South Africa and Consociationalism?

Why did the National Party, before handing over power in the form of absolute democrasy, to a collection of Marxist Thugs and Kleptomaniacs, the ANC, who have proven themselves incapable of effecient governance and of being true terrorists hell bent on white destruction and despair, not negotiate on the grounds of a Consociationist state, with control of the SADF and SAP being retained by the National Party for a period of 30 years, in order to prevent the reverse racism applied by the ANC against the country's minority groups which has been evidenced after the dismantling of Apartheid?

We is a Wikipedia link for perusal, obviously major modifications would have been necessary in the South African context, any thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism

Update:

Zim$ - Judging by your response, it can be ascertained that you either failed to understand my posting or cannot read, both traits of limited IQ holders......

The implication in my posting is that a transition period was vital in the transformation process in South Africa, the ANC have proven themselves incapable of holding positions of trust and in so doing have validated themselves as untrustworthy, hence the need for the military and police to remain under the control of the NP until such time as civilised values and morals could have been instilled in the country's African population.

There would be no intention to cling to power as you have stated, only a need to retain certain aspects of power until the majority were ready and able to be placed in a position of great trust.

The only problem being, perhaps in Africa, 30 years would be insufficient, possible 300 years?

Update 2:

Hello Lise - Yes, it is white flag day according to most, myself and a few others have however never agreed to such, so we ask on the basis of "answer if you want to, ignore if you don't.

Crime, corruption and violence in South Africa doesn't stop on a Friday.

Post away.

Update 3:

Res - The fact that you believe all should be bound to rules of which they did not approve or vote for, is a clear display of your your of understanding of the concept, democracy, probably from years of Proudly South African brainwashing and ignorant liberal thought processes.

Further to that, the concept of "answer if you so feel, ignore if you so feel", seems way beyond your self obsessed and prebuscent approach to life.

You can continue to live in denial under the pretense that there exists any form of solidarity on this internet forum (not that it matters to anyone other than those with schoolgirl mentalities), yet alone in daily South African life, it simply does not.

PS - You would make a great dictator/communist with your belief that all who do not subscribe to your train of thought to should be silenced.

Piss off, I have no time for the ignorant.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes. I have been pondering that thought for many years. It's really stupid how one can simply give away a country into the hands of others like the Nats did and then sit back and watch the country go up in flames. It's almost as if the National Party wanted this to happen. Now there is no way to win the country back, because many South Africans have given up on 'saving South Africa' and the majority rule can and will never be changed again. I don't think consociationalism would have worked though, but I do believe South Africans could have come up with a better solution than just giving the reigns over to incompetent fools. Mind you there are some people within the ANC that really tried to make a difference, but they were in the minority as well.

  • 1 decade ago

    I dont think they had a choice. They had to just hand the country over. Not only internal pressure but also international pressure. Everyone was so keen to give 'them' back their land they werent worried about the consequences. As long as it happed fast, everything would be fine. Right?

    Remember, the ruling party ANC, are not the brightest bunch and of course did not think further than their own personal gain, so to allow the NP to have some sort of control in the country for 30 years, come on. Never. They wanted it all, and they wanted it now! "or else"

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Intresting stuff.

    From what i gather through my brief perusal of the article, it looks like it couldve worked wonders in the handover of power.

    At the least, it couldve given minority groups the platform to voice their concerns and to be taken seriously; not as it is now: i feel i have no say in the way my country is governed, and im sure im not the only one. And this couldve protected those that are critical of the ruling party from being called rascist, unpatriotic and all those other things the spin docters call us.

    Is it too late for something like this to be brought into effect?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's a rather intriguing idea, which I have to admit I have never encountered before.

    Unfortunately, I think the criticisms against it is solid. It would never work in South Africa. Like one of the critics said, it's not going to work in any situation where you've got a few haves and a lot of have-nots in the same society, and the fact that any politician can conveniently draw a colour-line through it would bedevil it even more.The divisions are far too deep, and besides, we have all seen that pan-africanist political movements are far too prone to centralism to survive any complicated power-sharing deals for long.

    Nice try, though.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Res
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    White Flag day!

    Are you so self-involved and opinionated that you truly could not wait one day or a couple of hours to post your question? The fact that we tried to create a rule that sets us apart from every other forum, making us unique, not to mention our willingness to demonstrate a form of unity, solidarity, and a (single) day of peace…against all odds…leaves you cold.

    But there will always be people like you, won’t there.

    Your question is valid, no doubt about it….but your lack of respect, describes you completely.

    And just as a matter interest, thumbs up or down are completely irrelevant to me. I made my point! It was read.

  • Joppie
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Well I think America ,Ingland and the rest give ou FW ;Pikswart; Roelf and ou Koornoff enough money to survive elsewhere don't forget the General that divided the Boere too vote yes they all left the country never to hear of them again

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    ********.are all u s africans not aware of the illuminati and bigger groups who say when and how the world will move.wake up off the southern end of your precipice and realise that anc,nat,tory,labour,left,right blah blah blah is all superficial crap and do what they are told less their silly little heads roll.de klerk a mason and tied into the one world order didnt give a flying frog for u.i suppose bull would have been at the forfront of the new army for thirty years fighting the same old horse crap we fought in pre demo.im quite happy with the way its gone belly up.so free to get away with whatever.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Bull is it not white flag day today.......I thought we were not allowed to ask politiacal questions? If i am wrong correct me because I am also wanting to "vryf almal verkeerd op" just for some fun

  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Come on Bull, you can do better than this.......if that happened the SADF could help with coups......it seems you are now showing your real African traits.....use military power to stay in political power.......that is very low IQ

  • 1 decade ago

    I often wonder what would have been better if that had happened.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.