No matter what the DA does or says, you can be sure a chorus of journalists will declare it to be racist, to seek a return to Apartheid, or to live in the dark ages. None of it is justified, but the bias is deeply ingrained.

The return of Gwen Ngwenya to the official opposition as head of policy appears to be bearing fruit. During her first stint at the Democratic Alliance (DA), under then-leader Mmusi Maimane, her policy advice was ignored.

The party lurched from emotive pillar to politically correct post and was widely accused of having sacrificed its liberal principles in favour of appearing to be nothing more than a competent version of the African National Congress (ANC). Voters punished the party in the 2019 elections.

Since then, former party leader, Helen Zille, made a surprise return to the party as federal council chairperson, and Mmusi Maimane promptly resigned, leaving John Steenhuisen as interim leader.

Ngwenya, an alumnus of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) who firmly upholds classical liberal principles, was reappointed to her former position in November 2019. Her influence was on show when the party emerged from its online-only policy conference last week with a set of values and principles that interim party leader John Steenhuisen described as ‘powerful and enduring’.

These principles included non-racialism and a redress policy that is based on actual disadvantage, instead of using race as a proxy for disadvantage.

This sparked a furious outcry in the media, in which journalists vied with each other to slander the DA and signal the depth of their moral outrage.

Lashing out

‘DA now a party for some, not all, as new race policy entrenches denialism,’ wrote Carol Paton from behind her paywall in Business Day.

‘DA’s misreading of race and inequality take it back a half century,’ declared Imraan Buccus, from behind a paywall of his own on News24.

‘The DA’s policy deceit,’ was the headline of Xola Pakati’s article in the Sunday Times, in which he bemoaned that the new policy ‘effectively denies the historical role of race and racism in the allocation of resources and the consequent downward mobility of black South Africans even as their white compatriots upwardly ascended’.

‘False Construct? DA’s Trumpian turn on race issues,’ announced Marianne Merten rather cryptically in Daily Maverick.

Buccus labours under the misapprehension that liberalism is inherently racist. I argued against this view here, to which Buccus responded by alleging that I had insulted him, to which I replied that he had made no case at all. There’s not much point arguing with someone who doesn’t even understand what liberalism is.

Pakati’s view is, prima facie, nonsense. If he thinks the DA denies the historical role of race and racism, he hasn’t even read its values and principles document, which says: ‘[R]acialism and racism do exist and have a profound and damaging impact on the lives of individuals and society. They are abhorrent and detestable. A great deal of harm was caused, and continues to be caused, on the basis of false beliefs in racial difference.”

As DA parliamentarian, Ghaleb Cachalia, wrote in the same paper: ‘How he arrives at this is frankly mind-boggling and is accompanied by a hoary slew of slurs that merit no particular rebuttal save to say that they are as unfounded as they are fanciful.’

Paton – and the media in general – was taken to task in rip-roaring fashion by liberal political analyst Gareth van Onselen, behind the same paywall that shields her inanities from the great unwashed. If you can find a full copy online, I can heartily recommend it.

What is ‘Trumpian’?

That leaves Merten, who thinks the DA has turned ‘Trumpian’, whatever that means. Her claim that there is some common ground between the DA and the US president appears to rest on the fact that both agree that black lives matter, but disapprove of the Black Lives Matter movement.

To describe a turn towards (or rather, a return to) classical liberalism as ‘Trumpian’ is nonsensical, however. Trump doesn’t have a liberal bone in his body. (And by liberal I mean to refer to classical liberalism, not the label applied to socially-liberal left-wingers in the US.)

It is hard to pin a coherent ideology on Trump, since he has a tendency to say what he thinks his supporters want to hear (much like Maimane did). However, between his religious conservatism, his xenophobia, and his economic protectionism (traits which, curiously, Maimane also shared), it is hard to espy any liberalism at all. I guess Trump’s hostility to regulatory agencies might be described as liberal in effect, although it is hard to see how they are motivated by liberal principles.

Merten also does not describe the DA’s principles accurately, which may explain her confusion. For example, she says that the DA stands for ‘limited state involvement, if at all, in a free market society’.

That contradicts the DA’s own statement of principles, which speak of a ‘social market economy’, in which ‘governments have an important role to play’. The party is liberal, but far from libertarian.

Trump derangement syndrome’ is a term used to describe criticism or negative reactions to the US president that is irrational, divorced from his actual statements or policy positions, and rooted only in visceral hatred of the man. Journalists use it to caution against over-reacting to measured reporting on Donald Trump’s actions, or allowing dislike for the president to distort one’s views of his policies.

The term did not originate with Trump’s presidency. It was applied to Barack Obama before him, and George W. Bush before Obama.

It would seem quite a few journalists suffer from DA derangement syndrome. They’re so wedded to their left-wing beliefs, so committed in their support for some idealised, non-corrupt, efficient ANC, and so resolute in their dislike for the DA, that it clouds their ability to make fairly and rationally evaluate the DA’s policy positions on their own merits.


When Merten gets to the meat of her argument, she manages to contradict herself in two paragraphs flat.

First, she concedes the DA’s argument that race is a false construct, saying that only the Ku Klux Klan or the British National Front would disagree.

Then, she says that dismissing race ‘stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing approach in academe and public discourse where critical race theory places race as central to socioeconomic power relations in society’.

If race is indeed a false construct, that undermines the very foundation of a theory that ‘places race as central to socioeconomic power relations in society’. Both cannot be true.

This suggests that the ‘prevailing approach in academe and public discourse’ is founded on something other than fact.

That she has bought into the critical race theory approach is evident in phrases like ‘lived experience’, which in the eyes of critical race theorists trump empirical evidence or logical reasoning.

Critical theory dismisses the empirical, scientific basis of knowledge entirely, viewing reason as a tool of systematic oppression in the hands of white men, and elevating instead subjective feelings, intuition, superstition, anecdotes, and personal experience.

Merten correctly identifies that the DA hewed to a ‘more social liberalism’ since 2013, in which race was seen as a proxy for disadvantage, and that this view has been undone by last week’s policy conference. But undoing this, on the face of it, makes eminent sense.

Not only was this ‘more social liberalism’ an electoral disaster for the DA, but in an era of empowerment billionaires, wealthy tenderpreneurs, civil servants on million-rand salaries, and capture of the vast wealth of the state by crony capitalists, it is simply no longer tenable to claim race is a proxy for disadvantage.

Merten claims that the DA also ditched ‘underscoring the need for redress’, but that, too, flatly contradicts its published policies. The section describing non-racialism is followed immediately by a section on redress.

Let me quote it in full, to demonstrate just how false Merten’s attack on the DA is:

Redress refers to the need to remedy or correct an unfair or unjust situation.

Our past is littered with myriad injustices, arising from past conflicts and the racial segregation policy of apartheid. These include: forced removals, job reservation, detention without trial, disparities in education and concentration camps. The consequences of these injustices remain, compounded by poor governance, and are reflected in high rates of poverty, unemployment, and general inequality of opportunity.

Redress must couple a firm commitment to reconciliation with a commitment to ensuring that inequality of opportunity, which has been the hallmark of our past, is not a feature of the present or the future.

Policies which tackle inequality of opportunity – including interventions in education, healthcare, the economy, and safety and security will always be central pillars of our programme of action.

So profound is this commitment to equality of opportunity that it is reflected in our vision of an open, opportunity society for all.

The DA will strive to overcome our past and create a just and equitable future.

Does that sound like a policy platform that fails to underscore the need for redress?

Or let me quote party leader, Steenhuisen: ‘Importantly, it prioritises those who still suffer – and suffer most – the consequences of past discrimination and exclusion: the over 30 million South Africans living below the poverty line, excluded from the economy. In so doing, the DA committed to the economic inclusion of all who live in South Africa.’

That does not sound like a party that is in denial about the racial injustices of the past, or proposes to do nothing about their present-day consequences.

Conspiracy theory

Merten’s mind then turns conspiratorial. Because the IRR espouses classical liberal principles, because its work has influenced thinking within the DA, and because Ngwenya once worked for the IRR (as did Zille, very briefly), she declares this a ‘rearguard take-over’ of the DA by the IRR.

Imputing that there is any relationship of control between individuals of like mind is, perhaps, a natural conclusion for someone of an authoritarian, collectivist mindset, as Merten seems to be. But that doesn’t make it true.

I would be considerably more worried about a party unmoored from an intellectual basis for its values and policies, which is where the DA found itself before this policy conference.

Would she also describe the adoption by the ANC of what it called a ‘smart lockdown’ strategy as a takeover by the IRR, given that the IRR proposed the idea in the first place? Did the DA take over the ANC, because it, too, proposed a smart lockdown strategy?

Correctly identifying the influence of a think tank is one thing. Claiming that this amounts to a ‘take-over’ is simply a nutty conspiracy theory.

Non-racial tradition

Non-racialism, as Cachalia wrote in the Sunday Times, has a long and proud tradition in South Africa. The South African Communist Party (SACP) championed non-racialism since its foundation in 1921. The Liberal Party was non-racial from its establishment in 1953 and was destroyed by the government’s ban on non-racial parties. Its anti-apartheid successors, including the Progressive Federal Party and the Democratic Party both espoused non-racialism.

Non-racial ideas underpin the Freedom Charter, adopted in 1955, though they were controversial enough to spark the creation of the black nationalist Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). The ANC was initially a racial organisation, and then became multi-racial, but finally adopted non-racialism as a policy in 1985.

The ANC has since departed from its non-racial principles, in favour of African nationalism and an explicitly race-based empowerment policy – so much so that the SACP recently called upon it to return to its non-racial roots.

The South African Constitution explicitly names non-racialism among the country’s founding values.

There ought to be nothing controversial about non-racialism as a political principle.

Legitimate debate

There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether non-racialism is an appropriate principle through which to address the explicitly racist injustices of South Africa’s past, or whether, as the IRR and DA both now maintain, a focus on redress for presently disadvantaged individuals and recommitment to true non-racialism are better suited to establish reconciliation, social justice, and widespread prosperity.

Ultimately, as left-wing activist Jeff Rudin correctly explains in Daily Maverick, that comes down to whether your world view is individualist or collectivist, capitalist or socialist. The DA has chosen an explicitly individualist and capitalist basis from which to challenge the collectivist, socialist policies of the ruling party.

That is both consistent with classical liberal principles, and worthy of celebration. It is an explicit rejection of the view that the DA is some sort of ANC-lite. It establishes the DA as an opposition party not only in name, but in values, principle, and policy.

One only wishes journalists, instead of overtly supporting socialist collectivism could evaluate the political positions of the official opposition objectively, on their own merits.

Hurling insults, abuse and baseless accusations of racism or antediluvianism at the DA over its adoption of respectable non-racial principles shows not only partisan bias and puerile tribalism, but an intellectual shallowness that should be unwelcome in any newspaper.

The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR

 If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend

Image: Wikimedia Commons


  1. As always, Mr Vegter debates his point well, based on facts – a seemingly impossible task for the modern-day far-left radical journalist.
    The Daily Maverick increasingly sounds like the communist bugle it was sure to become due to its funding by George Soros – an evil new world order communist in the same league as USA billionaire Jacob Schiff who supported the Bolshevik Revolution; a man of which it has been said: “Between Lucifer and Soros, it is hard to tell who admires the other most”.

  2. I stopped reading anything Buccus wrote when he tried to make a case that non-racism is racist. I read Mertens article until she backed up her argument with references from CRT. I read no further and have no reason to read anything she writes again.

  3. What an excellent analysis of the DA policy situation. Congratulations of a thoughtful and well researched commentary.
    Needless to say, I doubt the accused will bother to respond or amend their inconsistencies and inaccuracies. But then again…that seems to be the “shallowness” imbedded in current journalism you speak of.

  4. More to the point is the observation that a reasoned approach is required. As the writer says “subjective feelings, intuition, superstition, anecdotes, and personal experience” have been preferred over reason and that, to my mind, is the hallmark of poor journalism. It is all to easy to preach to the choir – to write the sort of article that will tug at the feelings and emotions of an already converted audience – but if a political journalist is worth his/her salt let the writer state his/her bias upfront before launching an attempt to persuade us by less than rational means.

  5. Thank you for an excellent article. DA principles do show exciting signs of valuing true freedom. But the constitution must limit the scope of government as far as possible, to protecting individual rights (judiciary, police, defence). Otherwise those party principles will be like seed on barren ground. Without a good constitution, democracy erodes the moral life (Kenneth Minogue: The Servile Mind).

  6. Oh man, this is funny as hell
    Journalists have been the front-line of far-Left, pro-Socialist, anti-white propaganda hence the label of #FakeNewsMedia. Few, if any, South African journalists have not made themselves guilty of this
    And now…
    Journalists fighting with other journalists. The pro-Socialist vs the pro-Marxist vs the plain stupidity of “woke” culture
    This was as inevitable as the “revolution devours its young” (Jacques Mallet du Pan 1781)
    Robespierre 2.0 time boys

  7. I was an avid reader of the Maverick but have been increasingly disappointed to find it slouching into left wing rhetoric instead of reasoned comment and I was especially concerned to note the absence of Ivo’s writing, which seems to imply the censorship of his views – as argued for emotively by a green writer whose name now eludes me some time ago – was thought a good idea by the editors. I was also deeply disappointed at the views expressed by Merten and the weakness of her arguments. Non-racialism is the basis upon which the new South Africa was to flourish, and would have flourished had the leaders been selfless enough. It was intended to be the brave new dawn of Zimbabwe too in 1980. Sadly, the love of money does what it has always done and re-racialism provides the mechanism for the brazen, unaccountable looting which damned that country and now seems to have infected ours too.

  8. “One only wishes journalists, instead of overtly supporting socialist collectivism could evaluate the political positions of the official opposition objectively, on their own merits.”

    Absolutely Ivo, and your article does for the DA exactly what you wish other journalists would do in their writings.

    Socialism, like any collectivist view, flies in the face of the fact that human beings individually, as unique nodes of consciousness, are endowed with the ability to choose how they individually respond to life.

    Socialists obviously see this as a burden rather than a supreme gift, except that the proponents of socialism, in their kind way, actually want to keep this gift for themselves whilst relieving everybody else of this burden.

  9. Excellent article, thank you. What the Cultural Marxists/Extreme Leftists do is simply ignore fact and reason and instead shore up post-modernism. The adage “you cannot solve a problem with the same ideology that caused it in the first place” (a mis-quote, but you get the meaning!) is absolutely true with regard to racism. One cannot manage/resolve racism by using racism. But the goal of the Cultural Marxists is to DESTROY society and not to rebuild it or to create a harmonious society.

    The DA may well uphold the laudible notion of non-racism BUT look at the underlying policies of supporting transgender fascism, ignoring the truth about the dangers of cell towers (and 5G in particular) and ignoring the truth about the hoax of ‘covid’. They support the destruction of our society via the use of face masks and ‘social distancing’ yet the evidence for these two horrible rituals is overwhelming in that they are both totally useless and actual harmful. Human beings are social beings and face masks are destroying our social interaction and destroying our health in the process.

    So whatever the DA might or might not be, it is still New World Order and still follows Agenda 21/2030.

    • I have to agree with what you wrote! The ANC could not organise a ‘p…up’ in a brewery and whilst the DA is far from perfect and make many blunders they are a million miles ahead of the ruling party. The bottom line is you cannot compare stupidity with simple logic. These two are oil and water and neither the two shall meet or agree. All at the expense of the men & women in the street.

      • Thank you! Yes, the DA is ahead but their agenda is pretty similar. One thing I forgot to mention is that of vaccination. Look at the almost rabid race to get a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (which has not been isolated and purified by the way!) when 99.999% of people DON’T suffer and die from the disease known as ‘COVID-19’. Why do we need a vaccine? This is not smallpox! And if you look at the skipping of animal trials, the very serious adverse effects on humans in trials and the desperation of being the first to market, one has to wonder at the agenda. Enter Bill Gates et al and there is no further mystery. The DA is fanatically pro-vaccine (which I’m not) and will not listen to reason with regard to existing serious adverse effects, especially with the HPV vaccine. The DA is just the same as any other government in this regard. They ignore the suffering that a ‘one size fits all’ vaccine policy causes. So add this to the ‘track and trace’ program and voila! a DA that is simply another face of the New World Order.

        • None of the mainstream media will even enter into debate with anyone who have revealed the lack of acceptable testing regimes in the development of vaccines. There are eminently qualified scientists and others, like activist Robert Kennedy Jnr., who has become more knowledgeable on the subject, than many qualified medics, who will not be debated on mass media platforms, despite requests from the public to do so. It is no co-incidence, that virtually all major media are owned by the extremely rich and politically powerful, who have agendas that are slanted towards the consolidation of their political and economic positions. Hiw else has over 90% of the world’s wealth ended up in a single digit percentage of the population? Professor Michael Hudson in his book “Killing the Host” and other writings, reveals how the Financial Sector of banks, insurance and real estate, have consolidated virtually all the wealth through the creation of debt and how this has led to the monopolistic shift in ownership of economic activity to global corporates and their political lacked.

        • Oh, hogwash! Don’t brush all vaccines with the same stroke. They save millions of lives and prevent the devastation caused by polio, typhus, tuberculosis, pocks, rubella, measles, chicken pocks, shingles, etc etc etc.

  10. I have lost loads of respect and trust in the DA in the last 6 months and, at this rate, my vote as well.
    As an opposition party it has failed miserably to counter the lies and propaganda of the ruling regime. It has supported the Covid-19 statistics propaganda campaign by WHO against the people to create paranoia and fear and has done very little against the draconian regulations and abusive police and military actions. By now it should have organized mass protests against these lies and actions. Yet, it has remained silent on many.
    Mainstream media now far left, has become the worst propaganda machine this country and the world has ever seen. Much worse than the Apartheid era of which we are still living but under another dictatorship. The DA, I realise, is struggling against this but opposing it with the backing of the nation, it and this very evil Communist regime can be destroyed forever. Either the DA finds a way to do this, at whatever cost, or we are in very serious trouble of being controlled by the Chinese.

  11. It is indeed of great regret that much of the South African malaise, division, distraction and misdirection is a direct result of our media and specifically the Alt.Media profoundly cluttered with agendised ideologues. It is interesting to suddenly see Ramaphosa speak of the value of media. Is this a coincidence considering the above analytic.

  12. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll consider giving the DA my vote…but it better back up its oh so noble “new” policies with real action. Along with many others I await this to happen.

    • I support the DA and have my reservations but who else is there? The ANC dinosaur is becoming ‘extinct’ and is consuming itself. Is the ruling party following their brothers in Zimbabwe? Can stupidity follow stupidity? It does seem possible but our beautiful Africa does not need Marxism which has NEVER worked and which is pure stupidity!! Perhaps Trumps comment on Africa is true?

  13. Thanks for this thorough piece of intelligent journalism. And you saved me from reading (I had saved it for later) another Merten disappointment.

  14. “There ought to be nothing controversial about non-racialism as a political principle.”

    Well – that in a nutshell is the “problem” with libertarians and our “classic liberals”. Oh boy – it is really naive and counter to everything we know about politics. It is of course indicative of being ideologically consistent as only ideology can do…This remains the biggest problem with the whole “non-racialism” argument – how it translates politically (within a South African context – again not universal but context specific). Not abstractly according to ideology. A problem for the DA / IRR is that not everyone wears classic liberal ideological lenses.

    The rebuttals by the DA and IRR (strengthening the take-over argument) about the media and commentators misunderstanding deliberately, their ideological bias and plain opposition to the DA – often reinforces this ideological translation. In the process articles like this – including GvO’s (imo pretty emotive and overtly political) – turns up the very same ideological rant knobs when it comes to responding to opponents. Fellow ideological travelers love it including all the labeling, ideological shorthand and binary drawing of red lines.

    The DA classic liberals and IRR, have won. They can try and change the media and commentariat, but like this illustrated should not and cannot expect it to be received on their own terms (one of GvO’s worst arguments). At best for it to be explained on its own terms and then critiqued – a fine line that I think supporters will always feel is too close to “not understanding” and opponents “simply objective critique”.

    At the end – there is now a clear principled alternative that classic liberals / libertarians can test politically, a vehicles (DA) that espouses probably the most realistic version of it in RSA context and a leadership / clerisy (DA / IRR) firmly in control of it. Already blaming the media on Day 1 seems a bit lame and not very convincing. Rather focus on getting the message out and entrenching it on the ground getting those voters to wear blue tinted spectacles.

    Let’s see the scoreboard come the next two election cycles. What better way to shut-up critics and provide empirical evidence. If it goes badly – well their is always ideological revision – ask MM / HZ 😉

  15. I have the solution to all the problems of RSA. However it requires a piece of equipment which does not exist and never will.
    It’s a magic wand which when waved would transport all you nasty racist white people to a destination outside of RSA, of your choice.
    Let Malema & his underlings, like Ramaphosa be free of you nasty people & let them get on with it completely & without hindrance.
    It would start off as a comedy & rapidly degenerate into conflagration not yet witnessed on this planet!

  16. What really annoys me with media is their “explainer” articles where they are trying to teach their subscribers what they need to think.

  17. The ANC, while less than competent at delivery, is a true grand master of spin. The golden rule is to repeat your story at every possible occasion to factualize it while ensuring your critics do not get airtime. After a while, you can even start to label unbelievers as heretics who don’t know the facts and punish them with public disgrace. So, we are told ad nauseam that race is hugely important in our lives and needs to form the cornerstone of all decisions involving the allocation of resources. Now after 26 years of this narrative from the ANC, the DA suddenly says no, this is not the way things should be done. A bit late, but better than never!
    Both the SABC and eNCA, which are the main sources of information for most SAfricans, dedicated way more time airing the views of commentators than giving us any opportunity of hearing the DA explain itself. This is only the first slap and the DA must know it has a huge task on its hands. Lets hope they can handle it. My feelings are that a few lessons in fancy footwork may be required.

  18. The DA and one of it’s other mouthpieces the DM continue to mislead the citizens into believing that they have the citizens interest at heart.

    As most of the commentators including the Author fail to acknowledge is that the DA is essentially ANC-lite, like a lite beverage that makes one p*ss too, talking about breweries.

    It is so obvious that the are following exactly the very same path of the UN NWO -socialist/communist policy of redistribution of wealth property and everything that is part of the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.

    Unfortunately Ivo is obfuscating the truth. He learnt well at DM

  19. All I get in this vociferous diatribe against the DA, is that someone is very scared. The DA’s new policy of non-racialism is the way forward. By deleting racial considerations from the dialog, meritocracy has been moved to #1. This means no more BEEEEEEE or AA or whatever other racist concepts the ANC has vomited on us. Cadre deployment is responsible for the collapse of service delivery at all levels of government, local, provincial and national. A two-year old would have been able to predict that putting performance in the hands of cadres unable to read for comprehension at school level, could only result in what we are experiencing now. I salute the DA in hitting the spot with Gwen’s new policy stance. Now just please consider seceding from SA. All but the WC has been reduced to nuclear waste by the ANC, and therefore needs to be safely disposed of. Our only chance is to physically remove the WC from the ambit and control of the ANC. I appeal to the decision makers in the DA, please start a dialog with the secession movements. Listen to them. The DA will never be able to oust the ANC nationally, so rather focus on the survival of the geographic locale you do control. You have given yourself an aura of adulthood by adopting non-racialism as a corner stone of your vision. Expand that notion by recognizing you can never remove the ANC, and consequently remove the WC from the control of the ANC. Makes sense, no?

  20. I stopped supporting the DA when Mmusi was in full cry……completely stopped. I’m now a supporter and as I agree with Barry Hirst, I also believe that the DA is now rapidly transforming back to where it should be. We all need to be rational in our decisions now and look through being led by the nose by bad journalism. The DA is/was not perfect but there is no other ‘track record’ that compares.. Ex Zim so have felt the pain.

  21. A very good intellectual article, but it does not address the DA problem: How to get its message to the greatly uninformed and/or uneducated masses. Most of these are far removed from urban life and its facilities, and they only have the bush telegraph at their disposal.
    The DA also missed another important point in its policy statement viz Gender Equality. In quite a number of cases GE is mis-used and a-bused in the similar ways (if not as glaring!) as AA softened by the present ruling party by BEEEEEEEEEEE.
    The DA desperately need a voice on TV and in the printed press and preferably in a parallel medium way to entertain more than one language group. Socio media has its place but that is not enough

  22. Glad to see that 2 people mentioned the “Plandemic”. The truth of the matter is that all but four governments on Earth are but “Corporations” and not “DE JURE” Governments, so if you vote for any registered political party, you in fact vote for the same beast in a different attire with the same end goal and controlled by the same entities. The way forward at the present is to vote for independent candidates until we can get the required mandate to secede and then we have to be extremely careful of how we constitute the new government.

  23. Having read all 43 comments, I was sad to note that there was NO SOLUTION to the main problem in this beautiful country of our…………….RACISM has never left RSA, it has merely been PERFECTED by the ANC (& EEF) who is by far the most racist REGIME ever seen in RSA.
    We have to begin at the root of the problem which is (skewed) JOURNALISM = ”IF IT BLEEDS, YOU READ”
    Journalists like Merten need to be challenged & brought to account & more important, ALL the programmes who makes HEADLINES when the most RACIST party the EFF (6%’S), opens it’s RACIST & MILITANT mouths!!!
    Until WE make a stand, WE are going nowhere but down the drain & Afrika will stay the ”sh$@hole” that it is!!

  24. A policy is one thing.
    How do the DA plan to get the masses to vote for a party that want them(the voters) to compete on equal footing with everyone else?

  25. I do believe that for the Da to make any meaningful inroads in the election the youth are the key. Today they make up more that 50% of the population who also have an unemployment ratio of greater than 50%.
    My believe is it is not the young people who are driving the race issues but the older generation.
    I believe that we are at a turning point in SA which is on a knife edge and if we want to secure a future for our children and grand children then we need to stand up and be counted. There are many good people in SA who have had enough but unfortunately up to now no political party stood out all wrapped up in their own party politics. The DA has a lot of work to do to mend their image as mentioned the youth are the key not only in votes but getting them involved in the organisation as well as getting their ideas and input. If we keep on doing things the same why do we expect to see any change. We need radical change that the public can see and quickly.

    • You’re quite right to point to the youth. The DA, and the rest of us, have to sell how liberal principles will drive economic growth and job creation. How these principles will include them and make them the masters of their own destiny.

      And that’s a hard sell. Hard, but essential.

  26. We are not only at a turning point in SA, we are at a turning point for the whole world were we are going to be in future. The rich from the communist and left-wing leagues fueling issues such as racism and our history (whether South Africa, Germany or America) with the aim of dividing us as masses. They do not allow the approaches in the different races in order to keep leverage to control the crowd. Because if we were all united, we would not allow ourselves to be offered all the nonsense that is spread by the governments worldwide by the absolute minority and that aims at the new world order with us as modern slaves. Because then we’ll all just be “Niggers”, whether white, brown, yellow or green. I come from Germany and there journalists who express their opinion freely and do not agree with the government and the main parties are denounced and pushed into the right corner. Anyone here who criticizes something is a racist…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here