
Nearly all my life I have hated the country I love.
The love is for our people, of whom 1 in 20 belong to my tribe, the Anglo-Saxons. Growing into ever fuller co-existence with the other 19 makes life elating.
The hate is for our politics. First, politics made us an oppressive nation, built on belittlement. In a euphoric spurt around 1994 we beat that, briefly. Then we settled into a new politics that makes us a pathetic nation, built on pretence.
Long ago it struck me that we could have the love without the hate. So could other unhappy nations, marred by rifts that were blamed on the people. The people weren't wrong; the equation was wrong. Our potential is more civilised than our politics allows our practices to be.
Looking for resolution, I queried the value of democracy. In a long view, democracy had been an advance on what went before it – oppression and bullying – but, notably in newer democracies, it had jammed as a headcount. It was supposed to mean that people ruled, but all that the people got to do was choose a clique, often by a virtual ethnic census. Opposition voters were disenfranchised in effect if not in name. Ruling party voters stoned cars to get their voices heard. There had to be better than this.
Having been an enthusiastic participant in this endless debate over the last few weeks, let me just ask this. How does one distinguish between the next Mugabe and a loud flash in the pan populist? On what basis does one ignore him, or rush to the exits?
Pedro Victor says (via 





