Force can decide who wins today, but it rarely resolves the conflict underneath. Lasting peace depends on reason, dialogue, property rights, and institutions that can process disputes without violence
Econ Bro, as you know, we are fortunate in South Africa in terms of press/media freedom. I think it has assisted tremendously in avoiding major conflicts for several decades now. Yet, it is extremely frustrating to me, having followed our media closely during all of those decades, that our media has had so little real impact on governmental policy. The number of really brilliant analyses of economic policies which could have changed our miserable economic performance into a great success story can be counted in the hundreds, if not the thousands, over those decades. Yet, it has hardly moved the needle as far as improved governmental economic policy is concerned. On the contrary, moves to undermine the security of property rights, restrict entrepreneurial initiative, and harm trade relations — to mention but a few policy areas in which more economic growth-restricting policies are being introduced — are the order of the day in South Africa.
My point is that those brilliant analyses of economic policies which could have changed (or can still change) our miserable economic performance into a great success story are meant to be exactly what you ask for: "...we must resort to reason and dialogue, rather than fighting."
Fortunately, South Africa's fairly well-functioning democracy is starting, after decades, to show signs that the electorate is catching up to the need to change our tone-deaf government into one that listens to better advice, like those I referred to above. I think that is what gives us as columnists/writers renewed hope that somehow our messages are getting through, even though at a much slower pace than hoped for. But we are fortunately blessed with incredibly agile and energetic private sector institutions in South Africa, guiding the country, slowly but surely, in a better direction — a direction that is increasingly also realised as the better one by our electorate...
I really do hope things work out for SA. Just like here in Nigeria, things are a mess there--only a little less so. I don't share your optimism. Maybe it's what I see online, but it appears to me that deadly force will ultimately determine SA and Nigeria's fate. I fear it's only when we've exhausted ourselves, that ears will open to reason.
I meant to write more about this inevitability of force when dialogue fails to move those less given to reason--which I believe describes most of Africa's population--but I felt it would take away from the main argument. Maybe I'll do that in another article.
Yes, we have similar forces lurking just under the surface here. If our populist parties (ANC, EFF, MKP) can work out a compromise, we will be in deep trouble. They want total control and total nationalisation of the economy too. They basically all share an idelogy which they started liking when the old Soviet Union was their hero. Since then they constantly pushed a socialist agenda with autocratic rule, if they get the slightest of chances. Our vibrant private sector and excellent private sector lobbying institutions, as well as an important block of free market forces still alife in South Africa, are resisting though. The broader population seem to be waking up too, since they increasingly realise that the socialist aspirations and rampant corruption of their "leaders" only caused them misery...
The government does listen to the media, it's just that the volume of bad advice vastly outnumbers the good advice. I am a little sympathetic to the government here, the givers of bad advice are well-resourced.
Yes, Mpiyakhe, probably the left-liberal (non classical liberalism) media, Pravda, Network24 (English channel), the SACP, some Wits and Cape Town University pundits, and a few others I like to rather totally forget... 😁
This is brilliant. Once I understood the law as primarily a means of dispute resolution through reason rather than force, my entire perspective changed. Your example of Igbo secession is interesting too because "international law" is hostile to the idea of changing borders, this arguably undermines the purpose of the law and often creates permanent conflicts.
This is an interesting observation. Though I know it, I've haven't given much thought to the idea that international law is hostile to changing borders.
Yes, most clearly in the UN charter. Two principles underlie this:
1. No foreign state can use force or threaten its use to change the borders of another.
2. No state or the UN itself, can intervene in the domestic politics of any state, that includes secession.
The charter prioritises peace among existing states even if this causes civil wars. Where secession happens it's usually because the mother country loses the civil war or is so weakened it cannot hold onto the seceding territory (the latter might happen in Nigeria and SA).
When I said I knew they were hostile to changing borders, I meant from their (in)actions in the face of secessionist movements, I had no idea that it was actual international law. What in the world am I looking at?
Econ Bro, as you know, we are fortunate in South Africa in terms of press/media freedom. I think it has assisted tremendously in avoiding major conflicts for several decades now. Yet, it is extremely frustrating to me, having followed our media closely during all of those decades, that our media has had so little real impact on governmental policy. The number of really brilliant analyses of economic policies which could have changed our miserable economic performance into a great success story can be counted in the hundreds, if not the thousands, over those decades. Yet, it has hardly moved the needle as far as improved governmental economic policy is concerned. On the contrary, moves to undermine the security of property rights, restrict entrepreneurial initiative, and harm trade relations — to mention but a few policy areas in which more economic growth-restricting policies are being introduced — are the order of the day in South Africa.
My point is that those brilliant analyses of economic policies which could have changed (or can still change) our miserable economic performance into a great success story are meant to be exactly what you ask for: "...we must resort to reason and dialogue, rather than fighting."
Fortunately, South Africa's fairly well-functioning democracy is starting, after decades, to show signs that the electorate is catching up to the need to change our tone-deaf government into one that listens to better advice, like those I referred to above. I think that is what gives us as columnists/writers renewed hope that somehow our messages are getting through, even though at a much slower pace than hoped for. But we are fortunately blessed with incredibly agile and energetic private sector institutions in South Africa, guiding the country, slowly but surely, in a better direction — a direction that is increasingly also realised as the better one by our electorate...
I really do hope things work out for SA. Just like here in Nigeria, things are a mess there--only a little less so. I don't share your optimism. Maybe it's what I see online, but it appears to me that deadly force will ultimately determine SA and Nigeria's fate. I fear it's only when we've exhausted ourselves, that ears will open to reason.
I meant to write more about this inevitability of force when dialogue fails to move those less given to reason--which I believe describes most of Africa's population--but I felt it would take away from the main argument. Maybe I'll do that in another article.
Thank you for reading
Yes, we have similar forces lurking just under the surface here. If our populist parties (ANC, EFF, MKP) can work out a compromise, we will be in deep trouble. They want total control and total nationalisation of the economy too. They basically all share an idelogy which they started liking when the old Soviet Union was their hero. Since then they constantly pushed a socialist agenda with autocratic rule, if they get the slightest of chances. Our vibrant private sector and excellent private sector lobbying institutions, as well as an important block of free market forces still alife in South Africa, are resisting though. The broader population seem to be waking up too, since they increasingly realise that the socialist aspirations and rampant corruption of their "leaders" only caused them misery...
The government does listen to the media, it's just that the volume of bad advice vastly outnumbers the good advice. I am a little sympathetic to the government here, the givers of bad advice are well-resourced.
Yes, Mpiyakhe, probably the left-liberal (non classical liberalism) media, Pravda, Network24 (English channel), the SACP, some Wits and Cape Town University pundits, and a few others I like to rather totally forget... 😁
This is brilliant. Once I understood the law as primarily a means of dispute resolution through reason rather than force, my entire perspective changed. Your example of Igbo secession is interesting too because "international law" is hostile to the idea of changing borders, this arguably undermines the purpose of the law and often creates permanent conflicts.
This is an interesting observation. Though I know it, I've haven't given much thought to the idea that international law is hostile to changing borders.
Yes, most clearly in the UN charter. Two principles underlie this:
1. No foreign state can use force or threaten its use to change the borders of another.
2. No state or the UN itself, can intervene in the domestic politics of any state, that includes secession.
The charter prioritises peace among existing states even if this causes civil wars. Where secession happens it's usually because the mother country loses the civil war or is so weakened it cannot hold onto the seceding territory (the latter might happen in Nigeria and SA).
What devilry is this?
When I said I knew they were hostile to changing borders, I meant from their (in)actions in the face of secessionist movements, I had no idea that it was actual international law. What in the world am I looking at?