The following piece appeared recently FROM THE LONDON TIMES - QUOTE OF THE WEEK?
"Interesting point of view Affirmative Action: "South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in the favour of the majority who has complete political control. The fact that the political majority requires affirmative action to protect them against a 9% minority group is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures, such that their only solution is to take it from others."
Finally, a word recently coined to describe South Africa's current political situation.
- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."
VERY INTERESTING POINT INDEED.
What is wrong with this?
A simple way to answer this is to look at the opposite of what is being said. What would happen if Affirmative Action is in the favour of the MINORITY whom does NOT have complete political control? For there to be a fair distribution would suppose that the minority also does NOT allready have their own wealth making structures to. The problem is the exact opposite is happening in South Africa. The minority HAS the wealth (because they HAD the power) and the majority HAVE the least (because they did NOT have the power). Inequality at its best.
The REAL question then is HOW that inequality came about.
Let me show you what is wrong with some assumptions made:
Quite CORRECT to say Affirmative Action is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures. But VERY INCORRECT to say that their solution is to JUST take it from others. Does it not depend on WHAT those that have HAVE and those who does NOT have have? Surely if you live at the expense of someone else there MUST be something wrong somewhere which has to be rectified?
Affirmative Action is a modern word in a modern world for modern times. Affirmative Action are there for one reason only! To repair previous wrong doings by previous regimes to close the evermore widening gap between rich and poor, between the haves and the have nots.
WHO ARE those previous regimes? It is NOT only the National Party in South Africa from the past, but ALSO the governments from which they sprung. Before SA became a Republic on 31 May 1961 or even became a Union on 31 May 2010 the English had control over this country. Taken by force from the Boers whom were planted here by the Dutch and later the French Huguenots. In a country whom already HAD residents.
Although uneducated and barbaric by Western standards, the Koi, San and Blacks were residents nevertheless, even if they WERE years behind some other "westernised cultured developed" countries from Europe. Power hungry Rulers, Colonisation and Slavery are to be blamed for all inequalities today. Those disadvantaged people today have to blame their ancestor's unwillingness to westernise quick enough, but the Power hungry Rulers and Colonialists have to be blamed for their ruthless forcing and exploitation of previously disadvantaged people, through the ages of mankind, by force.
All the reasons given by Colonialists like England, France, Spain and Portugal, to position themselves for betterment and enrichment of themselves are to be blamed for today's inequalities. Through mankind's history exploitation of the weak and meagre marked wealth and prosperity for those who conquered. Those victories were done in the name of prosperity and advancement. IGNORING the will and plight of the poor, the meagre or the weak. Somewhere in History those inequalities have to be addressed. That somewhere are with us today.
This is exactly what something like Democracy is all about. The rich, or the powerful can only now advance and stay in power if all those left behind are taken forward alongside. Democracy brings about just that. The poor and defenceless has the same weight in vote as the rich and powerful has. The latter only got there by using the poor.
If by form of Democratic vote the poor and unadvanced come into power over the rich and powerful, then the powerful weren't so powerful any more. If, by TAKING from the super rich are the only way to get equality in a disformed society, where 50% of the poor countrymen still live below the poverty line.
Then THAT is what democracy is for. The strength of any country's humanity are only as strong as its weakest countryman's inhumane treatment. The rich cannot get richer by keep exploiting the poor. Those in power cannot keep having power at the expense of the powerless.
Affirmative Action can only be used as a last resort. Even the government acknowledges it cannot be implemented forever. And just like any rule or regulation it is only there for that time in which it is needed.
Some other assumptions made wrongly were:
"....a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing....", THAT is precisely the POINT of Democracy! Look at the OPPOSITE again: "....a system of government where the MOST capable to lead are elected by the MOST capable to produce...."! That sounds one-sided to me and that means the have-nots would NEVER be able to lead or produce. Mankind's goal is NOT to get richer and richer and more powerful at the cost of everything else.
Mankind's goal is to live in harmony, peace, tranquillity and equality. To gain equality there must be balance, and to gain balance there must be communication. Communication from all sides applicable. The problem is mankind sometimes faulters. Greed and Power takes over instead of reason and reasonability. That is where Democracy comes in to eventually ENSURE equality.
The last incorrect assumption:
"....and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers....". The opposite again says: "....and where the members of society MOST likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the wealth of an EXPANDING number of producers....".
Does it not sound like the have-nots are left to themselves again? One-sided again, because HOW can the have-nots GET to where the haves are without having the chance to become equal? One-sidedness encourages inequality. That is NOT what leads to Democracy. The term Democracy comes from Ancient Greek d?µ???at?a (demokratia), "rule of the people", from d?µ?? (demos, “common people”) + ???t?? (kratos, “rule, strength”).
Thus: Rule of the Strength of the Common People! NOT rule of the RICH, POWERFUL and those whom PRODUCE the MOST. The people! All people. Including all the common people! To get BALANCE between the people. Balance that leads to EQUALITY not more and more INEQUALITY.
Thus Affirmative Action is only a tool used temporarily by those in control to bring about equality in a Democratic society. Desperately needed in South Africa as a TOOL. But NOT the ONLY tool.