The Players in the Game: In April 2014, South African Voters Shall Take to the Polls to Let Their Disgruntled Voices Heard.

Disgruntled: the word to describe the attitude of South Africans today towards the national government. Plagued by corruption, abysmal service delivery, and the intra-ANC-politicking that distracted from good politics (see: Mangaung Conference) that happened throughout the Zuma administration, it is no wonder South Africans are exhausted by the ANC's national rule.

The Democratic Alliance has taken it upon itself (as a sort of self-appointed job) to bring the myriad of Zuma-led ANC issues to the table for the public to assess -- they are the official opposition after all. But I suppose that's the ultimate issue with the DA: they're too focused on being in the opposition, rather than attempting to lead.

With winning the Western Cape during 2009 elections, the province has become their prime example on those rare occasions when the DA tells you how it's going to govern. "Look how clean, litter-free it is," they beam about their pride and joy, Cape Town. An important aspect to note is that Cape Town was always like that. Cape Town was always well-managed & cleanly due to being a key tourism point -- it serves as a Mediterranean-esque getaway in Africa. They haven't pulled a miraculous revamp like Mayor Abraham Beame had with New York City in the 1970s -- not that the DA hasn't been provided the opportunity to prove themselves in this manner. On the West side of Table Mountain, poorer, predominately black and coloured communities live on a wide area known as the Cape Flats. Still stuck in their Apartheid classified "locations", these neighborhoods are ravaged by violence, crime, vandalism and drug problems and their accompanying gangs. The problems faced in '70s NYC and the Flats are blaringly obvious, and until they are solved by the DA, which is the moment when the party can boast about well-governed Western Cape.

The DA comes across as desperate, to the point where a person dismisses the party as a serious contender, not just the official opposition. The tipping point was their 12 minute video entitled "Know Your DA". The video outlined the role that Democratic Alliance members. Ignoring the fact that the DA was only officially founded in 2000, the video clutches at the history of apartheid heroine Helen Suzman. In the video, the DA illustrates its connection to the greatest struggle hero Nelson Mandela, by showing Suzman and Mandela embracing, as well as Mandela's words praising Suzman (and by extension, the DA). The motivation behind their video is understandable: relation to Mandela has made people vote for a party in the past, and the trend will probably continue. The issue is that Helen had never officially affiliated herself with the DA, whereas Mandela's history is certainly attributed to the ANC.

The video cheapens the ultimate goal of the DA. Perhaps it was a realistic strategy to undergo, but unfortunately backfired. The DA fails to show how it stands independent of the ANC -- even in campaigns to know the DA as a party fear, sticking to its "official opposition" title. The DA can only be considered a serious contender by the undecided voter the day they take themselves as a serious party, not just the official opposition.

But noting struggle credentials in South Africa is nothing new and has been the approach of the African National Congress since 1994.The ANC unfortunately has a monopoly over struggle heroes and exploits this for votes at the polls, so a person can excuse the DA's desperation.

In 1994, with big weights such as Mandela and Tambo in its history, the ANC passed the struggle credentials test, and continued riding its success. Struggle credentials were the key to bagging votes in 1994 -- by proving your party/its members role to defeat the Goliath Apartheid worked, and this approach has been taken ever since by the ANC.

The approach to voting in 1994 differs to what influences voters 20 years onwards. 2014 marks the election where born frees -- the generation born after 1994 who did not experience Apartheid -- are now old enough to vote and may have different motivations for voting than their parents. Post '94 babies (I suppose "adults" now) are disinterested in hearing about the past. They are appreciative of the actions done to defeat Apartheid, but a keen to know what will happen now and next. To them, the particularities of who did what for the struggle are a bore and are a point at which they cannot relate.

The older generation has also changed their motivation behind voting: the ANC throughout these last 4 years of national rule has ostracized itself with the middle and lower class voter. Harrowing screw-ups in education, failing health care facilities and unpopular policies such as the electronic tolling of national roads have the public fed up with ANC government. The citizen is looking for hope in a new political party. The voter wants a political party that focuses on the contemporary problems. The voter is looking for a national government that considers and values its opinion -- and in this search for a hopeful alternative is where Congress of the People (COPE) found its niche in the market in the 2009 national elections.

COPE, a break away from the ANC, quickly gain popularity, but with the same projectile, tanked. COPE's edge was offering an alternative to the ANC that stood for its core principles and is unable to be deterred. But with power struggles over who the new party's president should be vaporized their proposed image. The drama distracting from the good governance it promised as its edge. The intra-politicking showed, making COPE live up to the same manner as its root political party. Some votes still believed in the idea behind COPE, making this political party make contemporary history as the first party to win the most parliamentary seats in its first election.

COPE remains as a registered political party for the 2014 elections. With the power struggle sorted out by the judiciary and out of their way, COPE is finally prepared to fulfill its promised mandate. A major error from publicity perspective is that COPE had not campaigned its new organised and prepared party, leaving their image tarnished in long-gone supporters' eyes. The solution to the presidency issue was a minuscule report in major newspapers. COPE has become synonymous with disappointed hope -- the taste of change that went away before it could be problem. COPE is likely to fizzle after its (relative) bang of 2009.

COPE and 2009 elections illustrated the desperation of the voters which still lingers for the 2014, hoping that will be the year they are heard.

With the 2014 elections nearing, new political parties are springing up. Three are note-worthy entries
1) WASP
2) Agang
3) EFF

The Workers and Socialist Party (WASP)
Out from the Marikana tragedy where striking miners resulted in over 40 deaths, comes a worker-oriented political party. The party noted the Marikana massacre of last year was pre-empted by a lack of representation of the miners to the mine bosses, which lead to restlessness and a violent outcry for attention.

The issue with basing a political party on history or emotion provides the party a fleeting foundation -- ask the ANC. They have used the struggle against Apartheid as the ANC's main approach to winning elections and it becomes exhausted as people become disinterested and irritated by repeated information. A party needs to be greater than a historical happening, and clear about what they stand for independent of "not allowing the [insert historical piece here] to happen again."

Little has been heard from WASP post the week of launching and seems to be an idea unsupported by proper structures and media (as it always does), has moved onto the newer kid-on the block.

Agang
Beginning as a "political platform" where citizens can discuss their grievance with the status quo, Agang (the newer new-kid-on-the-block) has skilfully assess the problem with South Africa and resembles a similar approach to COPE during the previous elections. Agang seeks to motivate passive citizens to play an active role & centralizes its principles on the citizen as a key player in their country's governance.

Now officially registered as a political party lead by a struggle icon by Mamphela Ramphele, Agang was embraced with open arms. By engaging actively with youthful citizens on social media platforms, Agang brought the attitude that South Africans sought in COPE.

Agang shares similarities with COPE, bring the apprehension that it may suffer the same disappointing fate. Agang's diminishing popularity may not be its self-constructed demise, rather that South African's attention has been whisked up by the newest new-kid-on-the-block, EFF

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)
Founded by dismissed ANC Youth President Julius Malema, EFF wants to fight the ever widening gap of between rich and poor, which runs close to racial lines due to the legacy of Apartheid. Much of Malema's radical babbling whilst ANCYL president is intended to become EFF policy.

As it stands now, EFF seems to be a boys' club filled with radical members. Malema is joined by Kenny Kunene, an obscenely wealthy business man who is known to spend money at a whim -- epitomizing exploitative capitalism through eating sushi off of women's bodies at his elaborate, multimillion Rand birthday parties spanning three days. The hypocrisy of standing for the poor but behaving like their "masters" is also evident in Malema who is also known to sport expensive items such as a Breitling watch and red beret -- the red beret becoming synonymous with the new party. Since forming the party, the two have denounced their previous ways and claim to have changed their lifestyle to suit their word.

Regardless, EFF's popularity is booming. Having well-known members, but this party features a few important aspects: firstly, Kenny Kunene through an open letter to President Zuma outlined the issues with his administration in an unapologetic, fearless manner, voicing what makes South Africans concur. Secondly, they have clearly established who they stand for and fight for; and thirdly, they have a brief policy on how they shall through various means, including nationalization of mines. They have taken the first step away from rhetoric, and shown clearly they are against what has made the ANC deter from its principles: corruption -- South Africans are jubilated and many have deposited their hope for this maturing democracy in the red beret (ignoring that its leader Malema is under investigation for a corruption charge).

After learning from the e-tolling saga, South Africans are beginning to adopt an active role in policy making; they are beginning to demand policy talk. We are maturing as democracy, with voters no longer enticed by politicians' rhetoric, rather by policies that they intend to adopt. The focus on policy drives for political parties to speak more about their policies, and restores hope for national government efficiency in years to come.

South Africans have been begging for viable governance since 2009, and with the 2014 elections, they are spoilt with choice. Whatever the outcome, what can be concluded is that the road is getting shorter for the ANC with each passing election.

Written by Wandile "Carbon" Dlamini; a social and political commentator on a blog. To read more or contact through my

Blog: http://viewthenorth.blogspot.com

Facebook fan page: http://facebook.com/viewthenorth

Twitter: http://twitter.com/Wandile_Dlamini

deviantART page: http://thenameisCarbon.deviantART.com

Editor’s Note—This week’s quote comes from Enver Hoxha, an admirable Albanian leader.

An Announcement

Greetings all!

Sadly, I will not be writing a piece this week. Nor will I be contributing here for at least the next three weeks, if not until the end of August entirely. I have decided that this break is necessary in order for me to give full effort and attention to a separate project. This project is one that I and several friends have been collaborating on for a while now, and with reduced resources among us, I need to take on greater responsibility to keep the project alive. Unfortunately, I must also keep the details of said endeavor private for now; in the future, I will likely disclose what’s been going on behind the scenes.

Do not fret; just because I cannot write something each week, this does not mean this site will go without activity. I will be vigorously searching out guest writers from among friends and comrades, and if nothing else, I will change the week’s quote every time the need arises. If I absolutely can find no help, I will simply provide links to strong news stories I encounter during the week. I apologize in advance for this hiatus on my part, but I promise that I will be back in due time. Thank you for your patience with me, and your loyalty as well. This week’s quote comes from Bruno Kreisky, an Austrian chancellor of high esteem.

As always, I can be reached for contact at my usual locations. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

We Are All Trayvon

I speak no greetings. Not tonight.

This week, I address an issue of pure emotion. I tell of heartbreak, of loss, of anger, and of defeat. They say that things have changed, that we've moved on. That we’re beyond what once made us the worst among the crowd. That America is a haven, that we’re the best. We’re number one, they say. But in that decision handed down by that jury Saturday night, we can see that they are wrong. This week’s quote comes from Malcolm X, a civil rights activist of days past.

If you’re unsure of what I’m talking about, let me inform you: George Zimmerman was found not guilty in his trial for the death of Trayvon Martin. It has been some time since the crime occurred, so I’ll refresh the memories of those who have not been paying attention. Not long ago, Trayvon Martin was walking home in Florida. George Zimmerman found him suspicious, and followed him. An altercation followed, in which Zimmerman sustained some injuries and Martin died. The time spent without trial is what ignited national debate about gun laws and race in America. And now, this verdict has sparked the debate once more.

I will not talk about the gun control side of this. It’s clear what’s wrong there, what should be done, and what I think of it by now.

Instead, tonight I draw attention to racism. Let me be absolutely clear that this verdict was, as opposed to what many would say, entirely about race. I guarantee you, if this was a white man that killed a white boy, nobody would care as much. If a black man killed a black boy, nobody would care. At least, not on a national scale.

Because this was a white man that killed a black boy, it drew eyes and ears. And I am unequivocally glad that, for a few moments, we had no option but to pay attention. We really need it.

America is no haven. America is not just. We know that for certain now.

After the verdict came to light, I thought of another time it was revealed that America has racism troubles. I reminded myself of the riots inspired by a verdict acquitting the white cops who viciously attacked Rodney King, a black man. Those riots were some of the most violent in a long time in America. People died and got hurt. Property was damaged, and rage exploded on the streets. I’m sure racists then were quite giddy; proof that black people were nothing more than angry apes! And what more could these people be, without the right to be human?

They say that America is not racist anymore. And they would think that; without laws saying minorities are less than whites, it is easy to think that. But what is written does not always dictate what happens. Murder is illegal, but I assure you someone has been shot while you read this sentence. We can say we are an equal society, one where progress, security, and freedom are not based on the color of one’s skin. But we are only fooling ourselves if we do so.

Racism lives on in America, through various forms. Most racism is concentrated through the lens of inequality, whether that is economic, social, health-related, or otherwise. The truth of the matter is that minorities in America, specifically African-Americans, experience great discrimination. Blacks experience a wealth gap between themselves and whites. Blacks are far more likely to go to jail than whites. Blacks get a sub-par education compared to whites, and complete less overall years in school. Blacks are less healthy than whites, and have a shorter lifespan. Virtually every major aspect of life in America is affected by race, and blacks receive the short end of the stick.

And yet the greatest transgression is the violent suffering blacks undergo compared to whites. Blacks are far more likely to be convicted of or be victims to gun violence. The drug war in America has turned into a war against blacks, to the point where the entire national psyche distrusts those with dark skin. You can hear it every night on the news; blacks are nearly exclusively the ones mentioned when violent crimes are committed. Victims describe criminals as large black men so frequently you’d think that black men constitute half of the American population (newsflash: they do not).

Our justice system is complicit in making America a hell for African-Americans. We might not have white-only bathrooms and water fountains anymore, but we do have coloured-only jails. We have constructed a society in which the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” excludes blacks.

Let me note something. I’m going to guess quite a few people would say that our justice system works because whoever is right in court wins the case. Sadly, that is not how our courts work. In a court case, it is not who is right or wrong that matters. All that matters is who makes the better argument. The truth is less important than whose lawyer sounds glibber. Justice comes second in our courts. It’s supposedly this system of favoring the convincing argument which makes us great. It’s something I was taught the first time I joined a mock trial team.

Back to the case at hand, it does not matter whether the prosecution for Martin was right or wrong. Zimmerman’s lawyer made the better argument, and the jury confirmed that. How coincidental that the jury had no black members.

The only thing this verdict proved is that nothing has changed since Rodney King was beaten senseless more than two decades ago. We are just as racist as we were then, and we are doing nothing to change that. Don’t give me crap about how we have a black president now; that changes nothing when so many black men are dying each day because of the society we've made. The riots of the past were justified for what we've done, and anything that happens now is also justified. Racism, just like justice, is a system. If we don’t tear it down, it only grows.

That is all for tonight, and I am always grateful for feedback. Leave a comment, email me at zerospintop@live.com, or message me through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, Reddit, or Youtube. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.

We are all Trayvon.

Zero-Risk Investment: Feeding Americans

Greetings all!

Tonight, I address a topic I've been meaning to write about ever since the very beginning. I have recently been reminded of just how widespread the problem of basic hunger is in the United States, and so I've decided to enumerate my thoughts around said problem. This week’s quote comes from Clement Attlee, a British Prime Minister whom I hold in fairly high regard given his contributions to the United Kingdom. He certainly did enough to warrant a state funeral, in my opinion.

Moving on, my attention to hunger needs has largely always been determined by how frequently news outlets I trust cover the issue. For the most part, this means my anger and idealism surrounding hunger comes to a boil every few weeks, unless a momentous event occurs. My interest peaked this morning, as I read an article about hungry children in Tennessee from the Washington Post. As always, this piece struck deep chords within me. I simply cannot be silent about this any longer.

The most demoralizing part of all this is just how important food is to humanity, and yet so many go very hungry very often. Food is the second most urgent need humans must fulfill; only water is more important to our survival, and only because we die more quickly without water than without food. It is incredibly frustrating to know that in the world’s richest country, over 50 million Americans are food insecure. That’s one in every six people. It may be hard to comprehend, so settle with the knowledge that there are more people hungry in America than your mind can envision realistically.

Knowing this, our public policy towards feeding citizens should be well thought-out, regulated correctly and efficiently, and should be barred from funding cuts no matter what. There should be no question that keeping everyone food secure is a good idea and a worthwhile investment. Starving people make poor workers and will rarely contribute to society unless they are fed; this should be inherent fact.

And yet, our food stamp benefits for Americans are planned to be cut in November. On top of this, other cuts to our food welfare system (like this one) are frequently put on the line in the name of saving governmental money. But why? What fathomable reasons could there be for chipping away at the food security of our most vulnerable people?

The myth of the welfare queen is one of the biggest reasons, in one form or another. In a sound byte which outlived its speaker, President Ronald Reagan created a story of a woman whom committed welfare fraud and thereby abused government money for her own benefit. Not only did this woman, by his description, never exist in the first place, but it would not even matter if she did. Even if one woman took advantage of the help offered to her, that does not make the case for stripping social security and other welfare benefits. The actual woman in question in Reagan’s tale, Linda Taylor, was caught and punished for her crimes, none of which were quite as large as Reagan made them out to be.

This one woman performed criminal acts to get more money. And now, 30 years later, we've still got millions of angry Americans shouting with red faces and tight fists about how so many people abuse welfare.

The issue with planning policy based on one instance of fraud is that law is not based on circumstance. All law is based on trends. For example, it is generally accepted that murder should be illegal because many people would commit murder if it was not. This is based on the fact that people kill people if given the opportunity. If you've ever wondered why lots of murders occur during political unrest, this is why; without clear legal guidelines and rules, some people lose control. This is why soldiers frequently commit atrocities during wars; wars are not governed by laws of peace in their minds. For the most part, the majority of soldiers will not do this. But enough do it that it is generally accepted as wrong, and is considered illegal by the Geneva Conventions.

As such, laws concerning food security are also based on trends. Specifically, it can be observed that with a complete lack of food assistance, people will starve and die. For example, I direct you to think back to 2011, during which a drought occurred in Somalia. Hundreds of thousands died during the event, suffering without the most basic of needs. Some blame can be placed on Al-Shabab, which prevented relief efforts in areas it controlled at the time. However, there’s a reason why international agencies had to rush to assist in efforts to give food and water to the Somalis. At the time Somalia had no real government and therefore no publicly-provided food security of any kind. As a result, Somalis in danger of starving had to depend entirely on outside help for survival. This is proof enough that some patchwork of food assistance for the neediest people is necessary in society.

We can expect some fraud of food assistance programs like SNAP (the modern day food stamps). However, abuse of public systems is endemic and incurable. There has always been and will always be abuse of our legal system, our healthcare system, etc. In every group of good people, we can assume at least one of them is the exact kind of awful person who would do such a thing. Because of this trend, we should and do have laws in place for dealing with abuse. We penalize criminals whom would and do commit fraud. This is logical.

At the same time, we cannot tear these programs and systems apart simply because some people use them improperly. True, some judges in America are pure evil. This does not mean we should completely rework our legal system or destroy it entirely. It means we should have checks and balances in place to ensure ourselves that our system is as safe as we can make it.

The same goes for our food security system. Some people will always do reprehensible things with the tools afforded them. But because the majority of those using SNAP and other welfare programs are not breaking the law, we should keep and strengthen our system within reason. We should be ready and able to keep all Americans food secure, even if that means some money lost on abuse every now and again. Food security is a worthwhile investment despite the risk, and this is economic fact. 

That is all for this week, and as always, your feedback is encouraged. Comment here, send me an email at zerospintop@live.com, or contact me through Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, Reddit, or Youtube. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.