SALSA
SALSA, the South African Liberal Students Association, provides online civic education in BLU ERA networks. This civic education is designed to achieve Individual Freedom throughout the world.
SALSA operates Agitate Online as its main publication platform. SALSA operates SALSA Africa and SALSA Global to get out the vote for Liberalism. SALSA Programs operates the SALSA Leadership Initiative, the SALSA Leadership Training Program, the SALSA Governance Technologies and the SALSA Military Services to enable Liberal Governments. SALSA Branches operates Cape Town Liberals, Joburg Liberals and Durban Liberals to raise funding for Liberal political parties in Southern Africa. SALSA Projects operates the SALSA Vernacular Project, the SALSA Better South Africa Project and the SALSA Project Israel to build coalitions of Liberals, Libertarians, Moderates, Democrats and Environmentalists.
SALSA's work is designed to enhance Freedom, Human Rights, Responsibility, the Rule of Law, Opportunity, Conservation, Competition, Free Enterprise and the Market Economy.
Individual Freedom
Individual Freedom is a cause worth fighting for, especially when the alternative is "group think" and "herd mentality". All over the world, Liberals are working to remove illegitimate and corrupt regimes from office and power, in both the public and private sectors. The fight for Individual Freedom is not something that can be explained in platitudes about inequality, unemployment and poverty. Liberalism believes in Equality of Opportunity, in Work and in Dignity. The reason that social injustice exists is because the Social Nationalists need it to exist so that they can benefit from corruption. The reason that idleness exists is because the Conservative Theologicists need it to exist so that their inferiority complexes can be assuaged. The reason that economic deprivation exists is because the Communo-Workerists need it to exist so that they have a constituency to bribe with empty promises at election time. Individual Freedom is your entitlement, just do not impinge upon anyone else's Individual Freedom.
SALSA Website Links
Freedom Now!
The South African Liberal Students Association, SALSA, is determined to bring peace to the world, through Liberalism. Liberalism affords each Individual Person, their Personal Freedom and Personal Dignity. The core principles of Liberalism are Freedom, Human Rights, Responsibility, the Rule of Law, Opportunity, Conservation, Competition, Free Enterprise and the Market Economy. SALSA is consistently concerned with establishing coalitions of Liberals, Libertarians, Moderates, Democrats and Environmentalists to Govern for Freedom throughout the world. SALSA believes that illegitimate and/or corrupt governments must be removed from office and power by the sheer dint of the will of the people. SALSA engages with all relevant decision makers about policy as it affects Africa and the world at large. SALSA is intent on achieving a Crime-Free Global Village led by Liberal Governments throughout the world.
Where are We Pitching Liberalism?
The South African Case Study 1994 - 2024
If we choose to stake our reputations on the claims that all Liberals are free persons of intrinsic integrity, then we must be prepared to distinguish between Liberals (LIBERALS) and IlLiberals (ILLIBERALS) on the basis of from where they originate in terms of simplistic ascription. Maslow’s hierarchy is such a simplistic measure. I do not contend that it is a finite rule by any means, but rather that it provides a means of understanding what people want – from life and to a certain extent from their elected government.
There is a theory that accompanies Maslow’s hierarchy that says that it’s possible through mundane self-effacing repetition to become trapped in the lower rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy. That is that the person, so alienated from their own persona, becomes used to a cycle of repetition in activity that focuses on satisfying their basic needs. There is an extension of this which says that it’s possible through over indulgence to become locked into the middle rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy. That is that the person, so consumed with their own narcissism, becomes used to a cycle of repetition in activity that focuses on satisfying their psychological needs. Finally, there is an alternate to this that says that it’s possible as a result of highly competitive introspection to become fixed in the upper rung of Maslow’s hierarchy. That is that the person, so determined to win through competition, becomes used to a cycle of repetition in activity that focuses on satisfying their self-fulfillment needs.
Factually being trapped in the lower rungs is a psychotic state, being locked into the middle rungs is an insane state and being fixed in the upper rung is a sociopathic state. Put very simply the construct of Maslow’s hierarchy is intended more as a mental and behavioural gearbox ranging from 1st gear to 5th gear in a manner that allows the individual to satisfy all of their needs progressively. First take care of the lower basic needs, next take care of the upper basic needs, then take care of the lower psychological needs, followed by the taking care of the upper psychological needs; whereafter the self-fulfillment needs are satisfied. This is normal, and all people go through this process every day.
We are not pitching Liberalism to the psychotics, the insane and the sociopaths. They are not our target market. We are not pitching Liberalism to those whom cannot think beyond their own survival, people like that join mobs in the street and then violently support the destruction of property rights for some unfathomable reason. We are not pitching Liberalism to those whom cannot think beyond their own feelings, people like that join Twitter and Instagram to overshare and then vehemently become offended for the sake of being offended regardless of how stupid they seem. We are not pitching Liberalism to those whom cannot think beyond their own inferiority complexes, people like that join pyramid schemes and punt motivational crap that is predicated on the purchase of snake oil charms.
We are pitching Liberalism to the people whom make an effort for themselves and their families; whom sacrifice today so that tomorrow is plentiful; whom make the difficult decisions to prioritise their children’s education and welfare over their smoking and drinking habits; and whom choose to vote because they have the right to vote for whomever they choose.
We are pitching Liberalism to the people whom make peace in their families and in their communities despite the difficulties in doing so; whom choose to protect the weak and the vulnerable against injustice and abuse; whom act decisively to reject hooliganism and gangsterism; and whom work through their personal initiatives to promote democracy as a way of doing things.
We are pitching Liberalism to the people whom believe in their own individuality and in their own potential for great achievement; whom see in others the future that can be realised with a little support and a little consideration; whom meaningfully participate in their own lives, their own works and their own responsibilities setting examples for others to emulate; and whom refuse to give up on their greatest ambitions however unattainable they might seem.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Source: Abraham Maslow
We are pitching Liberalism to South Africans whether they are South African citizens or South African residents or whether they just live in South Africa taking a chance. We are pitching Liberalism to the future; a future that is consumed with excellence regardless of circumstance; a future that is just and considerate of each individual as a unique, excellent human being; a future that is not compromised by corruption or scandal; but most of all a future that belongs to each and every individual whom worked to achieve it.
We are pitching Liberalism to ordinary, everyday people most of whom have to hustle and hard sell themselves and their talents with creativity just to get by. We are pitching Liberalism to every person whom wants to be appreciated for the contribution that they make to the world in which they live. We are pitching Liberalism to you, your friends, your relatives, your family and each and every one that you know – we are not asking you to like, love, reply, retweet, share or comment – we are asking to put down your smartphones, step back from your personal computers of all sizes and shapes – and simply accept that you as a brilliant example of humanity imbued with your own individual perfection are being invited to consider Liberalism for yourself and your future.
Whom do we want for Liberalism?
Let us say that for the purposes of this discussion that all people are intelligent, not that all people make intelligent, rational choices all of the time, but certainly that all people are intelligent. Now let us consider that if we are to use a system for organising thinking activities, like Bloom’s Taxonomy; that we must apportion equal importance to each of the types of activities. That is, we must say that remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating are all equally important as thinking activities and that a preoccupation with one does not infer a deficiency of another.
If equal time was spent each day, by each individual in attempting the various activities of thinking, then most people would be consumed in a variety of thinking activities during the course of the day. This means that instead of simply repeating and doing, that their activities would instead be interspersed with periods where they were thinking. This means that there would be some remembering, some understanding, some applying, some analysing, some evaluating and some creating going on at various times of the day. I do not mean by this that the production line worker takes thinking breaks to ponder the great mysteries of life in-between fastening widgets together, but rather that in the course of fastening widgets together and indeed in the time of not fastening widgets together that the production line worker would think and would think in a variety of ways.
So, all people are intelligent and all people are always thinking but we are not comparing any two individuals in this perspective. We are simply giving the people the benefit of thought and the benefit of varied thought. And what does this mean for Liberalism? It means that it is impossible to say that we only want rememberers, or understanders, or applyers, or analysers, or evaluators or creators. It is also impossible to say that we want a specific mix of thinking predispositions in the general membership of a Liberal political party. Yes, for a specific job or task, you could define a specific desirable personality profile and thinking profile; attuning your search to find the best candidate for the purpose at hand. But to say that you only want rememberers so that the tragic comedy of the liberation struggle and the very sad icons of the liberation struggle were ever most in mind, is just bizarre.
And yet some political fascinations and their parties wallow in the misery of the past as a sort of badge of belonging to a class of depression junkies – never willing to let go of what the white man did and how bad you had it when you were in the UDF. These sorts of misery wallahs live for the fireside camping stories of the days in political exile and the great travesty of the negotiated settlement that denied MK its inevitable decisive victory over the SADF. War stories get more heroic with alcohol induced remembrance. Unfortunately, the ANC is punch drunk and is imprisoned in a state of the psychotic dance of the rememberers. South Africa is going nowhere as a result of which.
Similarly, the understanders get abused by people with problems, given that empathy is a disease for sharing diseases. The political parties that pursue the understanders generally want support without too many questions. It is better to utter, issue, pass off and then hustle, con, schnai and swindle while the understander is empathizing with your problems – or as they say in ANC-land, your challenges – so that you might make the most of the opportunity to steal.
Comrades who try to contextualise our current struggles in terms of the logic of great philosophers, or in terms of the laws of the land, or in terms of the official policies or in terms of the trends or in terms of the constitution – either of the country or of the party – are not well liked. We think here of the Bulelani Ngcukas and the Thuli Madonselas of this world, they were far too clever in their ability to apply reality to the situation created and perpetuated by turpitude.
The social nationalist workers’ party of South Africa, the African National Congress, is a great believer in having a few analysers around to explain what Thabo Mbeki said, so that the Councillors, the MPP’s, the MPL’s and the MP’s can at least pretend to know what is going on. Too many analysers however are dangerous as there is always the threat of questions from the opposition about projects over budget and past deadline.
When your base constituency is permanently drunk so that they can have a good time in life without working, it is not so uncommon to find the people reducing the goings on in the polity to simple anecdotes about the problems people face. Jacob Zuma owes hitmen and loan sharks money so he has a business to pay for him, he has a wife to manage that business for him; he has a lot of debts, a lot of businesses and a lot of wives. To the ordinary people Jacob Zuma cannot afford it, that’s why his legal problems don’t go away. Contrast that against Peking University 2012, where JZ is made an Honourary Professor of International Relations. The ANC does not like evaluators.
Finally, ever since Thabo Mbeki created Nelson Mandela the global icon of Freedom, sponsored by Coca-Cola; we have seen little or nothing created by the ANC. Well, if you don’t count rehashing apartheid as BBBEE and the mess that that has made. So, creators are not encouraged the ANC because you have to have a black partner for window dressing – don’t expect any work from said partner – and if you have something that is valuable rather give it to a black person so that it can be sold to pay off someone’s Nkabi/Mashonisa problems. It is better to export raw creativity to China and then borrow money from China to buy Chinese products rather than to innovate and create yourself.
As can be seen, the ANC has tried and failed to target specific types of pigeonholed thinkers to protect the integrity of its fraud scheme. Thankfully Liberalism wants thinkers who practice a variety of thinking activities. All thinkers welcome and all varieties of thinkers welcome. If, however you simply bleat, repeat and do what you are made to do, are you actually a thinker? Is your learning and information processing style reminiscent of thinking? I think not.
Bloom's Taxonomy. Source: Benjamin Bloom, Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill and David Krathwohl
To sum up, Liberalism is in favour of a wide variety of thinking, learning and information processing techniques and activities; while the opponents of Liberalism are in favour of suppressing dissenting opinions to ensure that the corruption organisations evade prosecution for the crimes that they have committed.
What kind of Liberals do we need?
There are five types of Liberals in the world. Liberals, Libertarians, Liberal Dreamers (Moderates), Liberal Realists (Democrats) and Liberal Optimists (Environmentalists). There is no such thing as a combination of Liberalism with Conservatism, of Liberalism with Socialism, of Liberalism with Nationalism, of Liberalism with Communism, of Liberalism with Workerism or of Liberalism with Theologicism. To construct such fallacies is to pander to the retarded flatulence of the theoretical “third way” between capitalism and communism, that is of the theoretical “middle ground” between Adam Smith and Karl Marx.
Freedom | Opportunity | Responsibility
Liberals, as defined by a long list of Liberal theorists, most of whom were too preoccupied by slavery to advocate for women’s rights; believe that personal freedom, personal opportunity and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of civilized society. Having said that, the Liberals of today will argue for a state of some sort, albeit not a grandiose state; distinguishing themselves from Libertarians whom consider the state an intrusion upon their precious Liberty. When Liberals speak of Opportunity, they specifically mean Equal Opportunity; not Unequal Opportunity. Telling someone who has nothing, knows nothing and has no self-esteem to compete against well-resourced professionals, experts in their fields all brimming with confidence is not Equal Opportunity. To say Liberals, believe in fair-play is an understatement. It is after all easy to win when you have all the cards, but how easy is it to win when each player only has one card? Ask a Liberal about Responsibility and the Liberal in question will no doubt respond that irresponsibility is easy, it makes no measure of a person; whereas Responsibility is difficult and well worth the effort.
Liberty | Dignity | Privacy
For a Libertarian the three ingredients of Liberty, Dignity and Privacy are the panacea for all of the ills of the world. Provided that there is no limitation on definition and provided that there is respect for Libertarianism that is distinct from Liberalism, the Libertarian will be happy with this mix of political principles. Liberty naturally demands the withering of the parental state, the nanny state, the granny state, the dole state, the upper guardian state, the thought-police state, the hand-over-your-freedom-we-own-you state, the military-junta state and the crony-kleptocratic state. Dignity distinguished human beings from animals, plants and things and demands that human beings be treated with respect more so than animals, plants and things. Privacy is the most valuable commodity in the world and for the Libertarian nothing is more important than Privacy, that is the private space for private actions – whether personal, business, intellectual or developmental, after all one should not have to drag their affairs into the street to negotiate the bounds of which with others.
Diversity | Utility | Fulfilment
Liberal Dreamers (Moderates) are people who treasure the unique individuality of each person, believing that each unique human being has something valuable to contribute to society and that the Diversity of individuals, the very plurality of personality must be tolerated and encouraged. Liberal Dreamers believe that everything has a purpose, has a usefulness and has Utility. It is therefore the task of everyone to find the Utility in their life that is served by their life. Liberal Dreamers focus on the Fulfilment of potential, the realization of one’s self-worth and the achievement of ambitions. Liberal Dreamers are the ones whom come to Liberalism for the inclusivity but stay for the individuality.
Subsidiarity | Innovation | Transparency
Liberal Realists (Democrats) are highly aware of the shortfalls of government and choose to consider the handy implement, the tool of Subsidiarity or government as close to the people as possible, as a safeguard against these shortcomings. If your local municipality was wholly responsible for the provision of all public services that you required then it would be easier to hold them to account for the provision of public services than to hold the national or provincial government to account. Liberal Realists take the issue of Innovation seriously believing that Innovation is the key to achieving freedom. Above all else, Liberal Realists demand Transparency in all matters pertaining to the state, the government and the republic so as to hold the matters of the public sphere to a high standard of excellence.
Radical | Progressive | Diligent
Liberal Optimists (Environmentalists) actually feel that all is not lost with the world, that crises like poverty, injustice and climate change can be resolved to the satisfaction of the whole world not just some people. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of what is taken as the all of everything, demonstrating Radical thinking and espousing Radical ideas that change the nature of the debate and the set of solutions at hand. Liberal Optimists are Progressive in their approaches to solving problems, seeking inclusivity at all times so as to give real effect to the rule of law. Most of all though, they are Diligent in their activities, never straying from the path of Liberalism to get co-opted by the opponents of Liberalism. This means that while Liberal Optimists hold out hope for a better future for everyone, they actually work very hard to achieve that better future at all times.
What does this mean in terms of the kind of Liberals that we need?
We need Liberals of all sorts, ordinary Liberals, Libertarians, Liberal Dreamers, Liberal Realists and Liberal Optimists; all of them, as many of each as is possible. But what do we want Liberals to do for Liberalism? If we consider Bloom’s Taxonomy as applied to digital communications, the so-called Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, we can see that there are communication tasks that are easier to contemplate and there are communication tasks that are harder to contemplate.
Why is this relevant to this discussion? The task of most people whom are involved with politics to some degree is the spreading of the message of the cause that is associated with those people. Quite simply a political purpose recruits believers to its cause by informing them of the nature of the cause, and then sends them out to recruit new believers for the cause, in a manner that is repeated to create a network of believers. Liberalism is no different, Liberals are needed to recruit more Liberals, hopefully to Vote Liberal.
So, let us assume that communications are digital and that Liberals are communicators; what sort of thinking do we want from our Liberals whom are working to recruit new Liberals to Liberalism? Do we want rememberers and understanders, applyers and analysers or evaluators and creators? What do we want our people to be doing on the information superhighway? Do we want them to be copying and tweeting, thus sharing the hustle and the grind among the general public in an obnoxious manner reminiscent of “he said/she said” as played by young children? Do we want them to be charting and mind-mapping, that is taking information and data and packaging it for consumption in an attractive manner, similarly to their high school projects of yore? Or do we want them to be posting and podcasting, so as to give effect to opinions and to propound arguments for the cause, just like politicians?
Blooms Digital Taxonomy. Source: Benjamin Bloom et al and Andrew Churches
Well, there is an argument that says that the cause issues the statements and the believers simply share these statements among themselves and encourage believers to vote for the cause. Mindlessly. There is another argument that says that the spokespersons of the cause issue statements and the believers pick up these statements and explain them to everyone they know, thereby popularising the statements and recruiting support for the cause. Suggestively. However there is a Liberal argument that says, FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE, which means that the cause has a set of values, policies and programs, and a set of guidelines for efficiently and effectively communicating on behalf of the cause; and the believers each, individually, process this information and become proponents of the logic of the cause, going on to advocate for the values, policies and programs of the cause; not just of their own creativity, but from their own platforms as well; so as to become champions of the cause in their own rights. Persuasively.
Let’s look at these three arguments. Firstly, the Mindless Liberal, who simply shares and hopes for the best. The sort of Liberalism that would want this is a centralised not federal Liberalism. It bleats about being on message, more about the headlines of the harangue rather than the titles of its policies and programs. Commonly this sort of thing is tied into leader-driven campaigning, which says one voice, one message, populate by saturation. After a while, it’s all “he said/she said” to the ordinary voter. Next, the Suggestive Liberal, who explains and popularises the Liberal manifesto without embellishment of their own. Liberalism that is icon centred would want this. Perhaps you have a demagogue for a leader, perhaps the demagogue is just retired or perhaps the iconic demagogue is a world hero who liberated your country without a civil war. Whatever the case, it’s a middle management approach to not rocking the boat, picture a political officer leading a group of illiterate peasants in a discussion that goes, “Our Chairman says…” or “Brother Leader says…” it’s the same thing. This sort of Liberalism is scared of competition.
Finally, the Persuasive Liberal, who presents the case for the Liberal cause as though it’s their personal responsibility to get out the vote from the people regardless of the other causes on offer. This sort of Liberalism is federal in nature, it is free speech in nature and it is dependent on the work of its Liberals for its success. It encourages its Liberals to get out there and win votes through sheer dint of their own creative arguments and presentations. It does not expect the harangue to be repeated, it does not expect the “he said/she said” bullshit to be shared, it does not expect the bleating of docile farm animals to be the cacophony as heard. It wants the names and details of its policies and programs to be in the minds of every voter. It wants its concrete proposals to be the triggers that win votes and it wants its Liberals to fight for every vote as though every vote is the one that will decide the election. The Persuasive Liberal, is intelligent enough not to destroy or muddle the core messages of the cause; but is prepared to engage with the Non-Liberal antagonists out there equally as much with the Liberal protagonists from in here; both in public, so as to prove conclusively that the Liberal values, policies and programs are the very best option for the voters.
I think it’s clear that Liberalism wants all five types of Liberals, Ordinary Liberals, Libertarians, Liberal Dreamers, Liberal Realists and Liberal Optimists. I think it’s also clear that Liberalism needs Persuasive Liberals, who are free thinking as well as creative in their thinking. Liberalism requires that Liberals advocate Liberalism to recruit Liberals to Vote Liberal. Persuasively.
Inspiration:
Friedrich Naumann
Friedrich Naumann (25 March 1860 – 24 August 1919) was a German liberal politician and Protestant parish pastor. In 1896, he founded the National-Social Association that sought to combine liberalism, nationalism and (non-Marxist) socialism with Protestant Christian values, proposing social reform to prevent class struggle. He led the party until its merger into the Free-minded Union in 1903. From 1907 to 1912 and again from 1913 to 1918, he was a member of the Reichstag of the German Empire.
Naumann advocated an imperialist foreign policy, laying out Germany's claim to dominate Central Europe in his 1915 Mitteleuropa plan. After the First World War, he co-founded the German Democratic Party and was elected to the Weimar National Assembly. Naumann is also somewhat controversial for his anti-Armenian statements. The Friedrich Naumann Foundation of the Free Democratic Party is named after him. (Source: Wikipedia)
Looking to 2026
South Africa's Local Government Elections
Digression: Political parties should not be ideologically rooted associations, but should rather be federations of public service delivery experts.
Preamble:
The purpose of a political party is to supply human resources to public administration organisations. This means that the purpose of a political party is to facilitate the delivery of public services through government departments, public agencies, parastatals and public enterprises. Being rooted in ideological dogma is irrelevant to the purposes of eradicating poverty, exterminating unemployment and establishing equal opportunity.
We have been led to believe from the time of the separation of church and state and from the time of the separation of monarchy and state and from the time for the separation of privilege and state that political parties need to be rooted in ideological belief, predominantly conservative or socialist; so that the people are able to vote for political parties on the basis of the agreement of ideological arguments. This is a false narrative. Political parties are about public service delivery and that’s all.
However, before we consign the average political party to the dustbin of history, let us look at the contemporary political mainstreams that subsist in order to determine whether any of them are useful as guiding dogma for the delivery of public services.
Conservatism:
Conservatism is all about “us” and “them” phrased as “we” and “they”; in a manner that seeks to determine the rights of a group of people as being superior to the rights of the opposing groups. This means that, in the context of public service delivery, that public services would only be delivered to some people and that public services would only be of benefit to some people. This is ridiculous. So, conservatism is of no use for the delivery of public services.
Nationalism:
Nationalism is worse than conservatism as it presupposes that everyone of a nationality or ethnicity is in agreement about how public services should be delivered. It further stipulates that if people are not of “the nation” then they are not entitled to public services. This is seen where some areas of a country are developed while other areas are neglected. This means that the delivery of public services is skewed in favour of the nation in power and away from all of the people. Therefore, nationalism is of no use in public service delivery.
Socialism:
Socialism is a strange animal, as it suggests that all people have the same needs and aspirations, which is never true. Socialism is dedicated to addressing the needs of the poor and the vulnerable but in reality, serves the interest of the indolent middle class, who are comfortable in their complacency. This is seen in every socialist country where development does not solve the problem of poverty and does not ensure excellence and innovation. Socialism’s approach to public service delivery is to engage in grand projects that allow for corruption to placate the indolent middle class, and to never solve the problems of poverty because that would ruin its base constituency. Socialism is of no use in the delivery of public services, as socialism has no interest in the delivery of public services – only in the maintenance of its position of power in dispensing patronage and claiming to represent the poor.
Communism:
If the means to deliver public services belonged to all of the people in the form of co-operatives and soviets then theoretically the people would deliver public services to themselves and for themselves either on a small scale or on a large scale. The problem with this is that the democracy concomitant with communism is a representative democracy that is very bureaucratic and not very productive. Time is spent in arguments and not in service delivery. Work is a poisoned chalice that says “we alone work” and “we do not work” at the same time. Communism fails to delivery public services as it does not consider the reality that everyone needs public services and that resources have to be deployed for the delivery of public services to all people, not just the political elite.
Workerism:
No greater chicanery that workerism exists. It is the professionalization of the representation of workers and the rights of workers without any consideration for productivity. Workerism is the logic that workers are somehow the meek who should inherit the earth, while at the same time that workers are the strong who drive the economy. The overstatement of the role of human capital, increasingly less important in the 3rd and 4th industrial revolutions, has led to the gentrification of the representation of workers without the emancipation of workers because it relies of the subjugation of workers to have a role to play in the first place. Workerism cannot guide public service delivery as it cannot even negotiate productivity-based remuneration which would ignite competition in the economy.
Theologicism:
In many countries theological minorities live without access to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In many countries theological majorities blur the lines between liturgical interpretation and canonical authority so much so that when public services are considered they are considered on the basis of needs and not the developmental aspirations of the people. Theologicism does not inspire a quality of workmanship that is productive enough to deliver public services to all the people without discrimination. Besides how would God look if God kept increasing the cost of water and electricity every year?
Liberalism:
Liberalism recognizes that the an enthusiastic, happy and satisfied citizenry is key to the maintenance of legitimacy. In a competitive environment competing Liberal political parties would each gather the best public service delivery experts and each formulate plans that will deliver public services to all of the people in an efficient and effective manner. Cost minimization and satisfaction maximization is of paramount importance to Liberalism. Liberalism can lead the delivery of public services.
Public Service Delivery:
Public Service Delivery is the business of government, with every aspect of governance being a form of public service delivery. To effectively and efficiently deliver public services, the foremost considerations must be work productivity and cost minimization. It is impossible to deliver public services when there is no competition in the delivery of public services, that is where the people are unable to choose between public service providers on the basis of quality of service. This competition must be inculcated from the political parties that operate government through to the frontline public servants in the field.
Requirements:
Expertise in the actual realities of public service delivery is needed in order for the proper functioning of government. There is no point in electing and paying politicians only for them to outsource the thinking required for the doing of their work. There is no point in maintaining a professional public service that is unelected and is wholly unaccountable and corrupt. What is required is a technically competent political staff that is able to design the work required for the delivery of public services.
Objectives:
It is not the objective of the public service to skew resources in favour of the electoral ambitions of the political parties contesting office, however it is the objective of the public service to ensure that all of the people have access to public services and that all areas are developed with the consideration for the eradication of poverty, the extermination of unemployment and the establishment of equal opportunity.
Resolution:
While it is clear that because Liberalism is in favour of competition that public service delivery can be effectively led by Liberal political parties which focus on work productivity, it is not enough to simply say that the rule of law, which is a Liberal principle, will ensure proper public service delivery. Therefore, it is evident that the gathering of public service delivery experts to be the politicians of the Liberal political parties will be the best means of ensuring that public services are delivered to the satisfaction of the citizenry.
Inspiration:
Max Weber
Maximilian Karl Emil Weber (21 April 1864 – 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist, historian, jurist and political economist, who is regarded as among the most important theorists of the development of modern Western society. He was one of the central figures in the development of sociology and the social sciences, and his ideas profoundly influence social theory and research. Born in Erfurt in 1864, Weber studied law and history in Berlin, Göttingen, and Heidelberg. After earning his doctorate in law in 1889 and habilitation in 1891, he married his cousin Marianne Schnitger and taught in Freiburg and Heidelberg. In 1897, he had a breakdown after his father died following an argument. Weber ceased teaching and travelled until the early 1900s. He recovered and wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. During the First World War, he supported Germany's war effort, but became critical of it and supported democratisation. He also gave the lectures "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation". After the war, Weber cofounded the German Democratic Party, unsuccessfully ran for office, and advised the drafting of the Weimar Constitution. Becoming frustrated with politics, he resumed teaching in Vienna and Munich. He possibly contracted the Spanish flu, and died of pneumonia in 1920 at the age of 56. A book, Economy and Society, was left unfinished. (Source: Wikipedia)
