Peter Bruce writes that he will vote for the ANC because he seeks to “stand by” the non-corrupt holdouts and help give them a healthy majority “For the sake of the country, stand with the ANC’s principled people”, (April 11).
How much does the ANC need to wreck before the milquetoast suburban liberals realise socialism is a bad idea? While Bruce chooses to focus almost exclusively on corruption, the damage the tripartite alliance has wrought on SA has far more to do with ideology. Bruce is missing the trees for the forest and focusing on red herrings.
He does not mention the existential crisis that stares SA in the face. In 1948 this crisis was apartheid, in 1992 it was a civil war, and in 2019 it is land expropriation without compensation. President Cyril Ramaphosa, who Bruce lauds, has identified himself fully with this policy, and has at no point given any substantive indication that he opposes it. In 2002 he wrote a book on constitutional law with Ziyad Motala where they equivocate on the sanctity of property rights.
Property rights in the constitution must not be allowed to entrench the status quo, and property rights in the constitution should preferably be interpreted against the African community-centric conception thereof rather than the traditional individual conception. These are some of the things they wrote. Most importantly, they claim departures from the protections of property rights in Section 25 for purposes of affirmative action should not be held against the strict conditions of the limitations clause.
You cannot vote for Ramaphosa or the non-corrupt faction. You only vote for the party. But if you could vote for Ramaphosa, it would be a bad choice. South Africans need to keep the ANC and the other pro-expropriation parties away from a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
Martin van Staden