Cope's hope dashed?
Herman Toerien
Early days, but the signs that all is not well in Cope are still in the news.
But did Cope really stand a chance in the first place?
To start with: It was of vital importance to South African democracy that Cope should have succeeded a black dominated but non-racial party.
A rainbow party.
There were two options. The one was to find a political base in the political landscape which was clearly vacant, or split a large party and copying its policies.
Cope opted for something in between, but leaning so much to the latter that the "in between" was effectively non-existent.
It thus not only swam in a overcrowded pond shared by the ANC, UDM and DA (humanist parties), but drew ANC support in such a fashion that well equipped people from other feeding sources were effectively alienated.
Yes, there are some token appointments from other sources, and in the end probably over represented in terms of the constituencies they managed to keep stuck.
But where is the vacant political landscape?
The landscape of Christian democracy, Western European model. In other words, those parties heading ruling coalitions in countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium (especially Flanders), Germany etc.
They do not differ much in actual policy from the smaller parties of the European Christian Parties Movements, of which the Dutch ChristenUnie is the most prominent exponent, but in expression have more in common with the CDA and ACDP in South Africa.
As in Europe, these Christian Democratic parties in South Africa are small. The actual playing field of a party really tapping in on the 85 % South Africans claiming to be Christians remains vacant.
Former president FW de Klerk is one of the most prominent people who has often expressed his preference for a new Christian Democratic Party according to the Western Europe model.
In South Africa, a population not actually (in church context) reflect the post Christian image Europe had, or maybe still projects, would probably require playing in a field somewhere between the European style, and the style of South African Christian democratic parties. These tend to be charismatic dominated and thus very fundamentalist. Another is that of charismatic (religious) leaders bordering, or probably crossing the border, to dictatorship, either claimed by "anointment" or blamed on cultural tradition where a leader is a leader for life. The negatives are numerous, such if a leader believes the earth to be 6 000 years old, a person from the Dutch Reform Church believing earth to be 4,5 billion years old, will go nowhere in the party. This, naturally limits the growth potential of these parties to people sharing these fundamentalist views, and excluding main stream churches.
Cope saw some light, and selected a clergyman to effectively head the party's public image. It tried (in vain) to draw in prominent church leaders, such as Prof. Russel Bothman, but "scored" Dr. Allan Boesak.
Boesak's presence could be interpreted as an advantage in some communities, but as a severe draw back in others.
Recent approaches, leading to joint media conferences and even media statements between Cope and the DA, however, indicated that the party still had no intention of moving in that direction.
There was sufficient approach from Christian democracy to sway Cope in this direction, and one such party, that of Peter Marais, actually joined Cope at an early stage.
It is not surprising, from the historical fall out perspective, that South Africa was left with this large political void. That this void persists amidst the humanist pond's over crowdedness, is not as easily to declare. It seems that the media may play an important role, with the media probably on average also more "left" than the average population, but also maybe instincts from the media to support the present obvious best alternatives to the ANC as counters to one party "democracy."
Or, must one be sceptical about 85% of the population claiming to be Christians, irrespective millions of people flocking to churches? After all, the country is the rape and murder capital of the world, with also other forms of crime at unacceptable levels (whatever levels may be considered to be acceptable), and even government now conceding that corruption is a problem.
South Africa is also not the only country where governments are elected into power, not representing the majority moral values. This week Main, a New England state of the USA, went to the polls and overturned legislation to legalise gay marriages. Maine was the 30th state in the USA to outvote this legislation, with Californians outvoting a court decision which had the same impact.
Only five states have now legalised gay marriages with majority consent.
A recent poll indicated that most American now, for the first time since abortions on request was legalised, now oppose this practice. This came less than a year since they voted Obama into office, who not only set the campaign to outlaw abortions on request by 20 years, but also proclaimed a pro gay day of celebration.
Two of the three coalition parties in the three party coalition government of the Netherlands oppose abortions on request, but to be able to form this government, abortions was not even a coalition discussion point. No wonder a party such as the Australian Christian Democratic Party has objections to the Rule of Law above parliamentary rule. It claims that judges are not elected, and by giving them these powers, the voting public are stripped of some democratic rights.
If put to popular vote, the South African public may well restore capital punishment, abolish gay legal binding (marriages), outlaw abortions on request, ban gambling at casino's and stop pornography on TV.
BUT they vote for parties favouring the opposite.
No wonder Cope did not venture on this road, but that may have been a mistake.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4560 (20091031) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.