SA's struggle between freedom and equality: Flip Buys

Key topics:Freedom vs equality as opposing drivers of political and social systemsState-enforced equality leading to authoritarian control and reduced libertyFederalism proposed as protection against centralised, oppressive governance.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..Flip Buys.First they came for the farmers, but I did not care because I was not a farmer. Then they came for the jobs of minority groups, but I did not care because my job was still secure. Then they came for businesses, but fortunately I did not have one. Then they came for Afrikaans schools and universities, but I did not care because I preferred English. Then they came for Afrikaners’ human rights, but I did not care, because they were not important to me. Then they came for property rights, but that did not really bother me because it would not affect my property. Then they came for the judiciary, the media and community organisations, but I did not care because I got on with my life. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to help me.This adaptation of the famous words of Pastor Martin Niemöller who was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, stops one dead in one’s tracks when one reflects on the dangers of a state that is increasingly interfering in society. It also shows that the law is indivisible – when the freedom of one person or group is affected, everyone’s freedom gets affected. State control of society was taken to the extreme in Nazi Germany and in communist regimes, but that does not mean it cannot happen in a democracy. The “cancel culture” in modern Western states shows that the threat of totalitarian thinking and actions is still with us today, and that people can be oppressed in the name of human rights, democracy and tolerance. Hitler looked at people’s race; Stalin wanted to police their actions, but in modern times there are forces that want to control people’s thoughts. This danger is also present in South Africa. Karl Marx said the ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of society. Consider, for example, the Afrikaans term for affirmative action, “regstellende aksie”, which literally means corrective action. In the name of “correction” or redress the worst of human rights abuses are being committed by letting a person’s life opportunities to study and work be determined by race – and for so many it sounds so “normal” that top businesspersons and legal professionals are collaborating in the effort! The question is this: What is the driving force behind this state control over society which is being normalised and enforced usually with the help of a state ideology?The main reason for this is leftist movements’ drive to impose equal outcomes on societies, which inevitably then leads to authoritarian regimes. This is why the history of major change in the world is largely the story of a struggle between freedom and equality. To explain this, it is necessary to take a brief look at the history of revolutions and major transformations. .Two kinds of revolution.Historically, two kinds of revolution can be distinguished, one that was spectacularly successful and another that failed miserably. Revolutions of the first kind were essentially freedom revolutions, such as the American Revolution of 1776 and the Japanese Restoration of 1868. The Americans wanted to break free from the British monarchy, and even today freedom still runs through the USA like a golden thread. Americans believe in personal liberty, freedom of speech, political freedom, a free judiciary and a free economy. It was freedom that helped transform America into a superpower. The Japanese wanted to break free from their feudal system that had left them lagging behind the West, and within 30 years Japan developed from its “medieval times” into a modern industrial country. This stands in contrast to the “equality revolutions” in Russia in 1917, China in 1949, and many similar revolutions led by communist-minded or leftist movements. These revolutions sought to eradicate inequality, typically by following Marx’s two-phase model. The first phase seeks to achieve political equality through violence or a democratic election, while the second phase uses that political power to enforce economic “equality” by means of the state’s power, whether by force or by making laws. Advocates of freedom revolutions also sought equality but regarded equality as equal opportunity. On the other hand, equality revolutions also sought freedom but regarded freedom as a tool to impose equal outcomes. The major difference, therefore, is between allowing an equal start and allowing all to arrive at the finish line together! Wherever these equality revolutions took place they failed miserably and resulted without exception in poverty and oppression. Property law serves as an example. Land cannot be redistributed equally by using demographic formulas without relying on expropriation without compensation. History shows that only two possibilities exist: societies that are free but unequal, or societies in which people are equal but unfree. The reason is simple: socialism, or rather equal outcomes, can only be possible if accompanied by oppression. As Churchill said: the choice is between an unequal distribution of wealth or an equal distribution of poverty. .The ANC.The ANC’s historical roots are deeply embedded in communism’s idea of equality. Today, the ANC is still obsessed with its “national democratic revolution” which, politically, is trading as radical transformation. The Constitution is first and foremost not interpreted in terms of freedom, but in terms of “equality” which is why radical transformation has become the state ideology. This view of comprehensive radical transformation as central to the constitutional mandate forms the basis of the broad ideological consensus among the country’s legislative, executive and judicial authorities. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly held “that the Constitution openly demands that inequalities be addressed decisively through the radical transformation of society as a whole.” Immediately after the ANC came to power in 1994, freedom was its first priority. As the party consolidated its power, equality (i.e., equal outcomes) became the main driving force. However, power is needed to enforce equality. This is why, many years ago, the ANC thinker Joel Netshitenzhe already stated: “Transformation of the state entails, first and foremost, extending the power of the National Liberation Movement over all levers of power: the army, the police, the bureaucracy, intelligence structures, the judiciary, parastatals, and agencies such as regulatory bodies, the public broadcaster, the central bank and so on.”That is why Judge Jan Steyn warned decades ago about the totalitarian dangers of socialism: “It is naïve to believe that one can adopt the basic economic tenets of socialism, without also inheriting its authoritarian political structures and limitation of personal freedom. There is ample evidence to substantiate the argument that there is a real and unbreakable connection between economic and political freedom, both of which may be lost if the state unduly expands its role in society.”.Equality undermines freedom.The ANC was, in name, a freedom movement, but in reality, it is an equality movement. Therefore, the central aim of its state ideology is the equalisation of society through the use of state power. It is, of course, true that large inequalities can lead to major tension in society and must be addressed. For this reason, freedom thinkers believe that a growing economy is the best equaliser, whereas advocates of equality want to use state power to enforce equal outcomes in accordance with the composition of the population. This explains why, over the past decades, the tax system has increasingly focused on redistribution, why state spending has been directed towards radical redistribution, and why the state has taken control over mineral rights, water rights and land earmarked for redistribution. This is also why a network of racial laws has been introduced that severely restrict companies’ economic freedoms through racial regulations on shareholding, employee composition and suppliers. It is for the same reason that the ANC continues to cling to the more than 700 state-owned enterprises despite their proven inability to manage them. The same applies to ANC laws such as the BELA Act which were pushed through even during the GNU era. Poorly performing schools concern the ANC, but top-performing Afrikaans schools aggrieve them – because they represent inequality. This also applies to the Expropriation Act: for the ANC market forces are not enough; the state must redistribute land according to racial formulas. Everything must be made equal, and the existence of any form of inequality is seen as sufficient evidence of continuing injustice which must be addressed by means of state power. It is important to realise that the ANC, and those further to its left, do not interpret economic freedom as the freedom to produce, but rather as the freedom to consume what others produce. It is expressed in human rights’ terms, but in reality, it is just a disguised form of socialism.This is also why a democracy without freedom is the single greatest danger facing South Africa. It is true that the procedural aspects of democracy, such as regular elections, are still observed, but political, economic, cultural and individual freedoms are increasingly being restricted. Freedom is the essence and purpose of democracy, yet it is increasingly being undermined by the state-driven enforcement of equality. .Federalism entrenches freedom .Although opposition parties, the media, a strong civil society and foreign pressure provide important checks on the totalitarian tendencies of equality movements such as the ANC, the form of government must ultimately change to protect freedom sustainably. Without a federal dispensation, freedom will always be dependent on the fickleness and whims of a demographic democracy, a system in which population figures determine the composition of governments. The liberal thinker Olive Schreiner explained the dangers of centralised democratic states so succinctly as early as 1909 when she stated: “The special danger of centralised democratic States is always the tendency to fall a prey to the tyranny of sections, of large interests, or of strong individuals. The walls of each self-governing state [in a federation]* are so many barricades, each one of which must be broken down before any oppressive over-domination can absolutely succeed; and, behind any one of which a successful resistance may take place when others have fallen. In short, it makes for freedom.”

SA's struggle between freedom and equality: Flip Buys

Key topics:

Related Stories