What the government of South Africa did is a nice example of the distinction between a malum prohibitum and a malum in se. It is legally wrong for a government to subsidize one political movement at the expense of another. It is not always morally wrong to do so.
The situation in South Africa during the past, parlous years isn’t as vivid seen through the serene eyes of a lecturer at the Kennedy School at Harvard as it has been, and continues to be, for the white South African. What the National Party faced during the past six years was the following: 1) a crystallizing desire to free the country from the shackles of apartheid, a system whose unworkability was coming to a boil; 2) a white conservative minority with powerful political leverage; 3) an international boycott whose effect was increasing unemployment and unrest; and 4) an insurrectionary movement dominated by men committed to Communist doctrine and methods, who refused to abjure the use of force and terrorism to achieve their goals.
Comments