Elections 2011 – The devil is in the data

Research company Ipsos Markinor said yesterday that results of its latest poll showed the ANC winning at least 52% of the votes cast and possibly another 10% from people who were still uncertain when the survey was done.

Ipsos Markinor spokesman Mari Harris said the DA was assured of 17% of the vote, with another 9% possible.

Even the best-case result for the ANC would represent a significant drop from the 66.35% the party won in the last local government elections in 2006.

The DA's 17% share would be well up on the 14.8% it won in 2006, but only slightly up on the combined DA and Independent Democrats poll of 16.8%.

Interesting stats these because then of course there’s the IFP, Cope and “others”.

POPULATION

South Africa is a nation of diversity, with 49.99-million people and a variety of cultures, languages and religious beliefs.

According to Statistics South Africa's mid-2010 estimates, the country's population stands at 49 991 300 people.

Africans are in the majority at 39 682 600, making up 79.4% of the total population.

The white population is estimated at 4 584 700 (9.2%), the Coloured population at 4 424 100 (8.8%) and the Indian/Asian population at 1 299 900 (2.6%).

Against the SA population this means that if politics were as racially divided as everyone with a soapbox claims then 80% of the black population votes “black” and 20% votes white?

That is if a full Coloured and Indian vote went to the DA? Which it patently doesn’t...

It must be accepted that a portion of the white, Coloured and Indian/Asian population vote ANC.

Fully 9%, of the total DA voters according any stat you want to gander or complain about or pooh, pooh or ridicule or deny or pretend doesn’t exist, or more specifically, a full 50% of the total DA vote is black according to our national stats.

There is simply no way that the DA can be termed a “white” political party.

40% of DA MP’s are “black” and 30% of the national leadership.

Now before we go off with yadda, yadda, blah, blah DA sponsored acolyte, white supremacist etc, spare a thought for my feelings.

I don’t vote DA and I also have a tad too much rhythm to be all white?

This also isn’t a political column although the topic is political.

The column is about data.

Never mind, I find it interesting that heading into the Municipal elections that the ANC Provincial Leadership including Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Treasurer makes up a total of 45 positions with maybe 3 lower positions (Deputy Secretary) occupied by whites with 0 in the top 27 posts.

There are perhaps 4 whites out of 99 members of the ANC NEC and perhaps as many coloured.

We have 0 white leaders at Provincial level in the ANC.

I counted no whites on the ANC National Working Committee and 3 Coloured/Indian/Asian out of 31.

Look lets give or take a few, that’s not the point, the point is if we want proportional representation then based on national stats we should have an ANC NEC with at least 20% white, Coloured and Indian/Asian represented, no?

I guess the DA can’t quite shake their “white” party credentials but there is also absolutely no way the ANC can shake their “black” party credentials.

My question is, are we a polarised society and if so, who is polarising who and who is fooling who in the process?

Do whites own too much land proportionately, absolutely, are they occupying too many Managerial positions proportionately, absolutely, are they being politically marginalised by the ANC, definitely.

Where do the Coloured and Indian/Asian populace fit in?

Well since 1994, nowhere really when you consider their influence over time within the structures is waning.

During the 49^th National Conference 30% of the ANC NEC comprised “other races”, of the 18 appointed to the NWC, 5 were “other races”.

GCIS shows 21 of 59 Leaders between 1994 and today were “other races”.

By any standards the “other races” are being squeezed out of decision making politics.

Data is suggesting that the politics of survival is making the DA more proportionately representative and the ANC more exclusive, racially that is.

In the end there is no doubt delivery will play a role in voter behaviour.

Judging from the current policy, cronyism and nepotism within the ranks of the ANC, the ANC is marginalising itself and doesn’t need any help from the opposition.

MID-YEAR POPULATION ESTIMATES 2010
Population group	Number	% of total
African	39 682 600	79.4%
White	4 584 700	9.2%
Coloured	4 424 100	8.8%
Indian/Asian	1 299 900	2.6%
TOTAL	49 991 300	100%

Source: Statistics South Africa

From triumph of Invictus to intolerant zot

The modern communication age might be a modern evil, to good, but it also serves as a modern evil to evil.

I just can't get myself to watch the zot movie on TV came the plaintive cry across my Facebook page.

The message vibrated at my elbow through my Blackberry as I sat with family wrapped in the warmth of a fire in my lounge while the cold licked impotently at the door.

My family and I settled down to watch Invictus.

How appropriate then that Nelson Mandela’s role in the 1995 RWC should be playing out in front of me at the precise moment racism reared its head on my Facebook page.

The role of technology in modern communication is evolving at a pace that outstrips our common sense.

I deeply suspect that humanity has no clue how modern communication technology exposes the soft political underbelly and that the world’s leaders are being caught asleep as a dragon awakes.

A dragon that is so powerful it is capable of unseating Dictators more surgically and swiftly than a multitude of guided missiles.

There is a deluge of protest against oppression and yet in the deluge against oppression by all sides there is an unwavering determination to oppress.

There is a pervasive fear of Government, people in Government are in disagreement with Government, yet they appear to remain silent. There is a perception of persecution for dissention.

Ideas are trampled, any ideas, to the extent that nothing, seems to make sense and a pervasive partisan intolerance to idea, pervades cyber space.

The internet is a quagmire of rhetoric and propaganda. It is flooded with political gamesmanship and agenda, so much so that groups or individuals seem to gravitate toward stereotype.

Any dissention seems to instantly, be reduced to racial ideology, irrespective of merit from all sides, creating a perception of absolute and massive polarisation.

There is an overriding sense that, on practically every platform, public opinion is being driven by the State, with an all out attack on a free press.

There are literally millions of comments and complaints, that there isn’t any accountability, with convicted murderers even arguing just because you're convicted in a court room, doesn't mean you're guilty of something.

Cyber space is awash with Government being accused of lies, massive lies, repeated over and over again by our leaders, from the arms deal, HIV&Aids denial to the ArcelorMittal deal and so on.

Government is accused of not doing what it said it would do, or what it said it intended to do.

In an instant cyber space brought me polarization, in the triumph of Invictus and intolerant zot.

Are we to assume, that our leadership are simply grossly incompetent and clueless, to this chaos?

I think not, I think our leaders are infinitely more astute than what we give them credit for.

It is their strategies that are failing that they can’t grasp. It is their studies in the Science of Politics and who they choose to admire and follow, that has brought us to where we are.

Napoleon said after all, “Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress and that men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.”

Napoleon also said “four hostile newspapers are more to be feared, than a thousand bayonets and in politics... never retreat, never retract... never, admit a mistake.

It was Josef Stalin who said “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”

Hitler said “The broad masses of a population are more amenable, to the appeal of rhetoric , than to any other force and make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually, they will believe it.

It was Saddam Hussein who said “politics is when you say you are going to do one thing while intending to do another. Then you do, neither what you said, nor what you intended.”

Charles Manson, “Just because you're convicted in a court room, doesn't mean you're guilty of something.”

Finally Joseph Goebbels, “It is the absolute right of the State, to supervise the formation of public opinion”.

Sound familiar? It should.

Modern communication technology has come to reflect in its purest form, everything that defines the human race and serves up a meal, best consumed sans napkin and with bare hands and, which in all its vulgarity exposes the bone.

Our leadership doesn’t seem to be cognisant of the fact that their heroes, the ones they studied, they learned from and admire and choose to emulate, are exposed.

They seem oblivious to the fact, that while they may attack us, with clubs and guns and faster than the speed of sound,  we, the people, are capable of rallying to defend ourselves at the speed of light.

iWeek Magazine