The simple answer is "no." the parallels, beyond the superficial, simply do not work. I have long argued that the ANC may have too much power for our comfort, bnut there have been absolutely no accusations of voter irregularities in the three South African elections since democracy came, there has been a succesful transition to power from Mandela to Mbeki, there is a general transparency in institutions. The parallel is simply not apt.
I agree with Derek. The RSA is a very long way from where Zimbabwe is today. The ANC has been a bit heavy-handed with party discipline and their political process has had a few bumps, but to suggest that they are anything but the exemplar of democracy in Africa is to ignore reality. Nearly everyone in RSA is very aware of their recent past and agrees that legitemacy through democratic process is more important than exercising political power. Like Derek said, interesting parallel but just not connected to reality.
Certainly, South Africa is not Zimbabwe, and likely won't be like it, at least not in the way the column speculates. I think Kenny actually undermines his own central argument with a much stronger argument on the expediency of Mbeki's support for Mugabe. Sure, the ANC may have a strong enough base of support to be able to criticize Mugabe, but that doesn't mean that they will. What political party wouldn't want to keep up support at 70%? Sure, 50.1% wins you an election, but 70% is sure a nicer win. So my guess is that political expediency, along with some anti-white colonialism in the ANC's heritage, is the big factor. That said, there are connections to Stephen's post, mainly that until Mbeki and his comrades (no pun intended) change their attitudes and take some sort of leadership role to bring change to Zimbabwe, Mugabe can continue to defy the Commonwealth and the U.S., and the Zimbabwean people will continue to suffer.
Mark -- You (and the article) are thus confusing two issues -- foreign policy that might overlook or even couintenance a kurderous bastard like mugabe and internal dynamics. the two are not the same and they are not even especially related. South Africa is no more likely to go down the road toward Harare because of itsd policies there than Reagan's America was going to end up like Pretoria because of 1980s policies toward South Africa. baed foreign policy is bad foreign policy, which ought to be enough to earn it condemnation. There is no sense then making foreign policy akin to internal decline. dc
Derek- You're right that there seems to be some confusion over foreign and domestic policy, and I didn't mean to add to that. Whatever Mbeki's reasons for supporting Mugabe (political, ideological, imitative), I agree that's it's highly unlikely that South Africa will follow Zimbabwe's disastrous lead, even if the ANC and black South Africans would like to see those types of policies. My point was more about the column itself. Mugabe's policies do seem popular among many black South Africans, and that has to be a big part of the reason Mbeki is supporting Mugabe, or at least putting himself between the West and Zimbabwe. Basically, I think that Kenny's point about the ANC's high support is specious, because it is likely that Mbeki feels that if he would turn against Mugabe, he'd lose enough support that the ANC could come under some threat of a reduction of power, even if actually losing power remains unlikely. If Mbeki felt it was politically expedient to oppose Mugabe, I believe he would. Since he can support Mugabe both ideologically and politically, he doesn't have to make that choice.
I also think there might be a difference between "supporting" and "not opposing," or perhaps more appropriately, "taking actions to oppose" Mugabe. In other words, i am not certain that Mbeki supports Mugabe per se, he simply won't use the weight, prestige, operating space, or whatever of SA and the ANC frontally to challenge Mugabe.
6 comments:
The simple answer is "no." the parallels, beyond the superficial, simply do not work. I have long argued that the ANC may have too much power for our comfort, bnut there have been absolutely no accusations of voter irregularities in the three South African elections since democracy came, there has been a succesful transition to power from Mandela to Mbeki, there is a general transparency in institutions. The parallel is simply not apt.
dc
I agree with Derek. The RSA is a very long way from where Zimbabwe is today. The ANC has been a bit heavy-handed with party discipline and their political process has had a few bumps, but to suggest that they are anything but the exemplar of democracy in Africa is to ignore reality. Nearly everyone in RSA is very aware of their recent past and agrees that legitemacy through democratic process is more important than exercising political power.
Like Derek said, interesting parallel but just not connected to reality.
Certainly, South Africa is not Zimbabwe, and likely won't be like it, at least not in the way the column speculates. I think Kenny actually undermines his own central argument with a much stronger argument on the expediency of Mbeki's support for Mugabe. Sure, the ANC may have a strong enough base of support to be able to criticize Mugabe, but that doesn't mean that they will. What political party wouldn't want to keep up support at 70%? Sure, 50.1% wins you an election, but 70% is sure a nicer win. So my guess is that political expediency, along with some anti-white colonialism in the ANC's heritage, is the big factor. That said, there are connections to Stephen's post, mainly that until Mbeki and his comrades (no pun intended) change their attitudes and take some sort of leadership role to bring change to Zimbabwe, Mugabe can continue to defy the Commonwealth and the U.S., and the Zimbabwean people will continue to suffer.
Mark --
You (and the article) are thus confusing two issues -- foreign policy that might overlook or even couintenance a kurderous bastard like mugabe and internal dynamics. the two are not the same and they are not even especially related. South Africa is no more likely to go down the road toward Harare because of itsd policies there than Reagan's America was going to end up like Pretoria because of 1980s policies toward South Africa. baed foreign policy is bad foreign policy, which ought to be enough to earn it condemnation. There is no sense then making foreign policy akin to internal decline.
dc
Derek-
You're right that there seems to be some confusion over foreign and domestic policy, and I didn't mean to add to that. Whatever Mbeki's reasons for supporting Mugabe (political, ideological, imitative), I agree that's it's highly unlikely that South Africa will follow Zimbabwe's disastrous lead, even if the ANC and black South Africans would like to see those types of policies. My point was more about the column itself. Mugabe's policies do seem popular among many black South Africans, and that has to be a big part of the reason Mbeki is supporting Mugabe, or at least putting himself between the West and Zimbabwe. Basically, I think that Kenny's point about the ANC's high support is specious, because it is likely that Mbeki feels that if he would turn against Mugabe, he'd lose enough support that the ANC could come under some threat of a reduction of power, even if actually losing power remains unlikely. If Mbeki felt it was politically expedient to oppose Mugabe, I believe he would. Since he can support Mugabe both ideologically and politically, he doesn't have to make that choice.
I also think there might be a difference between "supporting" and "not opposing," or perhaps more appropriately, "taking actions to oppose" Mugabe. In other words, i am not certain that Mbeki supports Mugabe per se, he simply won't use the weight, prestige, operating space, or whatever of SA and the ANC frontally to challenge Mugabe.
dc
Post a Comment