Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy in south africa
Democracy in south africa
Democracy in south africa
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democracy in south africa
It is worth quoting Huntington when he made the distinctions in his book on liberalization and democratization: “Liberalization may or may not lead to full-scale democratization (Huntington, 9),” which shows that the results of liberalizations are frequently uncertain, and the process to democratization is not an automatic one. However, in the South African case, the liberalization did lead to the democratization in an orderly fashion (both the style of the transition for the most part and the temporal order wise). This almost-smooth transformation of the nation should not be taken for granted, since both groups, the disenfranchised African National Congress and the National Party of the hegemonic Afrikaners, put tremendous efforts to collectively …show more content…
It would mean that the workers would have to go through the question of sheer survival, and doing so personally is maybe futile; however, if there is an organized labor that can throw strike in a big scale, then it no longer is futile, but powerful. This was the case with South Africa; the organized labor that also incorporated the disenfranchised Black laborers could do such (Lecture …show more content…
At first, the Commonwealth wanted to put economic sanctions, so that South Africa would not be able to participate without normalization; however, Thatcher governed Britain refused to partake, making the efforts of the Commonwealth pointless (Sparks, 33). Nonetheless, the British government joined the Commonwealth to exclude if necessary. The other organizations/firms (such as the International Monetary Funds) and other countries, endorsed by numerous ordinary people, also joined the economic sanction (includes United States; Have You Heard From Johannesburg?; Donnelly; Lecture 7-8; Sparks, 98). As a result, the booming economy of the South Africa was suspended and significantly attacked. In short, the theory is too focused on the concept of the hegemony being reluctant to share its capital, in that it dismisses even the fundamental survival as a class. In addition, the “social” aspect among the nations also had to do with the hegemonic government giving up power, but to the lesser degree than the economic sanctions: for example, in UN, representatives started to give “hard times” to South Africa (Have You Heard From Johannesburg?), and the Commonwealth, apart from its economic sanctions, made it clear that the organization was ready to exclude South Africa
The strike was generally non-violent. The majority of the strikers were reformist, ("revolutionary socialism", which believes that there must be a revolution to fundamentally change a society.) not radical. They wanted to amend the system, not destroy it and build a new one.
... (Piven & Cloward, 18) Workers protest by striking against their employer, it is easier for employees to protest because they are all located and working together under one roof and are fighting for one thing, and that one thing is related to the workplace. While it is easier for employees to protest, it is not that easy for lower class employees to protest because they have little ability to protect themselves against their institutional managers. When the lower class workers have an informal organizational protest the government is eventually stepping in to disarm the protestors and make efforts to conciliate, “…mobs of unemployed were granted relief in the 1930s…” (Piven & Cloward, 29) The protests cause disruption and sometimes that disruption can make a change but when people are protesting blindly they are more prone to social injustice then making a change.
This type of strike would be similar to something unions would embrace today. Things changes when it seemed the Carnegie Steel was going to try and bring in replacement workers for those on strike. The company was within limits of the law if they brought non-union members in to work. The first official battle occurred on July 6 because it was discovered that 300 Pinkerton detectives were coming ashore from up the river to the Carnegie Mills. The union workers were then going to seize the mills and keep out all people working for Carnegie. They were going to take control of the facility in order to try and persuade management to agree to their terms. The union members were aware of replacements coming in and planned to stop them at all costs. At this point gunfire began from parties on either side; both the strikers and the detectives. It was never clearly recorded who took the first shot, but more union members were in trouble than anyone else. About 11 men died, two from the Pinkertons and 9 from the union. An incredibly large number of men on both sides were also injured from the battle. In the days following the battle, it was discussed between the AA and the company to end the rioting that had begun yet there were no signs of the strike stopping. Militia was called in and remained for a while, and troops were given warrants to arrest members of the strike for murder and other crimes. However, the
Some people would even risk their jobs to do it. In fact, the first worker’s strike was was during the the West Virginia Coal Wars. Coal Miners went on strike to advocate for better working conditions and better pay. At the helm was Mary Harris Jones, or Mother Jones as she was known. She fought for coal miner workers’ rights and helped them unionize by
...d knight of labor. When they are all fighting the workers are still in bad conditions and nothing gets done. In 1895, the Supreme Court declared that the government has power from the Constitution to remover obstruction from the highway (Document H). This really tells us that the government has all the power and can replace the strikers when they get in the way. Since the government is more powerful, they have more control over the activists outweighing them all. So, because the activists are busy fighting, the government can take over and so the poor are left where they are.
...e lack of labor unions can have a severe affect on all aspects of living because working is the one necessary key for lifelong survival.
From 1870 to 1890, the laborers of America came to realize the dangerous conditions and unfair pay they were working for. These conditions developed out of the expansion of industry which required more laborers to work for less pay in order for the employer to achieve the same profit. Employers were in a sense, cheating their workers with long work days and very few benefits. In response, workers began to form large unions, both nonviolent and violent, such as the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Smaller unions were also formed but they were short lived and held no substantial power to improve the working environment of the laborer. Strikes were frequent and when laborers became aware of them, the strikes spread to different cities. The Haymarket Riot and the Great Railroad Strikes are prime examples of violent strikes that ultimately led to the improvement of labor conditions. Of all the efforts on part of the laborers, it was the violent strikes in the 1870’s - 1890’s, such as the Haymarket Riot, that caught the attention of employers and motivated them to listen to the laborers and improve working conditions and wages.
...bances began to emerge, and the economy began to drop. Unrest cost many lives, until demands for change were heard and the political system was revised. In 1994, the South African people went to the polls for the first time and held a democratic election in which Nelson Mandela became president. The country of South Africa has made strides in healing their broken country.
During Imperialistic times South Africa was a region of great resources that was greatly disputed over (Ellis). Europe’s main goal during these times was to compete against each other and played a “game” of which country can imperialize more African countries than the other. Imperialism was a curse to South Africa, because many wars, laws, and deaths were not necessary and would not have happened if South Africa were not imperialized.
In fact, they believe that workers usually do not unite to revolt. Capitalism sets up a system of competition where people work against one another, as the rate of unemployment has increased. Thus workers discriminate against one another based on race and gender and therefore cannot form a united front. Even if workers did rebel, opponents feel that workers are not strong enough a force to overturn social structures that have been around for many centuries.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
All you need to do to bring about this stupendous revolution is to straighten up and fold your arms” (Zinn, 284). The almost flippant language “straighten up and fold your arms” makes this “revolution” seem a lot easier to achieve than it actually is. This change would have required sweeping reforms to the labor system in the United States that would have been nearly impossible for the public to perform without the same scale of changes to the legislation. Keller suggests that all the working class needs to do is to strike to create the change they want. I do think that the people could have brought about changes to the system. It would have required a staggering amount of work to reach enough of the work force to actually create enough momentum for there to be change. Convincing that large a part of the population that stopping the war in the face of the consequences they would face would be the first insurmountable task. Then there is the fact that working class people needed the resources from working in factories to survive. Walking away from one’s job for however long it takes for change to occur is an option only available to people with savings. The ability to walk out of work for a time and still survive is a privilege, and even if everyone with the means to do so went on strike, I feel that those who are in need could fill their
Likewise, industrial action gives the worker a line of protest against unfair hours or miserly wages. Theoretically, if taking industrial action was outlawed, the management could impose any terms and contract changes that they wished ...
...tries. These ideas were discussed in lecture on February 16th, 2011, as well as explored in Manfred B. Steger's, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, and I.B. Logan and Kidane Mengisteab's article, "IMF – World Bank Adjustment and Structural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa." Instead of globalization as a positive system for SSA, it did the opposite, and made the region stagnant in economic terms. It was about expanding relationships among countries, but adjustments were creating barriers that prevented SSA from economic communications with other countries. Therefore, it contributed to colonialism after World War II; colonial powers were able to indirectly control what SSA could do, and whom they were able to contact. The World Bank as a financial institution affected SSA's economic industry, and was partly responsible for the control colonial powers had.
Apartheid was considered a necessary arrangement in South Africa, as the Afrikaner National Party gained a strong majority political control of the country after the 1940’s and the economic dependence on their fertile natural resources, such as diamond and gold mines and other metals such as platinum. This required intense labor and the white dominant control over the repressed black majority allowed for an