The defenders of “multicultural democracy” in South Africa are those with vested interests – those who stand to lose the most when democracy goes, for democracy (as in the present one man-one vote system) in essence is an elitist system benefiting only the selected few who wield power over individuals.
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. Democrats thus bandy the principle of equality around whenever they want to advance the democratic political system.
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.
DUALITY REGARDING ‘DEMOCRACY’ It is mind-boggling how the true champions of democracy 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 ages for registering as voter is set at 18.
Why not 17? Why not 45?
• MARRIAGE Under the influence of religion, ‘democratic’ African 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 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 have 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. The question also comes to the fore whether anybody can sign away a fundamental right.
– any contract between two people can be revoked at any time. As soon as the one party to a contract does not fulfil 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. The situation is even more absurd if only one party can decide the duration of the contract (the “democratic” President will decide when the next general election will be). The one given the power, now dictates when that power comes to an end!
The duality of equality makes for absurd arguments regarding such diverse issues as abortion, capital punishment and sexual orientation.
“All men are NOT born equal”
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.
It is important, however, to discuss the earliest foundation of man to determine whether a human is indeed born equal and whether these factors only settle in in later life.
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 is 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 be classified into “political inequalities” are debatable, but the reality thereof is undeniable, as it has been at the core of strife for all history.
• Mentality and emotions, then, hold the key whether the innate can be described as human at this stage. Intelligence appears well before language, but language is of such importance that it is perhaps the most influential of all factors in determining the outcome of the human being.
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, South African, 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 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. For white Afrikaners their language is thus of the utmost importance in maintaining their own culture and outlook on life.
The second evidence of inequality is intelligence. Also linked to mother tongue to an extend, 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. Few will deny that initial testing shows, for instance, a higher IQ for Japanese on average.
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 become 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. As man grows up, these differences are even more accentuated, so by the time of franchise (18?, 21? 98?) there are huge differences.
“Multicultural democrats” 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, different religions) the more farcical it becomes to even consider one man-one vote democracy as a political system. Human rights is NOT a building block of democracy, because the democratic system is too draconian, too filled with duality to incorporate human rights. Human rights become just a political slogan in a democracy.
• Arguments identified:
1. Men are only equal when all other factors like mother tongue, ethnicity, morals and ethics are equal. Human life, however, is a different argument – all human life can be held as equally important and precious.
2. No person can exercise power over another without a social contract, without the right to immediately terminate the contract if the need arises.
3. No person can, by virtue of birth only, claim superiority over another.
4. Social factors (language, culture, location, genetics) differentiate between human beings.
FRONT NATIONAL thus opposes the present one man-one vote system in the multicultural South Africa on principle. We propose self-determination for the ethnic white from European descend. We believe that only self-determination with own appointed politicians and officials can do justice to our nation/volk.
Hannes Engelbrecht
Read the original article on Front Nasionaal SA – blad
