Raymond Suttner via Facebook:

Hi. I also believe in something that is inclusive. I am not in a hurry to erase 'race words' in that it depends on their relevance being related to actual disability that can only be recognised through those categories. That is saying something different from using the 'race card', i.e. displacing debate by speaking about racism when it is not in fact that but corruption or patronage which is at issue. Freeing communities to interact with one another can be on a range of bases. Within the struggle and even today black and white generally meet with unequal resources, the latter having had opportunities that still allow us to do some things which black people cannot do -cars, educational opportunities etc. That means, for me, that we, whites need sensitivity about that inequality. It cannot be wished away by reference to the world cup and other imaginary unity between all of us.This is not so much disagreement with what you say but a proceeds of prowling and growth beyond where I have been and where the current assumptions (italics, bold or whatever) rather than debates about non-racialism/racism are.

With what you say here, I have nil disagreement. If you genuinely thought I was wanting race words to go while race substance stays, no sir, way beyond that.

Where then do we differ? I'll put my case bluntly, kindly don't take offence. I put it in the sober belief that when you have fully imbibed it you will accept that my route gives you a better way of achieving your objectives than your route does.

From its title on, your "More Questions Than Answers" implies a long haul up the Race hill, the public being slowly empowered, under intellectual leadership, the better to think their way through race.

I'm saying that the haul is made a haul because it's on the wrong foundation. There is no inherent reason why the black/white split shouldn't go the same way as English/Afrik, Zulu/Sotho, Coloured/Indian, Jew/Gentile and other splits that matter ever less. The black/white one retains its grip because the blunt instrument that is current politics invites us to interact as ethnic herds.

Democracy 2, in which communities can choose what they are and choose what powers they exercise, does three things that I'll mention here. It frees each of us voters to exercise clout that matters to us in a context where it counts. It supplies each of us (and most dramatically the person with the least wealth, least comfort, least confidence) with the weapon that works, the EFFECTIVE reusable vote. And while leaving us totally able to choose our political colours by birth, past, caste, whatever, it presents most of us with occasions where we'll achieve targets through cross-cutting alliances.

Prop 1: the average citizen of this or any nation is a person who does not go to Party rallies, does not wear Party T-shirts, does not chant Party slogans, is interested in a peaceful life and in low taxes, and can not spell ideolagy.

The Holy Grail is fairly easy to find when compared to "the average citizen". Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch that interviewed the "man in the street" with men standing in the middle of streets. Also reminds me of quantitative research that says after 2 000 responses your average satisfaction score is 7,5 this year, down on 7,6 last year, but better than 7,4 two years ago. Umm, yes. So I have no idea what this mythical creature does and doesn't do. I also know lots of folk do go to rallies, wear party t-shirts & believe in no taxes. They may not be average - they may not be the majority, but they are vocal - & the more opportunities to be vocal there are, the more noise they will make (whilst the silent majority make like aardvaarks & burrow underground)

Prop 2: if for my leader to put threat into your life he needed my assent – given freely, in privacy, and in awareness of resistance that you might mount and allures that you might offer – you will seldom face intolerable threat.

immediate gratification of needs is a powerful lure - so let's use all the coal we can, keeps electricity prices lower than renewables, someone else will figure out an answer to climate change. and let's cut taxes, run a big deficit, sort it out later. and let's nationalise mines/banks/land without compensation, give all a share (we'll print more money too). looking longer term can mean sacrifices now; you threaten my immediate gratification & I'll donner you.

Real rulers, like you; real servants, like the Prez

Pedro, I return from arctic Grahamstown to arctic Joburg. I'm full of culcha and icicles and seized particles and the inner glow that the Mother of Festivals always lights. I find you wading in to D2 on several fronts, and you bring joy to my soul. Hearty large thanks to you, you and your alzheimers. You keep me straight.

To me, this site feels soggy with summaries. To you, that ain't coming across. This is my problem, not your problem. I try again; supersummary.

What is D2? The next founding political principle of politics. The first principle was Strength; a ruler ruled until he got booted. The current principle is Ratification; the party ratified by the biggest herd rules, until some strays switch loyalties. The next principle, D2's, is Consentience, where the rules are what people want them to be. Your side of town might have different rules to mine. We don't need permission to be different; we need voters. If our differentness annoys our compatriots, they muster voters behind them and twist our arms.

Having been an enthusiastic participant in this endless debate over the last few weeks, let me just ask this.

Steven Sidley

Steven, I think that y. . . .

Sorry. Pause. I can't take this seriously.

No-one but the tax man knows him as Steven. And when you're privileged to know the owner of a handle as distinctive as the one he carries daily, you do not lightly let it go.

I know exactly what you mean Denis. It's frustrating not to look up and see the potential for a much deeper and more meaningful democracy in SA. A democracy where what people THINK actually counts - in colleges, in communities and out on the farms and streets. Fences and walls seem to bind minds as much as they set protective boundaries around private property these days.

What's happened to robust and engaging debates? What's happened to open minds? What's happened to thinking differently? I'm delighted to discover you and your colleagues are doing something to address this. Count me in.

Phoebe

Before the acorn

Phoebe, thanks. Great! Lekker! Kuhle! Also Dinky Dye, or what's that thing they say in Oz? I count you in.

You misjudge South Africa, I have to say. Robust debate is riding high. It's called "Malema" after a young chap with a spectacular capacity to gobble headlines. If he sneezes, forests are consumed in the rush to advise the populace. Inboxes groan under the discourse as to whether Malema is brilliant, imbecilic, confused, the Messiah, Satan, or a potential despot. In the eateries and meeteries of the nation, Malema's inner psyche is analysed with greater authority than the failings of the sports coaches. Megawatts of power go into computing how many emigrations, immolations, and occupations of the former baas's TV couch will occur if/when Malema comes to power.

Aviation didn't end with Orville Wright

Pedro, ek is bliksems jammer om weer te moet kvetch, but so it goes. Devolution is not good. It is one half of what could be good. On its own it is verbrokkeling, fragmentation. Devolution is eternally upheld by professors as the right thing to do, and eternally ignored by governments as a surrender to the irritators. Not for nothing does the famous Swiss devolution, cantons, remain a much-admired bright idea that nobody has followed in 720 years.

If you want actual peace and actual progress in a country like South Africa (which in this respect represents some 120 of the 200 nations of the world) you have to find a way to enhance the power of the majority and the power of the minorities simultaneously. That is what D2 does and that is why it is a little difficult to define D2 in one easy step. It involves new thinking, and new thinking has to cross hurdles.

My Uncle Woolf in England was a trade union man and loyal communist who would go to every branch meeting, attend every voting session that was usually held on rainy, wintry Monday nights when just enough of similarly minded die-hards would make a quorum & pass resolutions that rarely reflected the will of the majority. Uncle Woolf became a local organiser working on the principle that the more you asked people to vote, the less they would, so the radical minority could claim legitimacy. So I fear D2 will not be able to steer between the rocks of indifference & whirlpool of manipulation.

That said, your website does make a good case - it is also witty, intelligent & engaging. Rationally I am a D2er, but this grumbling gut is not just airline food (or a noisy breakfast).

A tip o' the hat.

Denis replies:

Laxative, Mike; align the gut with the head

Mike's business is making people think. He's made me think more new things than almost anyone I know. That's a lot of new things. If you'd like a monthly zap of new things, write to him nicely -- mike@freedthinkers.com – and ask him to send you his Freedthinkers mailing.

What he makes me think this time (and I've told him I'm going to biff him & bop him, he can biff & bop back) is "Ag man no man Mike man, you should be the last guy to fall into saying that things don't work so there's no point making things work".

Freedom in the big grey space

Elizabeth, ek is so dankbaar vir jou intrede. Ek het al dikwels gesê dat vir 'n sitetjie met opset is weerklank lewensbloed. Die oortappingsdiens word tot uiterste waardeer.

I now respond to things you bring up. I probably give you more response than you expect, possibly more than you want. That's because I think/hope that via (relatively) short replies to queries like yours I make D2 less mysterious, to other people too.

Point 1: Freedom/Democracy. You imply a link; you raise the thought whether they are the same thing. To me, no. Democracy can restrict freedom. It has always done that, it does it routinely in every democracy now. D2 might introduce more restriction. The logic of D2 would abundantly let Limpopo restrict late-night partying, Sordwana restrict dune buggies. However, the restricting of anything requires a critical mass of interested persons to want to restrict it. Given that (a) Stella worries less about Billy's life than about her own life, and (b) when her life is proceeding reasonably she gets less agitated by what he thinks or how he behaves, I claim for D2 that (a) it creates an unprecedented level of freedom, and (b) it stimulates the comfortable to help the uncomfortable get more comfortable.

Denis replies:
I love your Doubt, Honest Doubter. As a rule I'm with you and with Voltaire – "doubt is not an ideal condition but certainty is an absurd one". I'm uncertain about the rights and wrongs of wealth and reward and freedom and sharing and opportunity and restitution and more, but I am sure that these things are better dealt with when people are thinking for themselves than when they are massed blocs behind rival leaders. I think, Doubter Bernard, that you'd embrace that much certainty. I think Voltaire would.

Katy Louw comments on Facebook: Hey ma, there are a few battles we may never win - the fight against aids, the fight for world peace, the Frances fight to get Katy to procrastinate less etc - but that doesn't mean we stop fighting... any gain in the right direction means something to someone somewhere. Wouldn't you say? I am with Denis on the 'inevitable.' I feel with time, the world gradually migrates into a better and better state - overall. Whatever paradigm that incorporates I don't know. I am not really of the 'it's all doomed' variety. Maybe that is blind optimism... maybe it is mental observation.

Damn right too: where else can we go?

Denis replies: Katy, I give you a big warm hug, over the cyberwaves (21st century non-actionable non-suable fully-insured PC hug, y'unnerstand).

Other people have said that yes, something not far from D2 is pretty much inevitable. It's not that hard to say, actually; in fact difficult to dispute, by anyone who rubs two braincells together over where else things might go.