Bible Based Ministries

“The ANC Will Rule South Africa Until Jesus Comes Back”, Microsoft Word format
“The ANC Will Rule South Africa Until Jesus Comes Back”, Rich Text format

“The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted” (Psa.12:8)

“There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: folly is set in great dignity…” (Eccl.10:5,6)

On April 14, 2004, South Africa went to the polls for the third time since the Communist-controlled African National Congress came to power in 1994 – and the ANC swept to victory yet again, with just under 70% of all the votes cast throughout the country.  No other party came even close.  The Democratic Alliance, the official opposition, obtained under 13% of the national vote.  The second-largest party was the Inkatha Freedom Party, with under 7%.  In addition, for the first time since 1994, the ANC had the most votes in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and the Western Cape – the only two provinces (out of the nine provinces in SA) which it had been unable to win before.

The hordes of comrades, criminals and deceived common people are jubilant, and all across this vast land they are arrogantly shouting their mouths off at those who did not vote for them.  In a number of instances, ecstatic ANC supporters have held victory parades through city streets, hanging out of car windows, blowing car hooters and even holding up makeshift “coffins” with the names of opposition party leaders, such as Tony Leon and Mangosuthu Buthelezi, written on them.  Their joy knows no bounds.  As far as they are concerned, the ANC can now do exactly as it pleases in South Africa, and no one will be able to stop it.

In March, a month before the election, SA’s deputy president, Jacob Zuma, told a crowd of people, “The ANC will rule South Africa until Jesus comes back.”  With this new victory, the ANC’s power over the country has been consolidated as never before, and unless the sovereign Lord intervenes, it will certainly be in power for many, many years more, probably even decades.

SA is a de facto one-party dictatorship.  In the name of “democracy,” the Communist ANC has entrenched itself as supreme ruler of SA, with no real opposition whatsoever.  But let us examine this election a little more closely.  How is it possible that after ten years of ANC misrule, this terrorist organization could still sweep to power with almost 70% of the votes cast?

When Deputy President Jacob Zuma made his arrogant, boastful remark that “the ANC will rule SA until Jesus comes back” (The Witness, March 16, 2004), Joe Seremane, the chairman of the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance, commented, “His implication is that it will be in power forever.”  He added: “So what is Zuma saying?  That if they cannot win a majority through free and fair elections, they will hold on to power through force?”  And: “It is the language of a one-party state.  A government may enjoy a majority of popular support, but unless it is willing to allow the opposition to come to power through the ballot box, then it is a dictatorship, not a democracy.”  He said that Zuma’s statement echoed that of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who told his supporters in 1982 that “as clear as day follows night, ZANU-PF will rule in Zimbabwe forever.”

Precisely.  The ANC leaders are Marxist revolutionaries just like Robert Mugabe.  They share the same ideology.  As far as they are concerned, they were the ones who “liberated” SA from white rule, and for that reason alone they have the right (in their minds) to rule the country forever.  No one else has the right to govern, and no one else will ever be allowed to.  They will hold on to power by fair means or foul, including force if need be.  South Africans are, truly, living under a one-party dictatorship, not a democracy.

To which, of course, the liberals, the blinded masses, the almost-Reds, and the Reds themselves, will protest and say, “But we held an election!  And the ANC won!  The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared the election free and fair!”  Do not be deceived.  The IEC declared the 1994 election, the election which first brought the ANC to power, “free and fair” as well, even though it was the most rigged election in world history (see my book, “Holy War” Against South Africa).  The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi expressed its fears in March that the ANC might rig the election to take over the hotly-contested province of KwaZulu-Natal, the IFP’s stronghold (and therefore the ANC’s main target for many years).  Buthelezi asked party supporters to be vigilant as he had received reports that people from the Eastern Cape province (an ANC-dominated province) would come to KZN to vote in this province, to boost the ANC.  He reiterated the allegations that since 1994 the ANC has been involved in vote-rigging to wrest KZN from the IFP.  He mentioned the fact that uncounted ballot boxes were found in various areas after the 1994 elections.  “As a result we have lost many votes at each election,” he said.  “Unless we ensure that there are party agents at each polling station with our DA [Democratic Alliance] partners, this year’s rigging is likely to be the worst ever” (The Witness, March 23, 2004).

Was there widespread rigging, electoral fraud, and violence, in this election?  The IFP’s provincial spokesman for KZN stated before the election that his party believed there would be considerable levels of vote-rigging in the province (The Witness, April 16, 2004).  Given the amount there had been in previous elections, the IFP had every reason to believe this.  A certain amount was reported, and allegations continued, especially in KZN, the day after the election.  Buthelezi said after the election that it was difficult to say if it had been free and fair in KZN, in view of the fact that over 61 complaints were laid with the IEC which had not been resolved (Sunday Times, April 18, 2004).  Here are some examples of electoral fraud and corruption around the country:

*All potential voters were supposedly to have their thumb-nails marked with special ink, so that they could only vote once.  But there was nothing permanent about this!  My wife and I, after voting, were able to remove the ink with Jik (a bleach).  Others removed it with a variety of substances: soap, a hand cleaner used by mechanics, even a salt and lemon juice mixture, to name just a few.  And although potential voters were supposed to have their identity books stamped when they went to vote, this was not always done.  Therefore, anyone who managed to get the ink off, and whose book was not stamped, would have been able to vote again – and again and again!  One honest voter, who simply scratched the ink off with his car keys, and whose ID book was not stamped, lodged a complaint with the police and said, “What stops dishonest people who get the ink off and get no stamp to vote again?” (The Witness, April 15, 2004).  Exactly!  And as in the 1994 election, when vast numbers voted more than once, there is no reason to doubt that the same happened again this time!  On what scale?  It is impossible to say.

*The IFP said that there was intimidation on the very eve of the election, when Safety and Security Minister Mosiuoa Lekota (a high-ranking ANC official) descended on the Msinga district of KZN with hundreds of soldiers, who allegedly assaulted people in the area, vandalized homes and stole property (The Witness, April 26, 2004).  Intimidation, assault, etc., were tactics of the ANC in the past; why should we believe that things have changed now?

*Police investigated claims by the IFP that ANC supporters were seen pasting voter registration stickers into the identity documents of voters in KwaZulu-Natal.  The chief electoral officer claimed that the stickers seized by police were for people who had registered.  And Independent Electoral Commission chairwoman, Brigalia Bam, said the ANC assured her in a letter that it does not condone any election rigging! (The Witness, April 15, 2004).  Oh, that’s a reason to feel relieved!  The ANC “assures” us that it does not condone election rigging!

*The IFP laid a charge of corruption against an IEC officer in Inanda, north of Durban, because she was allegedly found in possession of registration stickers on election day, and claimed that the stickers were given to her by the IEC that morning (The Witness, April 16, 2004).  In how many other instances did this occur, without being detected?

*Near Port Shepstone in KwaZulu-Natal, the night before the election, there was an assassination attempt on an IFP councillor, which intimidated voters in that area.  The IFP’s national spokesman, Musa Zondi, said, “People are frightened because the weapons used – rifles and AK47s – are feared.  This is a sign of intimidation and sent a clear message to IFP supporters that if they go out and vote, they will also be killed” (The Witness, April 15, 2004).  The IFP councillor who was almost assassinated believed that ANC members were responsible for the shooting.  Zondi said the councillor based his allegation on the fact that ANC activists drove around Port Shepstone on April 13 shouting, “Let us take up arms!”  To which an ANC spokesman responded: “The ANC has a policy that does not include assassinations”.  Oh, that sure makes the rest of us feel better!  The ANC has assassinated not dozens, but hundreds upon hundreds of IFP supporters over the years, most notably in the run-up to the 1994 election.  Its policy certainly has included assassinations in the past; why should anyone think it has changed that policy now?  Certainly the IFP’s supporters throughout KwaZulu-Natal have suffered years and years of terror as a result of ANC “policy.”  They have every reason to be afraid, and in every election, huge numbers are intimidated into not voting.

*A DA councillor and his wife were shot and wounded by unknown gunmen in the Folweni area of KZN.  He had received death threats in the past (The Witness, April 16, 2004).

*In KZN, at least 8,4% of voters went to a voting station other than the one they registered at.  Although section 24A of the Electoral Act made provision for registered voters to vote at any voting station, political parties said this was exploited and led to irregularities.  The DA caucus leader in the Durban Metro Council, Lyn Ploos van Amstel, said that at some voting stations, more than half the votes were cast under section 24, by people who arrived in busloads  (The Witness, April 16, 2004).  In addition, the IFP maintained that over 367000 votes were cast in KZN outside registered voting districts, and it believed that the ANC bused its supporters from district to district (The Witness, April 20, 2004).  Could this be true?  Undoubtedly – as this bussing of ANC supporters was something that they did in the 1994 election.  For ten years, the ANC has desired to control KZN.  They failed to control it in 1994 and 1999; and they went all out to wrest control of the province from the IFP this time round.  Would their “all out” tactics have included bussing supporters from district to district?  Given their track record, and their desire to win KZN at all costs, there is no reason to doubt it.

*An IFP official said that they received several complaints from voters who were turned away from voting stations where they were not registered (The Witness, April 16, 2004).  This doubtless happened on a far greater scale than was reported.

*In Port Shepstone, KZN, it was reported that people were being turned away because their bar-coded identity documents did not contain registration stickers proving that they had registered (This Day, April 15, 2004).  My wife and I had registered, we had checked and re-checked that we were registered, our names were on the voters’ roll, but our ID books did not have these stickers.  We were assured that this did not matter: we were allowed to vote.  And yet on election day, when we went to vote in our home city of  Pietermaritzburg, there was some hesitation on the part of the IEC official as to whether we could or not.  Although we were permitted to, it was quite evident that this official had not been properly trained for the job, as he was uncertain what to do in this case.  No doubt in many, many other cases, the situation was the same; and probably in a great many instances people were simply not allowed to vote – even though they were in fact entitled to.

*The IFP alleged that busloads of ANC supporters were driven to rural voting stations outside their districts so that they could vote a second time (This Day, April 15, 2004).  As this definitely happened on a large scale in 1994, there is no reason to doubt that it happened again this time.

*A student in Stellenbosch apparently voted on behalf of a friend with her student card.  Although she was discovered, how many others, thousands perhaps across the country, were not? (This Day, April 15, 2004).

*Five ballot books with 100 ballot papers each went missing in the Northern Cape province (This Day, April 15, 2004).  This was something that happened on a massive scale in the 1994 election.  There is no reason to doubt that it happened again in this election.

*In the Morokeng area, in the North West province, 22 ballot papers were reported stolen, and a presiding officer and his deputy were arrested the day before the election (This Day, April 15, 2004).  Again, this happened on a huge scale in 1994.  Is it then far-fetched to believe that it happened again this time?  Surely not.  In this particular case, the incident was discovered and arrests were made.  How many cases went undiscovered?  We will never know.

*On April 23, the chairman of the ANC branch committee in Pietermaritzburg’s Ward 15, Thami Gwala, was arrested and charged for intimidation and contravention of the Electoral Code of Conduct (The Witness, April 26, 2004).  He allegedly intimidated and threatened a disabled woman, the mother of a DA municipal councillor, in her 50s the night before the election.  The councillor, Sizwe Mchunu, said Gwala and a group of ANC supporters were hanging posters in the Ward 15 area on the night of April 13; and when they went past his house they shouted, “What’s the DA?” and “We will burn this property.”  Mchunu said, “My mother, who was alone with my sister and four young children, was tremendously frightened by the whole thing.”  Certainly, in the past, this has been a common ANC tactic: intimidation.  Vast numbers of people were too afraid to stand against the ANC, or to vote for anyone else.

*On April 25, thousands of IFP members accused the Independent Electoral Commission of taking sides with the ANC, by ignoring election irregularities in KZN and declaring the election free and fair despite the IFP’s many complaints (The Witness, April 27, 2004).  IFP branch chairman David Ntombela said, “People are very angry and they want the world to know what is going on.”  Sadly, the world will not be told: the election was declared to be “free and fair” by the IEC, the ANC’s victory was accepted by the world at large, and that was that.  Many said it was simply a case of “sour grapes” with the IFP; but the fact remains that the ANC has been guilty of widespread voting irregularities in past elections, and as they desperately wanted to win KZN, there is every reason to believe that the IFP was right: there was widespread fraud and corruption in KZN during this election.

*It is also true that the IFP and the DA were allegedly involved in at least some illegal activities too.  But the ANC’s past track record shows that it alone has always been involved in widespread illegal activities during elections.  What I wrote in my book, “Holy War” Against South Africa, about the 1994 election, holds true of this election as well: “There certainly could have been IFP supporters who also managed to do some of these illegal things.  By no means is the present author attempting to convey the impression that the IFP was a perfectly virtuous party.  But when one considers the massive bias of the IEC in favour of the ANC, not to mention the massive support for the ANC from foreign observers, as well as the facts of the ANC’s sordid history, it is quite clear that such IFP irregularities as there may have been were far, far less than the widespread, massive ANC irregularities countrywide” (pg.366).

As an example of how the ANC, through the police force and others, sought to discredit the opposition DA, consider the following: in the Western Cape, the prosecuting authority was to decide whether to prosecute DA members in Malmesbury for allegedly defacing identity documents.  DA canvassers allegedly stuck party stickers in potential voters’ identity books two weeks before the election.  They had done this at the requests of the voters concerned.  SA’s national police commissioner, Jackie Selebi, said the docket had been forwarded to prosecutors.  DA election manager, James Selfe, stated that the matter was considered by the IEC, and that “there was nothing per se illegal in doing this provided it occurred with the consent of the voter concerned and did not deface the identity document.”  And he viewed the fact that the national police commissioner and the Home Affairs director-general had taken time out of their busy schedules to “address the issue of alleged technical infractions of the Identity Act” as an abuse of power.  Their presence at the IEC, where they spoke to the press, “amounts to an attempt by the ruling party to use the State to discredit the Democratic Alliance on election day and is therefore itself an assault on proper democratic practice” (This Day, April 15, 2004).

Typical ANC practice: focus the attention on the alleged, minor misdeeds of others, to divert attention away from the serious abuses committed by its own members.

Thus a certain amount of electoral fraud and corruption was reported, although nothing like the 1994 election.  This, however, does not necessarily mean that less vote-rigging occurred!  The ANC is far more sophisticated today than it was ten years ago.  They are masters at cover-ups and distortions of the truth.  There is no reason to believe, given their past history of massive electoral fraud and corruption, that this election was any different.  Only a comparatively small number of “irregularities” were reported this time, but how much went unreported?  How much was not even noticed?  As I said, they are far more sophisticated now.  There were no election monitors sent from the European Union countries this time round.  Reason?  They said that SA was now essentially a “mature democracy” and did not have to have its elections monitored as before!  Instead, we had election monitors from various Third World, corrupt, dictatorial African countries, including from the DRC of Joseph Kabila!  There was even a delegation of Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the country as observers, hosted by the (supposedly neutral and unbiased!) IEC – and they (very predictably, considering their strong links with the ANC) said all was well with SA’s election process!  (Sunday Times, April 18, 2004).  I am not at all surprised, then, that very little fraud and corruption was reported!  These monitors came from countries whose governments are in league with the ANC.  Some of them, in fact, had a vested interest in seeing to it that the ANC was returned to power.  And virtually none of them have any kind of track record of good government and “democratic principles” themselves!  It is quite obvious that with election monitors such as these “observing” the elections, widespread fraud and corruption could have occurred, and the SA population, and the world at large, would be none the wiser.

But even if there had been no vote-rigging, and no electoral fraud of any nature, the ANC would still have won this election.  Not with such a huge majority, certainly; but their victory was a foregone conclusion.  So are there any other reasons, besides vote-rigging, why the ANC swept to power with such an overwhelming majority this time?

Yes.  And here is one of the most important ones: the vast majority of blacks voted for the ANC for only one major reason: out of gratitude because it is perceived as the “liberation party” – the organization that waged a terrorist revolution against the white government of the past, and finally took control of the country.  In fact, according to one survey by Markinor, 92% of those describing themselves as ANC supporters said that they voted for it because it freed them from oppression.

This is a phenomenon common to African states, but very difficult for people in other parts of the world to fully grasp.  In most of the world, no matter how popular a political party may be when it comes to power, some years down the line it has shed much of its popular support.  This is because, sinful human nature being what it is, almost no party ever truly succeeds in fulfilling the aspirations of the populace.  In subsequent elections, very often, the percentage of those voting for that party drops, and continues to drop, as the electorate realize that the party they voted for is simply not living up to their expectations.

But in Africa, the revolutionary organization that sweeps to power after an armed revolution against the hated colonial power (or, in SA’s case, the hated so-called “apartheid government”), is able to capitalize on that, and ride the wave of popular support for many years, even for decades.  It doesn’t matter how badly they then govern, all that matters to “the people” is that they were the ones who “liberated” them.  A largely unsophisticated, often illiterate or semi-literate populace is unable to see that they were deceived: it is not liberation at all, but rather a form of slavery to their Marxist rulers that has been imposed on them.  And so they continue to support them, by and large, even though their rulers now use and abuse them on a far greater scale than the previous government ever did.  And in SA, this kind of fawning gratitude reaches even greater heights, because of the almost godlike status conferred upon one man: Nelson Mandela, the world’s most popular politician.  The ANC is Nelson Mandela in the eyes of millions of South Africans, and such is his mystique and standing in the country and the world, that as long as he is alive, the ANC will be forgiven almost anything.  And even after he is gone, the ANC will continue to milk the Mandela myth for all it is worth.

For indeed it is a myth.  Mandela does not deserve any of the praise and sycophantic adoration heaped upon him.  This man headed a terrorist organization.  The scales are beginning to fall off at least the eyes of some in the wider world, to a certain extent at least.  For example, Christopher Hitchens, producer of a documentary TV programme to be broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4 in May, wrote: “why do we still think Mandela is a saint?”  He added: “Mandela’s party is facing an increasing number of allegations of corruption, together with indications that it wants to turn the country into a de facto one party state”; and he wrote of “the growing shadow of corruption and autocracy which is spreading through his beloved ANC” (The Witness, March 22, 2004).

It is gratifying to see such criticisms of Mandela and the ANC, however small they may be.  Gratifying, but of course it is too little, too late.  The “Mandela myth” has been built up over many decades, and it shows no signs of fading; nor will it, not for many decades more.

But to return to my point.  In SA, as in the rest of Africa, the ruling “liberation party” enjoys massive support, simply because it is perceived as the “liberator.”  In the Sydney-based newspaper, The Australian, the editorial of April 13 said: “For the good of South Africa, this must be the last election where people vote for the ANC as much out of gratitude for its past achievements as out of trust that it will deliver on its promises for the future.”  Certainly very true; but sadly, a warning not heeded by the masses.  The very next day, they went and voted for the ANC precisely for that reason: gratitude.  Duncan du Bois, a columnist in The Witness, a South African daily, wrote: “The history of post-liberation Africa shows that political liberators can trade on ‘gratitude for past achievements’ for decades, even when they have impoverished a country to the point of starvation, as in the case of Zimbabwe….  The ANC, arguably, could look forward to at least another two elections as the beneficiaries of the gratitude vote….  These are the hardcore realities of the South African political scene that are fuelling the growth of political arrogance in the ruling party” (The Witness, April 16, 2004).

He went on: “Many of the ANC’s own supporters have complained that, materially, they are worse off than ten years ago.  In a developed and critically sensitive democracy such shortcomings would be politically ruinous.  But in 2004 they failed to hobble the ANC.”  Astounding – but true!

Another major reason for the overwhelming victory of the ANC in this election is this: the general apathy and despair that has gripped those opposed to the ANC.  Vast numbers of voters have, over the past ten years, simply given up.  They see no point in voting at all.  They know that the ANC is going to win each time, and with a huge majority, so they simply stay away on election days.  Their attitude is, “What’s the point?  The ANC is going to win anyway.  My vote doesn’t count for anything.  Why should I waste my time?”  And this attitude plays right into the hands of the ANC!

For this much is certain: the ANC’s own supporters always turn up at polling stations in huge numbers!  And the more opposition voters who stay away, the greater the ANC’s victory.  It is true indeed that the ANC looks set to win every election in SA for many years to come.  But “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  If those who oppose the ANC go and vote, the ANC may not be beaten; but if they do not vote, the ANC will definitely not be beaten.  We must do what we can; and if at the end of the day it is not enough, at least we know we did what we could.

The ANC won this election, not so much because it had persuaded vastly more people to vote for it, but because so many who would not vote for the ANC, did not vote at all!  It is simple mathematics: if six out of ten people vote for the ANC, and four out of ten vote for another party, the ANC gains 60% of the votes.  But if six out of ten people vote for the ANC, and only two out of ten vote for someone else, with two not bothering to vote at all, it gains 75% of the votes!

Apathy, on the part of the non-ANC electorate, plays right into the ANC’s hands.  It certainly did in this election.

Another reason for the ANC’s victory: it absorbed the votes of supporters of other terrorist organizations, which fared so poorly in this election that it is difficult to imagine them making any kind of comeback.  Time was when the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) struck terror into the hearts of law-abiding South Africans, as for many years it ran virtually neck-and-neck with the ANC prior to 1994, receiving vast financial support from the diabolical World Council of Churches and its affiliates, and other organizations worldwide.  It was viewed by many as more militant than the ANC.  This was a smokescreen, as both organizations were working for the same goal and by the same means: terror and revolution.  They were, in fact, two sides of the same coin, and they worked hand in hand.  But as time went by and the powers that be behind the world scenes settled on Nelson Mandela and the ANC to rule SA, the ANC was catapulted to the forefront, and the PAC began to be increasingly sidelined.  Prior to this election it was a mere shadow of its former self, and now even more so.

And not only the PAC, but other revolutionary organizations, such as the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO), failed to attract their former supporters in this election.  These supporters clearly threw their weight behind the ANC, and this was a great boost to it.

And yet another reason for the poor showing by opposition parties, was their lack of financial support.  The ANC has for decades received vast financial support from all over the world; but the other parties have no such funds at their disposal.  This huge disparity means that the ANC enters any election at a decided advantage.

And what about the ANC’s victory in the absolutely crucial KwaZulu-Natal province?  Here all the parties had been wooing the Indian vote.  Indians make up a large percentage of the minority vote in the province.  And in this election, the majority of Indians who voted, voted for the ANC and for its ally, the Minority Front.

How did the ANC pull this off?  It ran a “slick marketing campaign targeted at the Indian electorate” (Sunday Times, April 18, 2004).  In 1994, although there were many Indians who voted for the ANC, many others did not, for fear that, as a minority within SA, they would be targeted by the victorious ANC, who would treat them as they had been treated in other African countries after black revolutionary organizations had come to power.  Many still remembered the violent 1949 Zulu/Indian riots, and they feared living under a black government.  But the ANC went all out, in preparation for this 2004 election, to convince them that they had nothing to fear.  It also began to speak of issues affecting the Indian community.  As one analyst put it, the ANC “went on the charm offensive in the community, and that has paid off handsomely.”

Promises, promises, and more promises.  These were made by the ANC to the Indian community.  President Thabo Mbeki, just days before the election, even promised that consideration would be given to promoting the Tamil language in SA, and to showing more Tamil movies on television!  And in February, it had been reported that the ANC was considering bringing Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam into SA as election observers, hosted by the IEC, to campaign on their behalf for the Tamil-speakers in the Indian community.  The ANC and the Tamil Tigers have strong links.  And sure enough, the Tamil Tigers were here for the election (Sunday Times, April 18, 2004).

Sadly, then, the Indian community, in general, fell for the ANC’s lies.  They are being taken for a ride.  They should never forget how the minority Asian communities living in various African Marxist states have fared at the hands of these rulers, most notably in Uganda under Idi Amin and more recently, in Zimbabwe under Mugabe.  Promises made by Marxists mean nothing.  The Indian minority in South Africa, like the white minority, sits on a potential powder-keg.  Throwing its weight behind the Marxist ANC will not protect the Indian community should racial hatred again explode in the future.  And as for right now, the needs and concerns of the Indian community, apart from a  few token gestures to give the semblance of doing something for Indians, will not be high on the agenda of the ANC at all.

Astoundingly, many white and Indian businessmen – those who in fact have so much to lose from an ANC-controlled South Africa – were persuaded to vote for the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal because of one issue: the IFP wanted to make Ulundi the capital of KZN instead of Pietermaritzburg.  Ulundi lies in the heart of IFP territory, but it has very little infrastructure, whereas Pietermaritzburg is the established capital of the province. Before the election, a group of prominent businessmen formed the Capital Alliance, urging people to reject the IFP/DA coalition and vote for the ANC because it had promised to keep Pietermaritzburg as the capital.  With all the other, far more serious matters facing this country, and despite the ANC’s decade of misrule, these people made the capital issue the issue, frightening many Pietermaritzburg citizens into thinking that their city  would somehow become a ghost town if the IFP won the election and declared Ulundi the capital.  And it is believed that at least 50 000 DA supporters deserted the DA and voted for the ANC as a result of this one ridiculous issue!  They voted according to their pockets, out of greed.  Over 50% of the Indian voters in Pietermaritzburg voted for the ANC, partly because of the capital issue, and partly also because of the ANC’s policies on Palestine, Iraq and Sri Lanka (The Witness, April 20, 2004).

The only really good thing to come out of this election has been the utter defeat and collapse of the New National Party (NNP), which only managed to attract under 2% of the votes nationally.  It is incorrect to speak of the NNP as the same National Party that ruled SA for over 40 years before the ANC came to power in 1994, because the New National Party bears no resemblance whatsoever to the National Party of the past.  It may have grown out of the old NP, but it is a completely different party.  However, the NNP under its slippery leader, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, betrayed its supporters: it was in an alliance with the Democratic Party to form the Democratic Alliance; then it broke off that alliance and entered into one with the ANC; but its supporters were not fooled.  If they had wanted to vote for the ANC, they would have done so; but they voted for the NNP as an opposition to the ANC.  And now they knew that to vote for the NNP was to vote for a party that only continued to exist by clinging desperately to the coat-tails of the ANC.  Its supporters deserted it in huge numbers.  Many of them voted for the DA.  Never a party that had attracted many black voters, the NNP had its strongest support in the Western Cape province, amongst the Cape Coloureds and many whites.  But in this election, the NNP lost almost all its white support, and a huge amount of its Coloured support; and the Western Cape itself.

And so here we are: the people of this country are now to be subjected to another five years of ANC/Communist Party misrule.  The two-thirds majority which the ANC now commands is a most dangerous thing for South Africa: it means that this is a de facto one-party dictatorship; the ANC has no real rivals, no strong opposition, and can do pretty much as it likes.  Legally, it is now able to change the SA Constitution if it so desires; and there are certainly aspects of the Constitution which it has no love for.  It has entrenched itself as the overwhelmingly dominant political force in South Africa, a situation that is not going to change for a very, very long time.

Millions and millions of black people in this country have to first become thoroughly disillusioned with the ANC, before they will turn against it and vote intellectually, and not emotionally.  But this will take years; probably decades.  The history of post-colonial Africa shows this well.  It took decades of misrule in Kenya and Zambia, before the people of those countries could take it no longer, and change was brought about; and only now, after two decades of ZANU-PF misrule, is the same thing beginning to occur in Zimbabwe.  South Africa is a long, long way off from that.  The African National Congress is still viewed, by multiplied millions in this country, as the “liberation party”, that “freed” the “oppressed blacks” from the white man.  Only when those millions realize that their real oppression only began when a Marxist government came to power, will they finally begin to turn against this monstrous organization.  Until then, despite the fact that South Africa has descended into Socialist chaos and corruption already, the ANC will continue to enjoy huge popular support.  Already, millions are suffering as a result of the poverty, the crime, and the general collapse of all sectors of society; but it is still too early.  Their suffering will have to increase even more, before the scales finally fall from their eyes.  It will happen.  Of that we can be certain.  But not now.  Not tomorrow.  Not by the time of the next election.  Nor the one after that.  But oneday.

And in the meantime?  I ask our brethren in the Lord in other countries to uphold us in prayer!  In our flesh, we would easily give in to utter despair.  We must trust in our Lord, and walk by faith, as strangers and pilgrims in this world.  The next five years are going to see increased suffering and hardship in South Africa.  Zimbabwe could so easily be repeated here.  All the signs are there.  As far as the farming community is concerned, Zimbabwe’s disaster is already being repeated here on a huge scale, with 1200 white farmers having been brutally murdered.  I do not say the road ahead is going to be rocky, for it is going to be far worse than that.  I urge our brethren in Christ to pray for us!  Firstly, for the saints of the Lord in South Africa, simply because they have to live in this rapidly-sinking society; and secondly, because of the implications this ANC victory holds for the Christian Church here.  The intolerance of the ANC towards biblical Christianity has already been shown in many ways.  Christians face the likelihood of real persecution.  Brethren, pray for us!  South Africa is not a happy place to be, as citizens and especially as Christians.  Pray that we will stand firm, and serve the Lord faithfully.

BIBLE BASED MINISTRIES

P.O. Box 100913

Scottsville 3209

South Africa

Phone: 033-3423574

Email: Willcock@futurenet.co.za

Filed under: south africa