge feit dat die ANC genoemde aantastings gaan voortsit, en dit wil ook voorkom dat die konstitusie die Afrikaner nie volkome beskerming meer aanbied nie, aldus AfriForum se Plan "B" voorstelling wat behels dat die Afrikaner voortaan op eie vernuf en onkoste, eie strukture daar sal moet stel, om die ongelyke strukture van die regering, as alternatief vir die Afrikaner aan te bied.