Where does Democracy End and Anarchy Begin?

In South Africa we purport to be proud of our “Democracy”.  Well, I question that we actually have a democracy – see my post “Do we Really Have Democracy in South Africa?”.  But more importantly right now is – where does Democracy end and Anarchy begin?

Well – where else do you go for definitions these days but to the web.  So various Web Definitions of democracy are:

• A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
• A form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
• The practice or principles of social equality
• The political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives
• A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
•  Majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

What then is Anarchy – back to the web:

• A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority
• Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal
• A state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
• Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.

Do you remember Polokwane?  Was that “democracy” – or was that the first stage of “anarchy”?  What about the way the strikes these days seem to be going?  Is that “democracy”, or it is Anarchy?  And what about the recent antics of the ANCYL?  Is that “democracy”, or is it Anarchy?  And what about the threats to Zuma and his government – “we will bring you down” – is this “democracy” or is it Anarchy?  And what about the threats to the Botswana government?  Is this “democracy” or is it Anarchy?

Certainly, in my opinion, recent trade union and ANCYL activity has demonstrated “absence or non-recognition of authority”.  Equally certain, in my opinion, the reaction of government has demonstrated an absence of “enforced political authority”.  But the definition that I think best suits the situation is “a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)”.

Recent political comment has included the concept of the lack of intellectualism in government.  Both Zuma and Malema are cases in point.  And they are both “charismatic” leaders.  What does this mean?  According to Money_zine.com “Charismatic Leaders are often thought of as heroes that are able to use their personal allure to lead others.  But that charismatic charm can be both a blessing and a curse on society.  That's because charisma can be used for the good of a company or nation - but also for less-than-honorable reasons.”

So, South Africa, what is the situation here – and, if we really DO have a democracy, what are we, the population of eligible members going to do about it?  Are we going to work to get our hard-earned democracy back?  If we don’t do something, we will get the political system that we “deserve”!  Remember – all it takes for evil to survive is for good men (and women) to do nothing!

(Photo by Bryan Porter - News24 User)