But that wealth can trickle down to the poor - would Chavez have been able to make such a big impact on poverty reduction if he had not been of such high net worth.

I know it might be populist to hate people for their wealth but if you drive the wealthy overseas they simply take their wealth with them.

The point is how much of the wealth is stolen from the very people who vote them in?

He was a decent lad with poor taste in friends. Just that instead of his being ones that hang around bus shelters drinking cider, his were maniacal despots.

Good job our elected leaders would never dream of cosying up to maniacal despots, sell arms to them, take holidays in their beach-side residences, side with them over the ECHR etc etc and so on

I don't think anyone is trying to glorify any of the idiots we have running our major parties

Granted, but still worth mentioning.

Given that huge numbers of those who voted for Chavez were lifted out of poverty and gained free healthcare and education for the first time, I wouldn’t say he stole from them, would you?

On the human rights front, I’d put him more in the George W Bush category than the Saddam or Mugabe category.

Compared with say, Pinochet, he should be beatified.

[url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=173521347He wasted money on things for the poor – when he could have spent it on skyscrapers.[/url

Does all this money chasing make anyone really happy. A quote from the King of Bhutan when asked why his country lagged so far behind the developed world was 'gross domestic happiness is more important than gross domestic product'

How much of the wealth he gained during his time in office was down to his business skills or his position and his access to contracts and the ability to award those contracts? Whilst much progress was made under leadership this level of corruption should not be overlooked in the race to pat him on the back. The same will happen when Mandela dies the bloodshed he directed will be overlooked.

You do understand what Mandela and the varied anti-apatheid forces were fighting against, don't you? The violence and "bloodshed" visited on black South Africans? A regime that met non-violent protest with fatal violence; that murdered children for daring to want a decent education and had suspects 'fall' out of high windows in police buildings?

You do realise that, don't you?

My guess would be that a lot of the dosh was acquired through dodgy commissions or similar etc.
If that's the case, it needs to be weighed-up with [uall[/u that he did, not just the bad stuff.

What is entirely predictable is villification emanating from the US rightwing, which prefers to deal with the likes of Pinochet or Saddam and utterly abhors any kind of wealth redistribution on social grounds.


I rather doubt that.
Again, there will be plenty of rightwingers, mainly in the US, who will ignore the good and the half-century of non-violence during which the oppressive apartheid regimes continued regardless.

All sides were guilty of killings and other acts of violence, I suppose it depends on what side you take or outcome you wish to prevail as to whether its justified or not. Burning tyre's around peoples necks (thousands on their own people) were just as horrific as anything the white oppressive government did. A lot of innocents were killed by both side and knowing someone who was born & raised there, but now lives in the UK, the level of black on black violence is apparently not getting any better. Also, even after all these years of black majority rule, the average poor black South African doesn't appear to be any better off than before.

Most politicians are in it for what they can get, it just varies in the level of corruption depending what part of the world you live in.

I do realise that but it doesn't get away from the facts the ANC were a terrorist group that - under Mandela's leadership - murdered people. All in the struggle - but the idea he was a non-violent Gandhi type is a myth that should also be pointed out when the obituaries are written.

The question now, is SA a better place under the current regime - are the atrocities less than when say John Vorster was in charge?

Bear in mind, t'other 'alf spent 10 years of his life there, from 12 to 22, so I cannot escape being reasonably conversant with the place. He still has family out there too.



The historical fact remains, though, that initial movements against apartheid were non-violewnt – this includes the ANC.

That changed when it became clear that the apartheid regime was not interested in any concessions whatsoever, and was entirely happy to kill even non-violent protestors.

In which case, how do you meet that behaviour if you do not wish to give up your struggle?

Well, according to Maggie.



This is meaningless nonsense, Sal.

Nobody has ever claimed it.

The historical fact, however, is that the ANC – which was founded in 1912, six years before Mandela's birth – was originally a specifically non-violent organisation. That changed only when it became clear that the apartheid regime was not for changing by any non-violent means.



That's a stupid question. Really, Sal, it is.

Those kaffirs – they should just have known their place, eh?

Which Michael Moynihan? The two I can find on Google wouldn't be able to construct a balanced analysis of anyone to the left of Mussolini.

It changed when the likes of Mandela took control - that should not be overlooked.

I ask again is the average life of a black in SA better now than it was despite the struggle - one thing is certain it is a far more violent society now than it was before the ANC took over. They may have the vote and equal rights but is their life better?

You need to read some actual history.

Mandela rose to prominence in the ANC's 1952 Defiance Campaign and was elected president of the Transvaal ANC branch.

Although initially being committed to non-violent protest, he co-founded (note the 'co' bit there) Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961, leading a bombing campaign against government targets.

So what "control" of the ANC (as a whole) was this and when did it happen? I'll help.

Mandela was not the president of the ANC until 1991-1997. He was deputy president twice, between 1952 an 1958, and 1985 and 1991. He was never the secretary general of the ANC.

When MK was founded in 1961, the president of the ANC was Albert Luthuli. Deputy president was Oliver Tambo. Secretary general was Duma Nokwe.

I'm afraid that your "it changed when the likes of Mandela took control" is factually incorrect nonsense.

Incidentally, you are ignoring the opportunity to explain what you'd have done in similar circumstances – bow your head and tug your forelock, perhaps?



Well, there's certainly a black middle class that has emerged and developed, and is doing considerably better than before.

There are serious problems in South Africa, but it's fascinating that you consider that equal rights and access to the democratic process aren't really that important. Does this approach occur in all your thinking re politics, or just where black people are concerned? You're massively leaving yourself open to people interpreting what you've written as meaning that they should have known their place/were better off under the strong hand of the white man etc.

Bloody hell mate, did you really mean that?

There is corruption and violence in all society's so you need to be very careful of lumping the necklacing of innocent people with the aims of the Anti-apartheid movement.

I visited South Africa on a Rugby Tour in 2010 and took a tour to Robin Island prison. We were shown round by a former inmate. His crime, firing a rocket propelled grenade at a petrol tanker. It didn't go off. He got a life sentence for that. Why did he fire it? His pregnant girlfriend was killed by security forces enforcing apartheid.

Now that to me has got nothing to do with what kind of violent society South Africa is today or old tribal scores being settled.



And quite a few are genuine. Whether you can be genuine and not be a bit of a swine and assume power is an interesting question. Chavez may have lined his own pockets (I don't know if he did or he didn't) but whatever his faults I reckon his country and people are far better off than had the kind of pro-USA administration the US leadership wanted been installed instead.

That bit stood out for me, too. Wow.

Yes I did - is poverty amongst the black South Africans more now than under white rule, you only have to look at what happened to the taxi driver last week to see all is far from OK.

SA was my first ever overseas place to visit in 1973, cannot remember much about it as I was 16 and only wanted to get pi$$ed or layed (or both !!). Going next year to Gansbai and south of Durban for a diving holiday, so am hoping to see something of the place and maybe at 56, remember more of it.

And a 16-year-old young woman was stabbed to death on a bus in Birmingham this morning – shall we extrapolate that women were better off before they had to go to school?