Kangura No. 27
When the Minority Is in Charge
According to the Larousse [French dictionary], a minority is a group of people united by a certain link, integrated within a numerically bigger population segment which is united by a different link. Two ideas emerge from this assertion: integration and difference. A human community very often living on the same territory may, therefore, by mere accident or by act of man, be characterized by linguistic, racial (in a broader sense), religious or other more or less distinct cohabitation aspects. This polygenism is all the more manifest on the African continent given that it was dissected by white colonialism and subdivided into a multitude of small counties with different characteristics.
All over the world, from South Africa to Cameroon, through Rwanda and Burundi, from Belgium to the United States of America, from India to Polynesia, peoples of heterogeneous origin found themselves living together, under the same political and administrative authority. Several factors then went into play in shaping the mode and result of that integration, which was not always without incident. Thus, military force, as well as the socioeconomic status of each group constituted some of the determining factors of the type of government that was put in place, to the advantage of the stronger, of course.
Indeed, man has always been extremely reluctant about sharing power with his fellow citizens belonging to the “opposing” camp and this hostility became more pronounced as the clans in question had clear genetic and physiological differences. So, mere regional, religious or linguistic differences do not generally lead to obvious divergence of interests as do the often catastrophic and deadly rivalries resulting from the mixture of cultures or typical physical, cytological, biological and functional characteristics. But in all cases, a genetic (racial) difference has prove more significant and has caused more conflicts for the survival and advancement of a species, than any antagonisms resulting from a sometimes short-lived influence of the human environment.
Therefore, the mentalities within a given society evolve differently. Indeed, the successive series of transformations in its structures and the type of coexistence of its inhabitants which orient the social life and by and large, the type of day-to-day management of State affairs.
Thus, a more homogeneous and united society is in a better position to enjoy genuine peace. It is also more likely to have a better justice system and a more democratic government and administrative structure, than one which is characterized by an amalgam of races and tribes, with each one defending its own interests.
And once this frantic race for power ends up in the victory for the majority, order will be restored. The 1959 Revolution in Rwanda provides the best example in that regard. Even though, as is the case in the United States or in Haiti, the minority, may, at a given moment, be mistreated, the consequences are less catastrophic and the harm is easier to find a remedy for—and in the interest of all—than in the case of a clique from a numerically smaller group, which holds the reins of power and dares not let go.
The best eyewitnesses to this are our parents and grandparents sub-Saharan Africa. In South Africa, for example, where the most disgraceful apartheid is practiced, the black majority population has been kept under the terrible yoke of the Afrikaners and things are moving so slowly that one cannot hope for changes in the short or even the long run. The principle of one man-one-vote remains a taboo in regimes where the minority is in charge.
The same applies to some other African countries. But, for unknown political and diplomatic reasons, they are not sufficiently condemned for their racist and inhuman policy. Tragically, this policy has resulted in the institutionalization of the most revoltingly cruel physical and intellectual genocide meted out daily on the majority.
The minority jealously monopolizes all aspects of political power and all the major economic and financial sectors. They also very closely and selfishly control matters relating to foreign affairs, security and defense (exclusively manned by their people).
The army, the gendarmerie, the police, intelligence services and diplomatic service, are unquestionably reserved for one race. Secondary and higher education are the preserve of the descendants of this caste, which, moreover, also monopolizes employment in the public and private sectors.
When the majority has the rare occasion of being considered for employment, they are relegated to the dirty work and lowly posts, or are purely and simply kept in the villages, where their only hope lies in agriculture or livestock farming, of which the end beneficiary is, once again, none other than the mighty lords in the ruling class.
In addition, the minority in power has only one goal, that is, ruthlessly suppress any vague desire by the majority to form an opposition movement and to seize any available opportunity to carry out a systematic massacre of the majority.
It is therefore high time we accepted the pressing need for working towards the creation of a better world governed by justice and equality, while also staunchly defending the legitimate interests of the minorities and the fundamental rights of man without discrimination.
But what is wrong with minority regimes which certainly practice the rule of the jungle? On the one hand, from their standpoint, their attitude can be justified. They could, at a given moment, have committed such atrocities against their countrymen that for them, the idea of democratic power-sharing would inevitably be considered suicidal.
Moreover, man and the world being what they are, a minority must always try to affirm its presence and to defend itself by all possible means, otherwise it faces “marginalization” and possible gradual extinction, like the Indians of Brazil, the Twas of Rwanda and Burundi, the Pygmies of Central Africa, and other small communities that have been practically excluded from the political scene, and economic and social life in general. Some peoples are also driven by a superiority complex and are proud of that, which could explain why they so sadistically refuse to integrate the other races into their ostentatious world.
The list of generally diabolical reasons to justify the perpetuation of certain forms of minority and fascist governments is certainly unending!
But for them too, it would not necessarily be advisable to envisage the worst. Rather, the minority in power should ensure that the situation improves without jeopardizing anyone’s interests because sooner or later, truth and justice always triumph.
Indeed, justice will not be rendered for future generations by continuing to hide behind the theories of the pathological supremacy of the “Aryan” race, brandishing the specter of an imprudently organized revenge, or desperately hanging on to a disappearing monolithic mentality. On the contrary! And the future will not forgive the ascendants for the resulting bitter consequences.
It is not at all a sin to monopolize power; what matters is to know how to use it correctly and for the common good. For example, it is possible to open up the doors that had been hitherto closed to the other racial groups, to tactfully and efficiently win their confidence by allowing them to fully participate in the decision-making process and also put into practice the much vaunted slogans, that is, unity, peace, justice, inter-ethnic harmony, etc., which are very often cynically and shamelessly exploited by our “wise leaders” for dubious ends. But we must strive to avoid succumbing to satanic temptation, for no offense can justify the extermination of a people, however unwanted they may be. Killing does not resolve anything. Any form of genocide constitutes an act of the most primitive barbarism, which may even end up backfiring on the perpetrators.