In London in 1989 South Africa’s conflict was big TV news. One channel had a pulsating flashpoint logo with the day’s death count. Every night showed flashing flames with a place name and a race scorecard. “Stilfontein - 1 White, 3 Blacks”; “Lusikisiki - 4 Blacks”.
How primitive this was. As adjectives these terms were crass (and inaccurate, but “pink” and “brown” would sound hopelessly undramatic). As nouns they were barbaric, and dumb; even making a necklaced black councillor comes across as a point for “the whites”.
It was yecch journalism reflecting a yecch attitude. I wryly wondered how they’d cope if things were subtler. Had fate delivered a Xhosa government that was much disliked by Zulus and partly disliked by Sothos, would the media find a more meaningful way to convey info?
Two decades on, one thing is clear. They’re more determined to instruct us on which is the side of the angels.
It was “Ben-Ali versus the people”. Then it was “Mubarak versus the people”. In Ivory Coast the code is “Gbagbo versus the supporters of internationally-recognised president Ouattara”. Libya has “heavily armed pro-Gaddafi forces” against “civilians”.
What’s also clear is: no crass sectional divisions a la “black” and “white”. In this respect we have total reversal. SA in the 80s was pure race, to the global screen. Whites wanted apartheid, blacks wanted revolution; simple. Libya, on the global screen, is purely raceless. The main message that I hear is: everyone wants the dastardly tyrant out, but unfortunately he has bribed or hypnotised a gang of soldiers to keep propping him up.
I told you before of my difficulty with Measurement by Shout; the idea that the will of the people is defined by a photogenic activist who can say “we want...” vigorously in English. Let’s now look at another thing: the anti-Gaddafi solidarity.
Ethnically, Libya is 97% Arab-Berber. Religiously, 97% Sunni Moslem. How blessedly neat; that makes even Swaziland look diverse. But a bit of googling reveals other stuff.
Never mind that Libya has Africa’s highest standard of living (with proud noisy us in mere 9th place); never mind the puke-inducing features of Gaddafi’s forty filthy years; never mind fascinalia like that a generation ago Libya was richer per capita than Spain, Italy, Singapore or New Zealand; never mind oddities like that Kufra province has more land than South Africa and fewer people than Benoni, let’s look only at questionmarks over this bland shining homogeneity.
Such as that Libya’s eastern Cyrenaica and western Tripolitania are virtually two countries, with dim views of each other and a 500 km wasteland between them.
Such as that while Libya has plenty of post-tribe people (“asking what tribe I’m from is like asking what I earn”) there are dozens of tribal identities, widely embraced.
Such as that the west’s biggest tribe, the Warfalla, own smart houses, new cars, suits and laptops; while the east’s biggest tribe, the Misrata, own prayer mats, Korans and camels.
Such as that the Warfalla, and other west tribes, are like the whites were to SA in the 1980s except fiercer in their conviction that they hold top slot on the evolutionary chain.
Such as that Islam on the west is somewhat like Christianity in the Anglosphere; most people pick it up quite lightly on holy days. On the east it controls everything all the time.
Such as that many Warfalla/westerns forgive Gaddafi all else because he keeps them protected from the east’s Ayatollah-esque threat of theocratic totalitarianism.
Such as that the west side’s Right wing looks on Gaddafi like SA’s Right wing looked on De Klerk, as a suspicious liberal and potential volksverraaier.
Such as that the rebel TNC saying it is “sole representative of all Libya” and flying the flag of the old Cyrenaican monarchy is, to many in the west, declaring war.
Before my bit of screen search I was comfortable enough with this phrase “regime change”. It was time for a dictator to stand down, sure. Now I picture a reasonable Tripoli-ite reading the message as “white Christians bring bombs to make modern Libyans capitulate to Sharia law and the stoning of sinners”. I forgive that person being confused, or defensive.
At Whitehall and Foggy Bottom and Quai d’Orsay they know things I don’t know, and I admit my googling is a subjective dip in a large pond. But I can’t see this no-fly working.
Now imagine if this predicament were to come up in 3, 5, X, years time, when D2 has done some sinking in. Here are two (of several) ways that things would be different.
1st, the regime’s pillars – the officials and generals who prop the system up – would not fear that relinquishing power meant being wiped out. They could change to D2 knowing that their side retains (a) some powers in the State as a whole, (b) lots of power over their own interests and locales, (c) a voice all the way on a stable foundation; no tumbrels or guillotines.
2nd, when the unchained ballot booth rules, unreasonable outcomes die. Mr Average may join a rampaging mob yelling “kill the strangers!” That does not mean that in privacy at the ballot box he votes for a law to kill strangers. If he does, his village/suburb/province causes shock, and the law of the timorous majority cuts in. His neighbours squelch what embarrasses them.
In a D2 society fear is muted and the outrageous is eradicated, both for the same simple reason: when the timorous majority hold sway, the fierce and the fanatical are paper tigers.
Goddit? Good. So if you haven’t signed up for D2 yet, what’s your problem? Feel free to seek help at www.democracyversiontwo.com, and note the big relief to come: when you have D2 you’ll never again depend on media fashion to know what “the people” want.

I played with the stats, moving the 97% modern west-Warfallians to the 3% east Misrata and vice versa. So now the radical, poor majority CAN pass a law to kill strangers, especially because radical cleric Sheik I Bin Killin-em Freelie has been on the mosque loudspeaker saying its God's Will all over the country.
We all know of majorities that have done EXACTLY that; trot off to the ballot booth and vote for the killing of strangers.
But hold the press; a D2 majority is not like a D1 majority. It is planted differently for a start. It is based on a big majority founded on many small majorities. Every well-based community feels its own power and has confident camel-herders. The fact is that performance of the local sheik/community leader is monitored CONSTANTLY not by booming verbage over the loudspeaker every 5 years but by whether the well is dry or full, every week, every month, every year.
This community does not rush to vote to kill. It is an incontravertable fact that well-cared-for communities working within civilised humanitarian norms behave better than rejected, poor communities alienated from the wealthy mainstream.
So. I like D2 even more, as I see the elephant in the room at last; just as info and intelligence is spreading dramatically via accessable cell technology, with the dramatic results seen in North Africa and the Middle East, so humanities awareness of its own innate power is spreading with the progressive thinking inherent in D2. With D2 we are finally evolving politically at a pace in keeping with the increase in global consciousness. D2 simply states a fact we all know already, but have been too primitive to accept; NO-ONE is disempowered by empowering everyone. This is the formula that underlies consciousness, and if we want political growth that is equally meaningful, the only route is via D2.