Front National opposes the multicultural system in South Africa as a seriously flawed political system based on misconceptions.
1. Human rights
“All men are born equal”
The term democracy means literally “the rule of the people”, with a cornerstone entrenched in the constitution of most democracies the principle of equality. But even the earliest philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had serious doubts about democracy based on the principle. Plato even said that “even the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen”. Aristotle argued that it violated the purpose of government since it does not serve the interest of the whole community. Yet, democracy survived – with its flawed equality principle – because it was in the interest of the elite that the system be entrenched.
2. Duality regarding equality
It is mind-boggling how the true champions of democracy (the so-called liberal) can preach equality, while negating the principle almost at will:
Franchise: Equality means that all people will have an equal vote in a democracy, doesn’t it? But in democracies there is no such thing as an equal vote, simply because voting rights have a simple flaw: age. Voting ages are arbitrary set by democratic governments without any scientific evidence. In Biblical times the coming of age of men was set at 32. Most democratic states set the maturity age at 21. The age for registering as voter is set at 18. Why not 17? Why not 45?
Marriage: Under the influence of religion, democratic states have no scruples in promulgating laws directly in opposition to the principle of equality. The male is considered to be the head of the family in all matters, ranging from finances to application of the common and institutional laws. The female and under-age children cannot enter into contracts without the family head’s signature.
Birth: Democracies preach equality. But a proclaimed democracy like Britain still tolerates a monarchy; democracies in Africa still rely on traditional leaders. The duality in democracy is that they still embrace royalty through birth alone, not linked to any merit system or any logical explanation.
Political power: Political power in a democracy entails that politicians are elected to a position of power, making laws impacting on citizens and enforcing those laws. An underlying principle of equality itself is that no man should exercise power over another, precisely because they are equal. Democrats argue that the giving of power to a politician stems from a “social contract” where the citizenry are giving their permission, by virtue of a vote, to leaders to represent them. This is absolute nonsense for two reasons:
– studies show that only about 6% of every given community has an interest in politics. Just like in a tax return, man can appoint an agent to complete the tax return. The “contract” is that the agent will complete the actual tax return, NOT take over the finances of the individual and wield financial power over the taxpayer. The same with politics: the citizen can appoint an agent to represent him/her in Parliament to act in his/her interest – NOT to wield power over him.
– any contract between two people can be revoked at any time. As soon as the one party to a contract does not fulfill his obligations, the other party can immediately step out of the contract especially if it is only a verbal contract. Not after a five year period, like elections dictate, but immediately. Not after an abortion like the Kodesa talks and following “entrenched Constitution”, but immediately.
– The duality of equality makes for absurd arguments regarding such diverse issues as abortion, capital punishment and sexual orientation.
The reality is that men are NOT born equal.
Mother tongue, locality, the community, morality, religion and ethics all play a role in determining who and what a human being is. Some of these factors have built-in inequalities. These factors, of course, shape human beings to become the men they are.
An ageless argument in democratic states is about abortion. When indeed is a human being a human – is it at conception, birth or a later stage? What defines a human – is it physical, emotional, psychological?
Jean Piaget (Six Psychological Studies, Random House 1976) dealt with the question whether the newborn is subject to heredity of endogenous origin or heredity stemming from ancestral acquisitions. The outcome of the study would suggest if the baby is indeed to be considered as “man” at birth.
At birth, Piaget argues, mental life is limited to reflexes corresponding to instinct. Reflexes are the forerunner of mental development, and are undoubtedly present in animal life as well.
Physically the newborn is human. The genetic make-up is such that it can be distinguished from animal life immediately. At the same time, however, the genetic make-up physically determines race, ethnicity, facial features and skeletal and muscular differences. Whether these physical features are enough to classify into “political inequalities” are debatable.
• The first evidence then that men are not equal, is language. Humans are undeniably shaped by the mother tongue they are born into. Even in the developed English-speaking world, linguists will concede that there is a difference between British, American, Australian and Canadian English. The state of the mother tongue has a huge (perhaps the biggest) influence on the mental development of a human being. In the main language groupings like Anglo-Saxon (versions of English), Germanic (Dutch, Flemish, Afrikaans, Danish) and Roman (Portuguese, Spanish, Italian) developing man has a wide reservoir to draw from, but smaller, “independent” languages like in Africa or remote islands are limiting the number of concepts.
Language is linked to behavior. From the age of about two years language allows verbal exchange with older persons; is supported by a system of signs and socialization; and presents itself as perceptions. The parallel series of transformations follows through interpersonal feelings and affection.
• The second evidence of inequality is intelligence. Also linked to mother tongue, intelligence is a main factor of inequality. Numerous studies, however flawed IQ testing may be, have confirmed that origin and race play a definite role in intelligence. Piaget very importantly holds that intelligence links to emotions.
Man is man at birth and as a living thing it is equal to other men. But in certain terms (disregarding genes) man is also equal to animal at that stage. It is only with the onset of language and intelligence that man becomes truly man. The realities are that men are born into different communities and mother tongues, making men unequal right from the start of development at the age of about two months. The political concept that all men are equal is thus a misnomer, a farce; especially as the democratic system is primarily concerned with the “political man” who has a “political will”.
Man can, at most theoretically, be equal if born in the same community, same mother tongue, same religion, same morality and same ethical set-up. Liberals can argue the opposite, but democracy can at best be tolerated in a unified system where all factors are equal, which of course is impossible.
CONCLUSION: All men are NOT equal. The more diverse the forming factors are (different mother tongues, different moralities, different races, and different religions) the more farcical it becomes to even consider a multicultural democracy as a political system. Human rights is NOT a building block of democracy, because the democratic system is too draconian, to filled with duality to incorporate human rights. Human rights become just a political slogan in a democracy.
Front National SA understands the concept. Does the DA?
Read the original article by Hannes Engelbrecht on Front Nasionaal SA – blad
