SOUTH AFRICA AND THE POWER OF MINORITIES

When you're an "Evil White Devil."

by Colin Liddell

You hear a lot about farm murders in South Africa, but what is the actual political situation for Whites there?

First of all the main facts are that over 80% of the population is Black and less than 10% are White, with the other groups being Asians and "Coloreds," by which is meant mixed race, mainly Afrikaans-speaking people.

But even as such a small group, Whites still make up around 10% of the voter turnout, which is not nothing. In certain situations 10% of the voter turnout can carry a lot of weight. A good example of this is the present United Kingdom, where the Democratic Unionist Party, with only about half a percent of the vote, is now the kingmaker party at perhaps the most vital moment in Britain’s political history in the last 50 years.

But unfortunately in South Africa the main party appealing to Blacks, the ANC, has a near lock down on power, getting over 60% of the votes at the last election in 2014.

So, where does the White vote go in the election to be held in a few days time? Until now most of it has gone to the Democratic Alliance (DA), a party that is committed to a kind of "race blind" vision of South Africa, and which is the main opposition, getting around 22% at the previous general election.

But, as you can see, most of the DA's vote does not come from Whites, it comes from other racial groups — Coloreds, Asians, and even some Blacks — so you can't really say that it is a party that represents Whites in any meaningful or powerful way.

In fact, under the present two-party system, you have an explicitly pro-Black and anti-White party, the ANC, and a so-called "race blind" party the DA, which, to achieve power, will have to compete with the ANC for Black votes. In order to do this, they can't afford to be too strongly opposed to a lot of the anti-White agenda of the ANC. This is why they are quite weak on the question of land confiscation and other racist, anti-White measures, which are routinely justified through the egalitarian idea that any disparity in wealth is de facto proof of "White privilege."

Also, since the last election, we now have the Economic Freedom Fighters, which can best be described as a pro-White genocide party. They got over 6% of the vote last time, and are expected to grow their vote.

You can see that one-man-one-vote democracy doesn't really work great for South African Whites. But what else have they got?

The Voortrekker Monument

Well, there is the Freedom Front Plus (FF+). When people even notice this party, it is often dismissed as a fringe group of Afrikaner separatists out of touch with the reality of modern South Africa. But the party also has policies for dealing with the challenges of life as a minority in South Africa.

In fact, you could say that it is mainly focused on the nuts and bolts of protecting Afrikaner rights. Its manifesto calls for the establishment of a national Afrikaner Council, a devolved organisation to administer every Afrikaans-speaking school, old-age home, sports club, and heritage site, like the iconic Voortrekker Monument. Here we see its emphasis on language and culture as the divider, not race, which is clearly a more workable and morally acceptable strategy in today's moral climate and the Black-dominated society of South Africa.

Another one of its goals is the establishment of a so-called "10th Province" — South Africa has nine — located in the North West Cape as a "cultural home for Afrikaans-speaking people." Again this would include a lot of non-White Afrikaans speakers.

The Volkstaat as proposed by the FF+

But the basic message of the FF+, which is to move beyond the naivety of the DA's impossible "race blind" approach and to politically mobilise in defence of minorities, is also attractive to South Africa's other minorities — English-speaking Whites, Asians, and Cape Coloreds — who, together with Afrikaans-speaking Whites, make up around a fifth of the population.

Democracies—especially dysfunctional ones like South Africa—can often harm minorities, but minorities can also be more motivated when their vital interests are at stake. The behaviour of the Jewish and gay lobbies in America are good examples of this, where they exercise an extremely disproportionate influence in the political system.

In the "The Rise and Decline of Nations" (1982), the American economist  Mancur Olson addressed how minorities—economic minorities like trade unionists or a particular industry—exercise power at the cost of the often impotent majority, leading to decline and failure.

He argued that groups such as cotton-farmers, steel-producers, and labor unions benefit from organising in their own interests and forcing through protectionist measures that harm the "greater good" of the economy, while the majority, which is harmed by these measures, does nothing about it due to the "free rider problem."

For example, an individual opposing harmful protectionism (assuming that it actually is harmful) has little inducement to get involved in the issue. If successful he will only enjoy the tiniest proportion of the benefits to the group as a whole. Why not "let George do it," as Olson says, then sit back and enjoy the benefits, having contributed nothing. This kind of behaviour essentially leaves the field open to mobilised minority interests.

While Olson sees "vested interests" and minorities operating in a manner harmful to "the Commons," it is also possible to invert this in the case of South Africa, where you now have what is essentially a corrupt and harmful Commons bent upon a downward spiral of economic expropriation justified by racial revenge narratives. This is opposed by minorities seeking goals that would ultimately benefit everybody.

In fact, stripped of the racial antagonism and emotions that came to define it, that is exactly what the old South Africa was, an economic growth machine that benefited Blacks even more than Whites going by the demographic effects, which involved a massive increase in the Black population and a modest one for Whites.

Yes, Whites were once almost a majority in South Africa.

In Olson's analysis, the problem is that minorities rig things to leave out the majority, something which impoverishes us all. But in the case of South Africa such a result would obviously be a positive and benefit the majority.

But is such a thing even possible in the case of South Africa?

There are two conditions that would be required for this to happen, firstly the consolidation of the minority alliance and secondly the splitting up of the majority Black power bloc, represented by the ANC.

As a report by the South African site The Daily Maverick suggests, there is at least a possibility of the first of these happening as Whites and other minorities become increasingly disenchanted with the message of the DA:

In the 2014 general elections, the FF+ won 165,715 votes nationally — a fraction of the DA’s 4,091,584, but enough to put the party ahead of the likes of COPE and give it four parliamentary seats.

Party leader Pieter Groenewald told Daily Maverick that the FF+ is anticipating major growth at the 2019 polls, much of it at the expense of the DA.

“We experience at our different offices that there are many people coming to us who say openly: ‘We voted for DA, but now we are going to vote for FF+’.”

Groenewald attributes such defections to a number of factors. DA infighting is one, but he suggests another is a perception among white voters that the DA is not truly committed to protecting their interests.

“[DA leader Mmusi] Maimane has made quite a lot of statements referring to white privilege,” says Groenewald. “[The tone is] not too far away from blaming white people for why people are poor, and people are picking that up.”

Groenewald also believes that some voters are attracted to the unambiguous opposition to land expropriation without compensation from the FF+.

“When it comes to expropriation without compensation, the FF+ has the strong message standing up in Parliament,” he says.

“People say the DA is trying to play it both ways — it’s trying to attract black voters so it can’t come out too hard against expropriation without compensation.”

But there would be no point in the FF+ becoming a champion of minorities if it just destroyed the DA and pushed the ANC into being the champion of the majority. In fact, such a polarisation could create quite a dangerous situation. But destroying the DA is vital to the project nonetheless. The key then is political division among the majority.

As the rise of FF+ would probably wipe out the DA, the only way for this to occur would be for the EFF of Julius Malema to rise up enough to split the Black vote and stop the ANC getting its usual majority. In such a case the FF+ with its clear agenda and hard goals would then be in a position to horse trade for its Afrikaner Council and Tenth province.

But who with?

Because the kingmaker position requires you to be able to do a deal with either side, the ANC might think that, even without a majority, the impossibility of the EFF and FF+ sitting down at the same table would give it the whip hand. Also, too much intransigence on the part of the FF+ might just push the kindred spirits of the ANC and EFF back together again.

The question then would be could the EFF and FF+ actually do a deal?

EFF leader Julius Malema (Don't worry, those books are completely safe)

Where power is concerned, anything is possible, and someone like Malema might well be tempted to make concessions to reach the Presidential Palace. But even if the vision of Malema as President is deeply disturbing, it might be worth it for hard concessions that recognised the separate existence, identity, and interests of South African Whites.

Stranger things than that have happened on the African continent.

Also published at American Renaissance