Rogue Ideology
The Washington Post has published an article by their columnist Michael Gerson where he argues for a re-classification of South Africa as a “rogue democracy”. I find this argument unpalatable and disturbing, if not for its argument then certainly for the conclusion it derives at.
The term, or rather the concept, of rogue state has always been paddled by all American governments (past and present) as those countries that threaten world peace, and the criteria given so far for a state to be considered a threat to world peace are: authoritarian regimes, human rights abuse, harbouring and/or sponsoring terrorists, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (see Wikipedia). Obviously this does not apply to all states. Americans reserve the right of judgement on this matter.
However, critics of this ideology have always argued that this ideology is nothing more that a strategy to cast aspersion to those state that are not amiable to Western imperialism. It is an open secret that President Thabo Mbeki has been repositioning South Africa as an independent state, one willing and able to resist imperialist inclinations of the lone super power in the world. This, it is hoped, will galvanise all the developing and third world countries behind South Africa and increase the country’s influence in the world’s stage.
It now appears that in pursuance of this strategy South Africa has to be reclassified by the White House as one of those countries that are set on resisting Western domination. However, this is problematic as SA is a constitutional democracy, with a vibrant political system. Even though it is dominated by the ANC, there remains vigorous engagement on issues and electioneering for leadership positions within the party (see Polokwane episode). So a new term has been coined and now is being paddle about; a term that would avoid the potential contradictions that would arise with a democratic and legitimate country that poses no threat to world peace is called rogue. So, a Rogue Democracy label has been attached to our beloved country.
This is dangerous ground we are charting. This will allow any state to called rogue for simply asserting its sovereignty, which is what SA is doing.
On the issue of Zimbabwe, it goes without saying that more could have been done and more needs to be done still to put to a stop the atrocities being committed by Mugabe.
On the question of whether revolutionary movements fought for liberation or liberty; in summary they actually fought for both. But this question deserves a thorough response in a future post for it is telling of the West’s expectations of Africa.
