Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy

All democracies (and every other structure of government) are bound to have few structural flaws, which are associated to the character of democracy. Diverse populaces have diverse views about the different political procedures. The advantages and disadvantages of any political structure have to be measured vigilantly in order to reach at any finale.

“For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” – Aristotle

Democracy originated from the Greek word demos (people) and kratia (power); Democracy is the thought that leads a country to give an atmosphere that unites equivalent gains and prospects (in the political, social, and economic spheres) for the common man. There are many advantages to this political scheme; the masses are given rights and liberty. An additional advantage of democracy is that it permits common man to play a dynamic part in the political actions of the nation. Nonetheless, there are disadvantages also. One of the prime disadvantages of democracy is the power of the masses which can also be distorted and become the autocracy of the masses. Therefore this can become a treacherous matter in democracy. An added downside of the ruling of majority in democracy is that it lifts barriers in the liberty of idea or the freedom of outlook.

Advantages of Democracy

Peaceful Modifications in the Government

 .

Democracy can offer modifications in government without hostility. In a democracy, authority can be reassigned from one party to another by the mode of elections. The power of the general public of a country decides its ruling power.

.

Averting Monopoly

 .

Furthermore, any government is confined to an election tenure after which it has to contend against other parties to recover power. This method averts monopoly of the reigning party. The reigning authorities have to ensure it functions effectively for its people as cannot continue being the authority subsequent to carrying out its term unless re-elected by the people.

.

Feeling of Gratitude

 .

This inculcates a feeling of responsibility towards the citizens. The reigning party owes their accomplishment in the elections to the people of the country. This leads to a feeling of thankfulness towards the citizens. It can act as their inspiration to function for the people for it is the general masses that have absolute authority over selecting their government.

.

Social Responsibility of the Citizens

 .

An additional vital advantage of democracy is that the citizens achieve a sense of contribution in the procedure of selecting their government. They get the chance to speak out their views by method of electoral voting. This gives ascend to a feeling of belongingness in the brains of the masses towards their society and its well being.

.

Disadvantages of Democracy

Making the wrong choice

 .

In a democratic country, it is the common man who has the supreme right to choose their legislature and their prevailing authorities. As per a general study, not all the people are completely conscious of the political circumstances in their nation. The common masses may not be acquainted of the political matters in their society. This may lead to common man taking an erroneous selection during election.

.

Authorities May Lose focus

 .

As the government is bound to changes and modification after each election tenure, the authorities may function with a interim objective. Since they have to go through an election procedure after the conclusion of each tenure, they may lose focus on functioning effectively for the citizens and instead might concentrate on winning elections.

.

Hordes Have Influence

.

A further disadvantage of democracy is that hordes can manipulate citizens. People may vote in support of a party under the pressure of the bulk. Constrained or influenced by the ideas of those around, an individual may not put across his/her accurate judgment.

.

Democracy averts radicalism and encourages teamwork and synchronization. It also slows things down, stops those in authority doing what they wish regardless of the majority’s desires.

SOURCE

Note: I am no expert in democracy and can thus not express a scientifically proven opinion in this regard, but I noticed the following when countries gained so-called freedom. (Example – South Africa). It soon became clear to me that it is not so much about freedom and liberation from historical domination and oppression, but the yearning for POWER and control. We have many examples in Africa and elsewhere that clearly shows that freedom and democracy is often mostly an illusion. Superficial changes are made, but the poor and the homeless voters remain bottom feeders in the newly created social democratic structure. Those that is lucky enough to slot in at the top of the feeding chain and close to the POWER source experience massive changes in status and quality of life while the middle and lower class continue to carry the financial can.

The point that I am making is that any democratic system where a single group (race, religious or otherwise) gain the upper hand because of numbers are doomed to failure. A democratic management structure where you have one single party that control almost everything is unhealthy and usually leads to a wide range of serious problems. One form of domination and oppression is simply replaced with a new form of slavery. (All you really have is a changing of the guard) The disadvantaged continue to struggle and strain without jobs, housing and services notwithstanding the promises made by enthusiastic political leaders. The perceived freedom promised to the previous oppressed is often just an illusion.

What I have against a democratic system where one group are dominant is that individuals are often appointed in leadership roles that simply don’t have the ability, skills and know-how when it comes to the task expected from such individual. The blind often leads the blind and ignorant. The only way that any democracy can become a vibrant system is where individuals can be rapidly replaced when they fail to achieve the desired objectives. It is only when a country is run like a business by competent leaders that understand their obligation towards all citizens that country flourish and grow. Democracy must never be allowed to become a weapon in the hands of a specific group (race, religion etc.)

Rene

 

Some people get the wrong idea and think assertiveness is aggression, but it’s not.

 

Learning to communicate honestly with others

Now that we’ve looked into communicating honestly with ourselves, what does it take to communicate honestly with other people? First of all – as described above – it takes knowing your own mind. But when it comes to communicating honestly with others, knowing yourself isn’t enough. Communicating with others is a skill – but not necessarily a skill we’re born with! Of course some people are natural-born communicators, but most of us aren’t. But even if you weren’t born a communicator, don’t despair – there’s still hope. Fortunately for us, communicating honestly, openly and directly is a skill we can all learn. And in this connection, learning to be assertive is a key factor. So let’s take a look at the idea of assertiveness.

Assertiveness

First of all, what does being assertive mean? Assertiveness means the ability to express yourself and defend your rights without violating the rights of others. It is appropriate, direct and open communication.

Being assertive is not the same as being aggressive. This is a very important distinction so I will repeat it. Assertiveness is not the same as aggression. Some people get the wrong idea and think assertiveness is aggression, but it’s not. Aggression is self-enhancing behavior at the expense of others. Being assertive is just the opposite and translates into the ability to take care of oneself without violating the rights of other people.

Unfortunately, many of us confuse open and honest communication with angry and aggressive behavior – and as a result, we are afraid of saying honestly what we feel and mean. I know I did for a very long time.

It was first when I understood the beauty of assertiveness that I realized it was the key to taking care of myself and communicating honestly and clearly with other people at the same time. I found out that if I could learn to be assertive, it is possible to cope with disagreement and conflict without going to pieces. I also found that being assertive is a firm, yet satisfying way to stand up for your rights without becoming angry or aggressive.

In order to illustrate the difference between being assertive and being aggressive or passive, I’ve developed the chart below.

Passive behavior

Flight
Running away
Submissive
Violating your own limits
Criticizing yourself
Making yourself wrong
Pointing the finger at yourself

Assertive behavior

Balance Point
Your own power
Staying in your power
Minding your own
business
Taking responsibility for
yourself
Standing up for your
rights
Self-power

Aggressive behavior

Fight
Attacking
Dominating
Violating the limits of
others
Criticizing others
Making others wrong
Pointing the finger at others

This chart shows that there is a balance point between the extremes of passive and aggressive behavior – and this balance point is assertive behavior. When you are assertive, you are staying in your own business and standing up for yourself and your rights. When you are passive, you run away from conflict and make yourself wrong. When you are aggressive, you attack and make other people wrong. The two extreme points – passive and aggressive behavior – correspond to the classic ‘fight or flight’ reaction pattern. The balanced position is assertive behavior – and means not going to
extremes to deal with the situation but standing firm in your own power.

Your assertive rights

I first became aware of the concept of assertiveness when I read Manuel J. Smith’s wonderful book “When I say no, I feel guilty” many years ago. In his book, he carefully explains the concept of assertiveness and explores many of the underlying beliefs we have that prevent us from expressing ourselves clearly and from taking care of ourselves.

In the book, he presents a list of what he calls our 10 assertive rights. I include the list for you here because it is such a revelation. For more details, please read his book. It’s a true gem.

“Assertive Rights

1. You have the right to judge your own behavior, thoughts, and
emotions, and to take the responsibility for their initiation and
consequences upon yourself.

2. You have the right to offer no reasons or excuses to justify your
behavior.

3. You have the right to judge whether you are responsible for finding
solutions to other people’s problems.

4. You have the right to change your mind.

5. You have the right to make mistakes – and be responsible for them.

6. You have the right to say ‘I don’t know’.

7. You have the right to be independent of the goodwill of others before
coping with them.

8. You have the right to be illogical in making decisions.

9. You have the right to say, ‘I don’t understand’.

10. You have the right to say, ‘I don’t care’.

You have the right to say no, without feeling guilty.” From “When I say no, I feel guilty” by Manuel J. Smith

Expressing yourself assertively

So how do we express ourselves assertively? What does it mean? Here are some of the main things we need to be aware of and remember when we practice expressing ourselves in an assertive manner. (And remember, learning to be assertive takes practice. You have to keep trying – again and again!)

First of all, when you disagree with someone, state your position or point of view as clearly as you can. No need to get upset. Be kind but firm. But don’t expect the other person to agree with you! Being assertive doesn’t have anything to do with winning arguments or being right. Being assertive is about honestly expressing your point of view and taking care of yourself. It’s not about winning and losing. So state your position clearly – and be willing to hear the other person’s point of view. When you have stated your position, don’t expect the other person to agree with you. He or she probably won’t.

When the other person has stated their position, don’t be afraid to repeat your own position or point of view again, kindly but firmly. When you see or hear that the other person does not agree with you, don’t attack or criticize him or her. Just stay in your own business and repeat your own position.

Remember – you are responsible for your feelings and opinions about the matter. The other person is responsible for his or her feelings and opinions about the matter. Each person has a right to his/her feelings and opinions.

It’s also important to remember that you don’t have to offer explanations or excuses for your choices, opinions, beliefs or behavior. (You might want to explain but you don’t have to. Remember you have the right to be you!)

In most disagreements, the best possible outcome is what I would call a ‘workable compromise’ – in other words a solution that both parties can accept. So it’s not a question of right or wrong or of one person winning and the other losing. It’s more about finding a way to deal with the matter that both people can live with.

It is also important in disagreements to show the other person that you hear them and understand their feelings. You don’t want to make the other person wrong just because he/she doesn’t agree with you – and you don’t want to make yourself wrong either. But you do want to acknowledge the other person’s point of view and feelings. This is the respectful, yet assertive way to be.

And finally, remember you don’t need to agree with the other person to find a workable compromise. Once both parties understand each other’s position, it can be much easier to find a solution that both parties can accept.

So to summarize, here are the main points to keep in mind:

• – State your position as clearly as you can.

• – Be kind but firm.

• – Don’t expect the other person to agree with you.

• – Be willing to hear the other person’s point of view.

• – Don’t be afraid to repeat yourself, kindly but firmly.

• – Don’t attack or criticize the other person.

• – Stay in your own business.

• – You are responsible for your feelings about the matter.

• – The other person is responsible for his/her feelings about the matter.

• – You don’t need to offer explanations or excuses for your choices, opinions or behavior.

• – Show the other person you hear them and understand their feelings.

• – Don’t make the other person wrong just because he/she doesn’t agree with you.

• – Don’t make yourself wrong (or criticize or excuse yourself).

• – Remember, you don’t need to agree with the other person to find a workable compromise.

 

Things you can say

When you are having this kind of discussion, here are some good ways to acknowledge the other person’s point of view while maintaining your own rights, position, and point of view. You can say things like:

• – I can totally understand how you might feel that way and I still…

• – You could be right and I still…

• – I can understand your point of view and I still…

• – I really appreciate your feelings (point of view) in this matter and I still…

• – I am inclined to agree with you and I still…

• – I totally sympathize with you and I still…

• – I appreciate your thinking of me and the answer is still no.

Barbara Berger

 

 

 

Computers Crash and Relationships fall Apart!

 

 

 

Personal Relationship Values

In relationships, just as in every other aspect of life, the spirit and attitude with which you do things is at least as important as your actual actions. Embrace and incorporate these powerful values, and you will start living with more integrity, honesty, compassion and enthusiasm. This, in turn, will breathe new life into your relationship.

Own your own relationship.
You are fully accountable for your relationship. You can never again believe you’re a martyr suffering in your relationship because of an unworthy partner. Only when you stop seeing yourself as a victim will you start to see yourself as a fully competent and potent force in your relationship.

Accept the risk of vulnerability.
Do not let fear paralyze your life. Wanting, reaching out and letting yourself hope makes you vulnerable. At least by putting yourself on the line, you have the chance of getting what you want, as opposed to hurting with no chance of getting what you want. Not to venture is to lose yourself.

Accept your partner.
If your partner experiences in you the spirit of acceptance, then it is most likely that he/she will find you approachable. Two partners who are moving toward each other, rather than both trying to seek safety from pain, have a dramatically improved chance of reconciliation.

Focus on friendship.
You have to take a step back from the problems and pain of your intimate interactions, and focus on your partner’s positive qualities. Turn back the clock and recall what it was that started the friendship that matured into an intimate relationship.

Promote your partner’s self-esteem.
You must bring the spirit of acceptance into affirmative, interactive action. Find the courage and creativity to promote and protect your partner’s self-esteem, even when you feel compelled to be critical. By using the value of self-esteem, you provide a much more nurturing atmosphere, one your partner will not want to abandon.

Aim your frustrations in the right direction.
Work at sorting out the causes of your frustration, and resist the impulsive temptation to pick at your partner. Once you start seeing that the negative things you perceive in your partner are often things you see in yourself, you will literally alter the nature of your interactions with your partner.

Be up front and forthright.
Nothing can be more frustrating than what is referred to as an incongruent communication, where an individual says one thing yet indicates something dramatically different with his or her nonverbal conduct. Strive to express your feelings in a mature and responsible way. By being honest about your emotions, you base your relationship upon integrity rather than lies and deception.

Make yourself happy instead of right.
Start evaluating the things you do in your relationship based on whether those thoughts, feelings and actions are working. For example, you don’t have to prove over and over that you know what you’re talking about more than your partner. Instead, choose a different emotion such as tolerance, understanding or compassion that does not escalate hostility in your relationship. By deciding to be happy rather than right, you will be receptive to your partner’s attempts to de-escalate hostility and return to civil interactions.

Allow your relationship to transcend turmoil.
Rough times and arguments happen, and one way or another, they are going to impact the relationship. You must vow to no longer use threats as a lever to manipulate and control your partner. By doing so, you are setting a clear limit on the places a spirited discussion with your partner will not go.

Put motion into your emotion.
You must turn the concept of love into a proactive behavior. Don’t be so consumed with negative messages that your expectations are low. You must require yourself and your relationship to truly be better.

.

Dr. Phil

 

Please use the link below to find an endless source of wisdom!

 

http://drphil.com/articles/article/81

 

Only a matter of time before the hand grenade explodes – Wealth creation – MOELETSI MBEKI

 

 

 

MOELETSI MBEKI: Wealth creation

 

Only a matter of time before the hand grenade explodes

 

 

I CAN predict when SA’s “Tunisia Day” will arrive. Tunisia Day is when the masses rise against the powers that be, as happened recently in Tunisia. The year will be 2020, give or take a couple of years. The year 2020 is when China estimates that its current minerals-intensive industrialisation phase will be concluded.

 

For SA, this will mean the African National Congress (ANC) government will have to cut back on social grants, which it uses to placate the black poor and to get their votes. China’s current industrialisation phase has forced up the prices of SA’s minerals, which has enabled the government to finance social welfare programmes.

 

The ANC inherited a flawed, complex society it barely understood; its tinkering s with it are turning it into an explosive cocktail. The ANC leaders are like a group of children playing with a hand grenade. One day one of them will figure out how to pull out the pin and everyone will be killed.

 

 A famous African liberation movement, the National Liberation Front of Algeria, after tinkering for 30 years, pulled the grenade pin by cancelling an election in 1991 that was won by the opposition Islamic Salvation Front. In the civil war that ensued, 200,000 people were killed.

 

The former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, once commented that whoever thought that the ANC could rule SA was living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Why was Thatcher right? In the 16 years of ANC rule, all the symptoms of a government out of its depth have grown worse.

 

– Life expectancy has declined from 65 years to 53 years since the ANC came to power;

 

– In 2007, SA became a net food importer for the first time in its history;

 

 

 – The elimination of agricultural subsidies by the government led to the loss of 600,000 farm workers’ jobs and the eviction from the commercial farming sector of about 2,4-million people between 1997 and 2007; and

 

– The ANC stopped controlling the borders, leading to a flood of poor people into SA, which has led to conflicts between SA’s poor and foreign African migrants.

 

What should the ANC have done, or be doing? The answer is quite straightforward. When they took control of the government in 1994, ANC leaders should have: identified what SA’s strengths were; identified what SA’s weaknesses were; and decided how to use the strengths to minimise and/or rectify the weaknesses.

 

A wise government would have persuaded the skilled white and Indian population to devote some of their time — even an hour a week — to train the black and coloured population to raise their skill levels.

 

What the ANC did instead when it came to power was to identify what its leaders and supporters wanted. It then used SA’s strengths to satisfy the short-term consumption demands of its supporters. In essence, this is what is called black economic empowerment (BEE).

 

BEE promotes a number of extremely negative socioeconomic trends in our country. It promotes a class of politicians dependent on big business and therefore promotes big business’s interests in the upper echelons of government. Second, BEE promotes an anti-entrepreneurial culture among the black middle class by legitimising an environment of entitlement. Third, affirmative action, a subset of BEE, promotes incompetence and corruption in the public sector by using ruling party allegiance and connections as the criteria for entry and promotion in the public service, instead of having tough public service entry examinations.

 

Let’s see where BEE, as we know it today, actually comes from. I first came across the concept of BEE from a company, which no longer exists, called Sankor. Sankor was the industrial division of Sanlam and it invented the concept of BEE.

 

The first purpose of BEE was to create a buffer group among the black political class that would become an ally of big business in SA. This buffer group would use its newfound power as controllers of the government to protect the assets of big business.

 

The buffer group would also protect the modus operandi of big business and thereby maintain the status quo in which South African business operates.. That was the design of the big conglomerates.

 

Sanlam was soon followed by Anglo American. Sanlam established BEE vehicle Nail; Anglo established Real Africa, Johnnic and so forth. The conglomerates took their marginal assets, and gave them to politically influential black people, with the purpose, in my view, not to transform the economy but to create a black political class that is in alliance with the conglomerates and therefore wants to maintain the status quo of our economy and the way in which it operates.

 

But what is wrong with protecting SA’s conglomerates? Well, there are many things wrong with how conglomerates operate and how they have structured our economy.

 

– The economy has a strong built- in dependence on cheap labour;

 

– It has a strong built-in dependence on the exploitation of primary resources;

 

– It is strongly unfavourable to the development of skills in our general population;

 

– It has a strong bias towards importing technology and economic solutions; and

 

– It promotes inequality between citizens by creating a large, marginalised underclass.

 

Conglomerates are a vehicle, not for creating development in SA but for exploiting natural resources without creating in-depth, inclusive social and economic development, which is what SA needs. That is what is wrong with protecting conglomerates.

 

The second problem with the formula of BEE is that it does not create entrepreneurs. You are taking political leaders and politically connected people and giving them assets which, in the first instance, they don’t know how to manage. So you are not adding value. You are faced with the threat of undermining value by taking assets from people who were managing them and giving them to people who cannot manage them. BEE thus creates a class of idle rich ANC politicos.

 

My quarrel with BEE is that what the conglomerates are doing is developing a new culture in SA — not a culture of entrepreneurship, but an entitlement culture, whereby black people who want to go into business think that they should acquire assets free, and that somebody is there to make them rich, rather than that they should build enterprises from the ground.

 

But we cannot build black companies if what black entrepreneurs look forward to is the distribution of already existing assets from the conglomerates in return for becoming lobbyists for the conglomerates.

 

The third worrying trend is that the ANC- controlled state has now internalised the BEE model. We are now seeing the state trying to implement the same model that the conglomerates have developed.

 

What is the state distributing? It is distributing jobs to party faithful and social welfare to the poor. This is a recipe for incompetence and corruption, both of which are endemic in SA. This is what explains the service delivery upheavals that are becoming a normal part of our environment.

 

So what is the correct road SA should be travelling? We all accept that a socialist model, along the lines of the Soviet Union, is not workable for SA today. The creation of a state-owned economy is not a formula that is an option for SA or for many parts of the world. Therefore, if we want to develop SA instead of shuffling pre-existing wealth, we have to create new entrepreneurs, and we need to support existing entrepreneurs to diversify into new economic sectors.

 

– Mbeki is the author of Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism Needs Changing.

 

This article forms part of a series on transformation supplied by the Centre for Development and Enterprise.

 

Thank you Annalise for this contribution.

 

(Background – Southern Spears) An elephant STILL in the room. Southern Spears came into being on the back of big promises. (REPEAT)

The performances by the Bulls, the Sharks and the Stormers during the weekend confirmed the speculation in the media that there is optimism for a new dawn in Springbok-rugby, but unfortunately, there is an elephant in the room as the South African franchises threaten to boycott the 2013 Super Rugby season if any of the current five teams are excluded from the competition to accommodate the Southern Kings in the competition.

 

According to Rapport , the Stormers, Bulls, Lions, Cheetahs and Sharks sent a letter of their demands to the SA Rugby Union (SARU) after SARU’s 14 unions unanimously voted in favour of including the Eastern Cape team – consisting of the Eastern Province, Border and South Western Districts in the 2013 season.

 

The Sunday newspaper reported that SARU president Oregan Hoskins reacted with shock when he got the letter that said that they threatened to boycott the 2013 super rugby season should any one of the “big five” teams be excluded from that season.

 

He told the newspaper that the five franchises demanded that unless SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby) expanded the competition to 16 teams to accommodate six South African teams they would not participate in next year’s competition.

 

Hoskins said he would send the letter to the other nine unions and it “will be in the hands of all unions to decided which teams will play in the Super Rugby series”.

South Africa, however, have a challenge on their hands as the current broadcast deal, which allows for only 15 teams in the competition. This will be renegotiated only in 2016, according to www.rugby365.com.

 

SANZAR CEO Greg Peters poured cold water on SARU’s ambitions of six SA teams, and ruled out the possibility of expansion, reported Sapa.

 

Several questions are left unanswered

 

First of all, why did the leadership of the five franchises unanimously accepted the entry of the Kings in the Super Rugby competition for 2013, only to threaten with a boycott a few weeks later?

 

Secondly, why did SARU not probe SANZAR about the possibility and the realistic chance of an expansion of the Super Rugby competition after the completion of the Super Rugby season midway through 2011?

 

Why did SARU and the different franchises not discuss and unanimously accept the process by which the five teams would be determined if expansion plans to sixteen teams were not acceptable to their SANZAR-partners?

 

And, why was that discussion by the five franchises with SARU not concluded before a decision was taken to include the Southern Kings?

 

Mark Keohane, veteran rugby commentator, severely criticized Oregan Hoskins and SARU for their lack of decisive leadership in a column on www.keo.co.za. Says Keohane: “Once again the tail is wagging the dog. Once again SARU’s leadership is being shown as pathetic and without bite.”

 

“Oregan Hoskins … needs to stand tall and dismiss the threats of the five South African regions. He won’t and the regions will continue to hold the national governing body to ransom, when it should be the other way around.” says www.keo.co.za

 

Dan Retief, a former Sunday Times sports editor, asked in the Sunday Times why SARU is only now seeking a solution to a predicament that has been around since 2005 when the Southern Spears came into being on the back of big promises.

 

From a pure rugby and commercial point of view, the decision to include the Southern Kings, is a poor one. Retief argues that apart from an ill-conceived project at Bushman’s Sand in Alicedale, no proper academies have been established in places such as New Brighton and Mdantsane.

 

The three unions have been paralyzed by bad management and in-fighting and furthermore, the Southern Kings failed in their promotion attempts to gain access to the Premier division of the Currie Cup. They were also outplayed in the final of the First Division against the Boland Cavaliers.

 

Four of the five South African franchises who form part of the Super Rugby competitions, were semi-finalists in the 2011 Currie Cup-competition. The fifth, the Bulls, won the Super 14-competition in 2007 as well as in 2009 and 2010.

 

All these teams are South African powerhouses, and the Southern Kings is not comparable in terms of pure rugby strength. So the decision to include them in the Super Rugby competition without counting the costs of such a decision and without contemplating the damning impact of the decision on the franchise that will lose out, smacks of short sightedness to put it mildly.

 

It is yet to be determined what the impact of the newest round of in-fighting will have on the Springboks and on the Super Rugby competition this year.

 

Player talent

 

South Africa is blessed with a number of very talented number-10’s in Johan Goosen, Patrick Lambie, Elton Jantjies and MornéSteyn, while there is enough good performing locks to suggest we will be able to replace the legendary Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha and the extremely athletic Danie Rossouw.

 

In the midfield, there were promising signs the past weekend with superb performances by Jean de Villiers, Bryan Habana, JP Pietersen and the talented young Bulls duo of Francois Venter and Johann Sadie.

 

The Bulls, the Sharks and the Stormers showed early promise before the start of the Super Rugby season. The Bulls mesmerized the Cheetahs on Saturday by strolling to an emphatic 39-16 win.

 

The Sharks were superb in beating the Cavaliers by 62-0, while the Stormers managed a 38-13 win against the Kings.

 

They weren’t that convincing in the scrums, but De Villiers and Habana caused havoc in the midfield.

 

It is clear that the new coach, Meyer, will be spoiled for choice when selecting his top-thirty players for training camps in May. But with the South African administration in turmoil and in-fighting the order of the day, one has to ask if this won’t adversely impact on his grandest attempts to secure the support of the franchises for the national cause?

 

Fanie Heyns

SOURCE