South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Alexis Jacobi]

Western models of governance do not work in Africa.

For various African reasons.

I think I have realized this, if only in my limited “researches” on the topic.

Therefore, I see the power-principle — the flexing of it by the competent class — as being the next necessary step.

This is part of what interests me: the collapse of the irreal dream of a functional “democracy” in post-transition South Africa. In this sense: the dream failed.

The reality is right there and can be seen. Without competency, the State will collapse.

Again, my desired posture is political realism, not unrealizable Occidental idealism.

[BigMike]

But the idea that a return to white or Eurocentric rule—or even just white managerial “guidance”—is the solution echoes the very colonial paternalism that got us here in the first place. It suggests that justice, democracy, and equality should be secondary to efficiency and economic performance—as long as the “right” people are in charge.

That is, basically, my position. Based in a type of political realism.

It’s not only white rule though. It is that of the competent classes: East Indians, Muslims, and certainly Blacks who wish to align themselves with competence and competent rule.

My view is that the core objective has to be defined and agreed upon: the success of the State as a joint enterprise. That is first. The details of justice and a strong rule of law, that follows.

Fair enough—but reversing the order is the problem. Without justice and rule of law first, any “success” is fragile, exclusionary, and ultimately unsustainable. Competence without legitimacy builds resentment, not unity.

[BigMike]

South Africa doesn't need a return to hierarchy. It needs a transformation of structure—one that’s just, inclusive, and built for the long haul.

You are about to solve all of South Africa's problems by giving South Africans the proper conception, definition and implementation of "justice".

Aren't you?

Of course not. But without a shared sense of justice—however imperfect—there’s no foundation to build anything lasting. It's not about solving everything with a definition. It’s about making sure the structure we build doesn’t keep repeating the same old injustices in a new disguise.

[Skepdick]

My view is that the core objective has to be defined and agreed upon: the success of the State as a joint enterprise. That is first. The details of justice and a strong rule of law, that follows.

The Expropriation Act is strong rule of law.

The question is whether it should remain law; or be scrapped as law.

[Skepdick]

Of course not. But without a shared sense of justice—however imperfect—there’s no foundation to build anything lasting. It's not about solving everything with a definition. It’s about making sure the structure we build doesn’t keep repeating the same old injustices in a new disguise.

So now it's a repeat of old injustices; and no longer a correction thereof?

It's difficult to pretend this is about (im?)perfection when you can't even decide whether the state should uphold or sidestep property rights.

[accelafine]

I am uncertain if this topic will interest the forum much. But since it has been in the news recently I thought it might. I came across this video which seemed to me to present a quite reasonable conversation on the topic of the threat of expropriation.

The reports that have come to me about SA generally give a picture of a country approaching collapse (in some areas) but even these reports I have not been able to verify to my satisfaction.

Is the country collapsing? How long is a piece of string? Service delivery across the public sector is worse than ever. Sanitation, education and healthcare are non-existent in the rural parts of the country. Durban and Johannesburg's infrastructure is slowly and visibly aging with water and power outages now being weekly occurrences.

Western Cape is the only province thriving- which is why the middle and upper classes from around the country are moving here.
And why the ANC is desperately trying to undermine all local governance.

The current clowns in political power are doing everything to subvert property ownership via "legal" means. They are succeeding.
The inside joke is that there are two message.
For international audiences: the law will be used sparingly to grease the wheels of transformation on land deals that have stagnated for decades.
For insiders: the law will be used to take back what was taken at the end of a gun.

In-office ministers are unashamedly spreading the latter message across political rallies and university halls where young, impressionable minds will listen.

Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

Because from your tone, it sounds like you're outraged not by the original violent expropriation, but by the possibility of addressing it—even through legal means. If ministers are unashamedly stating historical facts and pushing for redress, should the shame not lie with those who benefitted from the original injustice, rather than those seeking to correct it?

You seem to highlight the deterioration of state services and governance failures—fair criticisms. But tying that to outrage over land restitution suggests you’re more disturbed by the rhetoric of justice than by the centuries-long injustice that made it necessary in the first place.

So again: are you objecting to how it's being said, or that it's being said at all?

None of the people who the land was allegedly 'stolen' off are alive now. Most black South Africans are originally from other parts of Africa who went there for work. Are you saying it's ok to just take the land that farmers have been farming for generations? Who's it going to be given to and what are they going to do with it? Very intelligent to destroy the people who provide your food. I assume you are American, going by the fact that you have your AI helper set to 'American spelling'. Do you think all the farms in the US should be returned to the people who happened to be there before the other people who came there? Should American farmers also be killed?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course not. But without a shared sense of justice—however imperfect—there’s no foundation to build anything lasting. It's not about solving everything with a definition. It’s about making sure the structure we build doesn’t keep repeating the same old injustices in a new disguise.

That sounds very good on paper, and to certain audiences, yet I see things differently (living as I do un unruly South America).

First a sense of order and discipline, and then working out the details of fairness and the rest.

[BigMike]

Is the country collapsing? How long is a piece of string? Service delivery across the public sector is worse than ever. Sanitation, education and healthcare are non-existent in the rural parts of the country. Durban and Johannesburg's infrastructure is slowly and visibly aging with water and power outages now being weekly occurrences.

Western Cape is the only province thriving- which is why the middle and upper classes from around the country are moving here.
And why the ANC is desperately trying to undermine all local governance.

The current clowns in political power are doing everything to subvert property ownership via "legal" means. They are succeeding.
The inside joke is that there are two message.
For international audiences: the law will be used sparingly to grease the wheels of transformation on land deals that have stagnated for decades.
For insiders: the law will be used to take back what was taken at the end of a gun.

In-office ministers are unashamedly spreading the latter message across political rallies and university halls where young, impressionable minds will listen.

Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

Because from your tone, it sounds like you're outraged not by the original violent expropriation, but by the possibility of addressing it—even through legal means. If ministers are unashamedly stating historical facts and pushing for redress, should the shame not lie with those who benefitted from the original injustice, rather than those seeking to correct it?

You seem to highlight the deterioration of state services and governance failures—fair criticisms. But tying that to outrage over land restitution suggests you’re more disturbed by the rhetoric of justice than by the centuries-long injustice that made it necessary in the first place.

So again: are you objecting to how it's being said, or that it's being said at all?

None of the people who the land was allegedly 'stolen' off are alive now. Most black South Africans are originally from other parts of Africa who went there for work. Are you saying it's ok to just take the land that farmers have been farming for generations? Who's it going to be given to and what are they going to do with it? Very intelligent to destroy the people who provide your food. I assume you are American, going by the fact that you have your AI helper set to 'American spelling'. Do you think all the farms in the US should be returned to the people who happened to be there before the other people who came there? Should American farmers also be killed?

No one said farmers should be killed, and framing it that way only clouds the real issue.

You're right that history is messy—people have moved, borders have shifted, and generations have passed. But the effects of past land dispossession are not ancient history for South Africa—they’re ongoing. Land ownership today still reflects a system built on racial exclusion. That matters.

And no, I’m not saying we should "just take land." I’m saying the conversation about redress—about righting deep structural imbalances—shouldn’t be shut down with outrage or false equivalence.

If land reform is done poorly, yes, it risks harming food security and livelihoods. But if it’s never done at all, the inequality persists, resentment grows, and the potential for real conflict increases. The smart move is to find equitable, sustainable solutions—ones that include support for both current farmers and historically dispossessed communities.

Justice doesn’t have to mean destruction. But silence and inaction aren’t neutral either—they're choices that preserve the status quo.

[BigMike]

Of course not. But without a shared sense of justice—however imperfect—there’s no foundation to build anything lasting. It's not about solving everything with a definition. It’s about making sure the structure we build doesn’t keep repeating the same old injustices in a new disguise.

That sounds very good on paper, and to certain audiences, yet I see things differently (living as I do un unruly South America).

First a sense of order and discipline, and then working out the details of fairness and the rest.

Order without fairness is just control. If you start with discipline and delay justice, you risk rebuilding the same imbalance under a new flag.

[BigMike]

Of course not. But without a shared sense of justice—however imperfect—there’s no foundation to build anything lasting. It's not about solving everything with a definition. It’s about making sure the structure we build doesn’t keep repeating the same old injustices in a new disguise.

So now it's a repeat of old injustices; and no longer a correction thereof?

It's difficult to pretend this is about (im?)perfection when you can't even decide whether the state should uphold or sidestep property rights.

It’s only a repeat if injustice shifts hands without changing form. A real correction isn’t about erasing property rights—it’s about rebalancing them where they were built on exclusion. The state’s role isn’t to sidestep law, but to evolve it when the law itself was once part of the injustice.

[accelafine]

Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

Because from your tone, it sounds like you're outraged not by the original violent expropriation, but by the possibility of addressing it—even through legal means. If ministers are unashamedly stating historical facts and pushing for redress, should the shame not lie with those who benefitted from the original injustice, rather than those seeking to correct it?

You seem to highlight the deterioration of state services and governance failures—fair criticisms. But tying that to outrage over land restitution suggests you’re more disturbed by the rhetoric of justice than by the centuries-long injustice that made it necessary in the first place.

So again: are you objecting to how it's being said, or that it's being said at all?

None of the people who the land was allegedly 'stolen' off are alive now. Most black South Africans are originally from other parts of Africa who went there for work. Are you saying it's ok to just take the land that farmers have been farming for generations? Who's it going to be given to and what are they going to do with it? Very intelligent to destroy the people who provide your food. I assume you are American, going by the fact that you have your AI helper set to 'American spelling'. Do you think all the farms in the US should be returned to the people who happened to be there before the other people who came there? Should American farmers also be killed?

No one said farmers should be killed, and framing it that way only clouds the real issue.

You're right that history is messy—people have moved, borders have shifted, and generations have passed. But the effects of past land dispossession are not ancient history for South Africa—they’re ongoing. Land ownership today still reflects a system built on racial exclusion. That matters.

And no, I’m not saying we should "just take land." I’m saying the conversation about redress—about righting deep structural imbalances—shouldn’t be shut down with outrage or false equivalence.

If land reform is done poorly, yes, it risks harming food security and livelihoods. But if it’s never done at all, the inequality persists, resentment grows, and the potential for real conflict increases. The smart move is to find equitable, sustainable solutions—ones that include support for both current farmers and historically dispossessed communities.

Justice doesn’t have to mean destruction. But silence and inaction aren’t neutral either—they're choices that preserve the status quo.

It's not a 'false equivalence'. Not sure what you are drivelling on about to be honest. It doesn't seem to have any relation to what I wrote. Looks like a lot of woke AI waffle.

[BigMike]

None of the people who the land was allegedly 'stolen' off are alive now. Most black South Africans are originally from other parts of Africa who went there for work. Are you saying it's ok to just take the land that farmers have been farming for generations? Who's it going to be given to and what are they going to do with it? Very intelligent to destroy the people who provide your food. I assume you are American, going by the fact that you have your AI helper set to 'American spelling'. Do you think all the farms in the US should be returned to the people who happened to be there before the other people who came there? Should American farmers also be killed?

No one said farmers should be killed, and framing it that way only clouds the real issue.

You're right that history is messy—people have moved, borders have shifted, and generations have passed. But the effects of past land dispossession are not ancient history for South Africa—they’re ongoing. Land ownership today still reflects a system built on racial exclusion. That matters.

And no, I’m not saying we should "just take land." I’m saying the conversation about redress—about righting deep structural imbalances—shouldn’t be shut down with outrage or false equivalence.

If land reform is done poorly, yes, it risks harming food security and livelihoods. But if it’s never done at all, the inequality persists, resentment grows, and the potential for real conflict increases. The smart move is to find equitable, sustainable solutions—ones that include support for both current farmers and historically dispossessed communities.

Justice doesn’t have to mean destruction. But silence and inaction aren’t neutral either—they're choices that preserve the status quo.

It's not a 'false equivalence'. Not sure what you are drivelling on about to be honest. It doesn't seem to have any relation to what I wrote. Looks like a lot of woke AI waffle.

It's not waffle—it’s just history with consequences.

The wrongs done to people who are no longer alive didn’t disappear when they died. Their children inherited the poverty, the landlessness, the lack of opportunity. That inequality compounded over generations—while others inherited wealth, land, and systemic advantage. That’s not “woke,” it’s cause and effect.

You raised valid concerns about food security and fairness—those matter. But pretending the past has no claim on the present just lets injustice harden into permanence. We can’t undo history, but we can stop pretending it ended.

[accelafine]

No one said farmers should be killed, and framing it that way only clouds the real issue.

You're right that history is messy—people have moved, borders have shifted, and generations have passed. But the effects of past land dispossession are not ancient history for South Africa—they’re ongoing. Land ownership today still reflects a system built on racial exclusion. That matters.

And no, I’m not saying we should "just take land." I’m saying the conversation about redress—about righting deep structural imbalances—shouldn’t be shut down with outrage or false equivalence.

If land reform is done poorly, yes, it risks harming food security and livelihoods. But if it’s never done at all, the inequality persists, resentment grows, and the potential for real conflict increases. The smart move is to find equitable, sustainable solutions—ones that include support for both current farmers and historically dispossessed communities.

Justice doesn’t have to mean destruction. But silence and inaction aren’t neutral either—they're choices that preserve the status quo.

It's not a 'false equivalence'. Not sure what you are drivelling on about to be honest. It doesn't seem to have any relation to what I wrote. Looks like a lot of woke AI waffle.

It's not waffle—it’s just history with consequences.

The wrongs done to people who are no longer alive didn’t disappear when they died. Their children inherited the poverty, the landlessness, the lack of opportunity. That inequality compounded over generations—while others inherited wealth, land, and systemic advantage. That’s not “woke,” it’s cause and effect.

You raised valid concerns about food security and fairness—those matter. But pretending the past has no claim on the present just lets injustice harden into permanence. We can’t undo history, but we can stop pretending it ended.

Whatever. Give your house back to the people who were on that piece of land before you (or whoever they claim they were descended from). Don't be a hypocrite. Until you do that then don't bother making judgements about other countries.

[BigMike]

It's not a 'false equivalence'. Not sure what you are drivelling on about to be honest. It doesn't seem to have any relation to what I wrote. Looks like a lot of woke AI waffle.

It's not waffle—it’s just history with consequences.

The wrongs done to people who are no longer alive didn’t disappear when they died. Their children inherited the poverty, the landlessness, the lack of opportunity. That inequality compounded over generations—while others inherited wealth, land, and systemic advantage. That’s not “woke,” it’s cause and effect.

You raised valid concerns about food security and fairness—those matter. But pretending the past has no claim on the present just lets injustice harden into permanence. We can’t undo history, but we can stop pretending it ended.

Whatever. Give your house back to the people who were on that piece of land before you (or whoever they claim they were descended from). Don't be a hypocrite. Until you do that then don't bother making judgements about other countries.

I'm not making judgments—I'm pointing out that unresolved injustice has consequences, whether it's in South Africa, the U.S., or anywhere else. And no, I don’t pretend personal virtue exempts me from acknowledging structural issues. That’s the point: this isn’t about individual guilt—it’s about collective responsibility to deal with systems built on inherited inequality.

If your answer to that is “do nothing unless you personally give up your house,” you’re not arguing against injustice—you’re just defending inaction with deflection.

[accelafine]

It's not waffle—it’s just history with consequences.

The wrongs done to people who are no longer alive didn’t disappear when they died. Their children inherited the poverty, the landlessness, the lack of opportunity. That inequality compounded over generations—while others inherited wealth, land, and systemic advantage. That’s not “woke,” it’s cause and effect.

You raised valid concerns about food security and fairness—those matter. But pretending the past has no claim on the present just lets injustice harden into permanence. We can’t undo history, but we can stop pretending it ended.

Whatever. Give your house back to the people who were on that piece of land before you (or whoever they claim they were descended from). Don't be a hypocrite. Until you do that then don't bother making judgements about other countries.

I'm not making judgments—I'm pointing out that unresolved injustice has consequences, whether it's in South Africa, the U.S., or anywhere else. And no, I don’t pretend personal virtue exempts me from acknowledging structural issues. That’s the point: this isn’t about individual guilt—it’s about collective responsibility to deal with systems built on inherited inequality.

If your answer to that is “do nothing unless you personally give up your house,” you’re not arguing against injustice—you’re just defending inaction with deflection.

So I assue you have a solution then, to all of it, in every country.