One would have thought that now that charges have been dropped against the “likable” and “kind” Jacob Zuma who “does not hold grudges”, attacks from the ANC on those members of the judiciary they do not like because these judges actually do their job and uphold the law and the Constitution, would subside.
Sadly Mr Jacob Zuma, who seems to open his mouth only to change feet, in an interview with The Star, is at it again, blasting the conduct of the judiciary and questioning the supremacy of the Constitutional Court as the highest court in the land, saying it “is not God”. As IOL reports:
He also accused Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke of declaring war on the ANC, and criticised other judges who, coincidentally, ruled against him in his corruption court appearances. In an interview with The Star in Durban on Wednesday, Zuma said he wanted a review of the status of the Constitutional Court because its judges were capable of committing mistakes. He said the Judicial Service Commission should review the status of the Constitutional Court.
“That’s the impression it creates (that judges can’t make mistakes); that’s why I am saying they are almost close to God. I think it’s important to engage them, to raise these issues; they are issues that need to be looked at,” he said. Zuma, who has appeared before these judges, was asked if this would not be interpreted as bullying the judiciary. He replied: “No, you can’t bully the judges, because if I say engage them, I am not saying I am going to order them around… I say let us discuss logic. They will also raise their matters. What is important is engaging; it is not instructing or bullying.”
“I think I will be very sensitive (to Justice Moseneke’s statement). And I think that is precisely the reason why we always say judges should know what they say… You can’t just stand up and say I don’t care what this ANC (sic), and it is a ruling party. You are just declaring war. Why should you say that when you are a judge,” he said.
So, maybe it’s time to assist the ANC President (with a shower head AND a dark cloud hanging over his head) to understand how a constitutional democracy works. Mr Zuma is after all said to be a good listener (if – like Julius Malema – not a great student), so listen up Mr Zuma.
In a constitutional democracy there is a separation of powers with three branches of government: the legislature, executive and the judiciary. The first two branches should not interfere with the work or the independence of the third branch. Although decisions of the judiciary can be scrutinised, analysed and criticised, judges cannot be “engaged” – as if they are petty party politicians or the odd Judge President or acting head of the prosecuting authority.
It would constitute outrageous interference with the separation of powers if any politicians – even a Teflon President like Mr Zuma – “engaged” judges about their views or decisions. For Mr Zuma even to suggest that this should be done, leaves him not only with a shower head and a dark cloud over his head, but also with a question mark about his commitment to constitutional democracy. Section 165 states as follows:
(2) No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts.
(3) Organs of state, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts.
Mr Zuma’s suggestion of “engagement” with the judiciary is therefore a proposal to breach the Constitution. If he knew what he was saying (and let’s face it, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed so he might not have realised how utterly stupid and dangerous his remarks were) , Mr Zuma is a danger to our democracy and we should really be very, very, very afraid of the “new” ANC who might be even more prepared to abuse state institutions to advance the personal interest of Party Leaders than under Thabo Mbeki.
The JSC is also not empowered to look into this and the suggestion that they should review the powers of the Constitutional Court is so spectacularly uninformed and embarrassing that it is perhaps better to assume that Mr Zuma was joking when he said this. If the ANC does not like governing a country based on the Rule of Law and constitutional democracy, they can of course change the Constitution to take away the power of the Constitutional Court to check conduct and legislation against the Constitution and declare these invalid. But then they must tell the voters that this is their policy so that we can understand the dangers of voting for the ANC.
Judges often differ about the interpretation of the law and the Constitution and higher courts often overturn lower court decisions. It is part of the checks and balances on the judiciary. But the Constitutional Court is the highest court and nobody can overturn its decisions. That is how a constitutional democracy works. If Mr Zuma does not like this and would rather live in a fascist state, he must take the voters into his confidence about this. He must tell the informal settlement dwellers that he believes the courts should have no power to intervene to protect their rights and he should tell HIV positive people that the Constitutional Court should not meddle by vindicating their rights and saving their lives. Let them eat cake or die, sort of.
The statement that Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke declared war on the ANC when he said it was not what the delegates decided or the ANC decides that guides his work, but the Constitution, is also in line with a view that the ANC – and not the Constitution – should be supreme. Fact is that what the Deputy Chief Justice said was merely a textbook description of the job of a judge in a constitutional democracy.
When the Constitution Court makes a decision, it has a constitutional obligation to ignore what Mr Zuma, the ANC or even God says and to follow the constitution. This is not a war on Mr Zuma, the ANC or God for that matter, but merely what judges do in a Constitutional democracy. The ANC is the serving party in government, but the constitution – as interpreted by the courts – are more important than the ANC – for the time being at least.
Unless Mr Zuma is going to “clarify” his statement (as he has “clarified” other statements about how good it is to be violent against gay men and lesbians, how the ANC will rule until Jesus comes, and how English South Africans are really not citizens of this country), we would be justified to assume that Mr Zuma (i) does not understand how constitutional democracy works and/0r (ii) does not believe in constitutional democracy.
The Constitutional Court has shown that it cares more about the poor, marginalised and vulnerable than it cares about the ANC and I suspect this is what upsets Mr Zuma. Who cares about the poor in any case. They just become a nuisance and get in the way of those 20 car motor cavalcades and take up resources that could be used to buy Mercedes Benzes and arms.
One thing is certain, even if the ANC abolishes our constitutional democracy, the dark cloud, the shower head and the question mark will remain hovering over Mr Zuma’s head and unfortunately nothing he says or does will ever, ever, change that.
This genuinely is frightening. Why is there not more outrage about these claims? I’m not in SA at the moment, so it’s hard to judge public sentiment, but I don’t get any sense of outrage from the media. Yet these comments are diabolically scary! Why do most SA citizens remind me of frogs? No – this is not meant contemptously. I’m referring to the experiment whereby if you slowly bring the temperature of water in which frogs are sitting to the boil, the frog seems to have no idea what’s happening to it and allows itself to be boiled to death without trying to escape. Of course, if you put a frog directly in boiling water it will jump out. But slow acclimatisation lulls the frog into a false sense of security…
Ja Nee;
It’s good to know Tanie Lindiwe put all the irons in the fire for the resolution of this case;
but jirre Irene Grootboom didn’t even get one iron…. (so like you know we’ll apply what’s constitutionally ag fuck what is the point…)
thank God it’s Finish and Klaar!
I wouldn’t have thought so; unless Lindiwe said so!
Well what would you expect after a successful subverting of justice, what you looking at now is dictatorship, when an african leader states the judiciary has declared war on the ANC, goes to show the same sick twistedness of Mugabe.
Zuma seems to forget a mauritius court also found against him, so his attack on the judiciary is baseless. Looks like AFRICA sufferes from short term memory loss.
I like how the attack come so quickly after all the parties laid criminal charges esp on Hulley and the review of the NPA, sounds like Mr Zuma is alittle scared of the the court over ruling the NPA.
Zulu dictator
PdV
More bull shit trying to distract the attention from the real issues. PdV has shown on few occasions that to him the constitution is nothing but a political play thing that he abuses at will in his demented vendetta agains the ANC.
If Dikgang Moseneke had made public party political statements about the DA or any other opposition party he would be up in arms squealing all day and night about how that compromised the independence of the judiciary.
Oh – and I agree with Zuma : the CC judges should not be likened to “God”. Again we have to sets of rules : one for PdV and the lunatic anti-Zuma mob and one for JZ and the ANC.
Ozoneblue, hurling insults really does not take us forward. And setting up straw men really does not help either. If Moseneke had said: “It is not what Zille wants or Homoisa wants, its what the constitution and the law requires, and Zille and Holomisa had gone all weird and attacked him, saying he had declared war on the DA and the UDM, I would have defended the deputy Chief Justice just as much as I am doing now. This is NOT a party political statement, please! It is a description of what judges do. See S v Makwanyane (1995) where President Chaskalson (as he then was) said that public opinion cannot dictate to the Constitutional Court how it should rule in a particular case. This means even if 99% of people voted for the ANC and it then passed a law that was in contravention of the Constitution the CC judges had a duty to declare that law invalid. But the ANC did not complain then, perhaps because that case dealt with the death penalty and the memory of how the apartheid state used the death penalty for political purposes was still fresh in the memory? Why is it complaining now? Because Zuma is thought to be God? Because they do not want a constitutional democracy? If, on the other hand, you believe that judges must follow the view of the ANC and the majority every time, well that is cool. But then you will have to live with the consequences. Let us start with instituting a law making rape of a spouse legal. Then we can proceed with a law banning the DA and Cope. Then we can pass a law banning Zapiro. Then we can pass a law declaring Zuma President for life. Then we can all emigrate to North Korea. . .
oh pierre and forgot making spying by private citizens on John joe’s legal and the NIA should give public access to all documents to everyone about everyone……….hell lets make the right to privacy illegal
hear hear prof…. thank you for blasting the idiocy of Ozone.
I don’t mind anybody defending the rights of Zuma. But when one has the fanatical “with us or against us” arguments, it time to become a tad more aggressive with the idiots. Its the language they understand best.
In any case Ozone, we cannot argue about this as if we are fans of football clubs. we are not arguing about which team is better. We are debating principles of our constitution. I think it slightly more important than who is a fan of whom.
Pierre De Vos @ 9:01 am
“This is NOT a party political statement, please! ”
“An ANC spokesman earlier told Sapa the comments referred to were published in the Sunday Times’ coverage of Moseneke’s 60th birthday celebrations.
In this report, Moseneke said: “I chose this job very carefully. I have another 10 to 12 years on the bench and I want to use my energy to help create an equal society. It’s not what the ANC wants or what the delegates want; it is about what is good for our people.”"
http://www.polity.org.za/article/moseneke-to-issue-statement-on-anc-comments-2008-01-15
So the ANC doesn’t want to create and equal society ? Really – did the judge have any evidence to back that up? Why attack the one political party who have given us a democracy, a constitution and who have been at the forefront of the struggle for an equal society. Is it appropiate for CC judges to flaunt their political preferences and attack other political parties in public – what about the DA ? do they “want an equal society”, or the Freedom Front or perhaps Pierre De Vos ?
In my opinion that is totally unacceptable. Moseneke did more to undermine the independence of the judiciary than the ANC and the Apartheid government put together did for the past 100 years. The incompetent bastard should have been fired a long time ago.
Who does PdV, our “constitutional expert” react – he wriggles and contorts like a slippery seal and spins it this way and that way so that the hated and evil ANC are seen the bad guys once again.
Ozzhole
“hated and evil ANC are seen the bad guys once again.”
Lol your really need to think before you talk…….how many ANC members in the top list have criminal records? excuse the rest of south africans who seem to just want legit people to run the country is that so much to ask for?
“The incompetent bastard should have been fired a long time ago.”
lmoa so i take it the black transformation of the judiciary isnt working out for you then and the ANC?
Ozoneblue, the ANC did not “give” us democracy. That statement is a very dangerous and deeply problematic one. Many people – including those in the ANC – fought for democracy. Nobody gave it to us the people. We fought for it and took it. To say the ANC gave this to us is to elevate the ANC above the people. But while some ANC members were sipping whiskey in exile, many South Africans in the UDF, Azapo, PAC and the rest of the Mass Democratic Movement protested and fought and brought the NP government to the negotiating table. The ANC was one player, yes, a big player, maybe, but it did not give us poor, passive, helpless citizens democracy. We are people who are proud and strong and we are not passive receivers of freedom. We took that freedom by fighting for it. Your statement reveals a disgust and contempt for the people of South Africa who suffered and fought for freedom. Maybe on reflection you would want to rephrase that statement?
I made exactly the same point 2 blogs ago, but The Ozone didn’t bother responding. Party political my ass. Go retype what he said and insert DA for ANC. Whats the problem? Nothing, its only a problem because the CC and its judges don’t support the ANC’s twisted and self serving notion of what democracy means. Obvioulsy Mr O went to dig out what Moseneke said in order to try and bolster his 1/2 eyed point of view. Sorry dude, you lose.
PS I liked the Mand G’s alternative version of Mpshe’s grand sell out speech and the Nkandla Mafia piece by Sam Sole. The more thinge change, the more they stay the same…
Pierre De Vos // Apr 11, 2009 at 9:45 am
Nice – side step the point again and play word games. No comment from a “constitutional expert” yet on CC judges making party political statements on public platforms. Not a single blog entry yet about Bulelani Ngcuka running the NPA even three years after he retired – no rather shoot the messenger.
You are pathetic PdV and – oh yeah I’m still waiting for the link to the NPA “prosecution policy” . You know if you want to attack the constitution and the judiciary with neurotic alarmist propaganda like you did on SABC or want to make absurd statements like the NPA is now “breaking the law” – it is a good thing if you can back that up with some hard evidence.
Pierre De Vos // Apr 11, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Ozoneblue, the ANC did not “give” us democracy. That statement is a very dangerous and deeply problematic one. ”
Bullshit – if it wan’t for the ANC you would still have found yourself being subjected to public ridicule regarding your sexual preferences and you would have been incarcerated under the “immorality act”.
Zuma is not a fool. He knows that bringing the courts under the control of the executive is extremely important for his leadership. He has to buy off all the crooks who support him, corporate crooks included, with immense amounts of public money. Therefore the courts must be prevented from taking action. Therefore, the plans to collapse the Constitutional Court and the SCA together, floated by Zuma and company around the time of Polokwane, and thus make the apex of the judicial system more easily controlled, make perfect sense in this context.
Mr. De Vos, please do not be more foolish than you can help. Do you genuinely believe that the new leadership of the ANC view separation of powers as anything other than an obstacle to their private enrichment?
What we are looking forward to is Gleichschaltung; we don’t even need a Reichstag fire.
Prof, you really have a nerve, dont you? Arent you the one who accused the courts of not being, wait um…um… BRAVE ENOUGH, on air nogal?
Spuy @ 1:30 pm
“Prof, you really have a nerve, dont you”
LOL. And to thinks he can get away with it without anybody noticing, I think the prof must have balls the size of coconuts.
We already knew that Zuma intended to engage judges. That’s why the er.. honourable Judge Hlope is in the pickle at the moment.
ozoneblue,
Moseneke was NOT making a party political statement as such – he was addressing the incumbent (who happnened to be the ANC). He was also making a statement of principle, and not jus slagging them off.
What I have seen is the shrill tone anyone associated witht he ANC has when there is criticism. Think about the “body language”, and the “emotional intelligence”.
The ANC would do far better to take things int heir stride. Like the Tutu criticism: The ANC could simply have said thay they respected and honoured the Archbiship, but that in this instance they respectfully disagreed with his assessment.
Is it not ironic, however, that after an ANC statement that accused Tutu of “blasphemy” (an incorrect usage of the word in the given context), Mr Zuma could then borrow the exact language and logic to try and use against the Constitutional Court judges.
Anyone with half a brain can understand that what Mosenke was saying is that the CC is not beholden to any political party.
He mentioned the ANC because they are the incumbent political party in power, controlling the nationa;, provincial and most municipal legislatures. Come now let’s at least pretend to have passed HG English Comprehension.
ozoneblue @ 9.23
I see now why ozoneblue is having such a difficult time following the prof’s arguments. His problem is clearly that he can’t undestand straightforward English. He quotes Moseneke:
“I chose this job very carefully. I have another 10 to 12 years on the bench and I want to use my energy to help create an equal society. It’s not what the ANC wants or what the delegates want; it is about what is good for our people.”
The crucial thing, ozoneblue, is to understand that ‘it’ in the final sentence does not refer back to ‘equal society’ – as in ‘An equal society is not what the ANC want’; we’d all (including the prof I’m sure) agree with you if that is what Moseneke meant. No, ‘it’ is referring forward to ‘what the ANC wants’ and ‘what the delegates want’. This is absolutely clear if you read the whole sentence (context, ozone, is critical; please try not to quote out of context or to read selectively to suit your argument): Moseneke goes on to say ‘ it is about what is good for our people’. It’s a carefully constructed sentence: ‘it’s not …; it is …’.
He is not suggesting for a moment that the ANC is wrong or against equality or anything else. He is talking about the judiciary being free from any influence by anyone at all. For ‘ANC’ read ‘state’ or ‘government’ or ‘parliament’ or ‘fat cats’ or ‘China’ or what you will. Moseneke is making a simple and honest point: that, as a judge of the CC, he is there to interpret the law in terms of the Constitution without fear, etc.
But, don’t worry, ozone, you are not alone in your ignorance. None other than the august ANC YL seem to think that Moseneke ‘raised questions about the independence and objectivity of the judiciary’. And just after they seemed to be getting it so right: ‘Judges must be above reproach and must refuse manipulation even if it’s a perception’. Exactly what Moseneke was saying.
Just to make his statement absolutely clear in baby language:
I want to help to make an equal society.
As a judge it is my duty to do what is good for our people.
In making my judgements I will not allow anyone else to influence me. No matter who they are.
Of course there is another element to ozone’s difficulties – his failing eyesight. As the saying goes, ‘none so blind as they who will not see’. Ozone and Spuy and their buddies don’t WANT to see, so they cannot see what is staring them straight in the face: Zuma neither understands nor wants a constitutional democracy and will dismantle it step by step, setting up a dictatorship in its place.
I wonder if it worth anybody’s while to engage ozoneblue. He is an idiot, plain and simple.
Sarah Palin // Apr 11, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Fair enough. I agree that Moseneke may have been misunderstood. So we have to be careful when we jump to conclusions on exactly what we are saying to each other – especially when it is based on unverified media reports where the context of the quotation is not always clear. The same goes for Zuma allegedly wanting to “engage” the CC court or his highly controversial comments about Afrikaners being the “only true white South Africans” .
Sarah Palin // Apr 11, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“Zuma neither understands nor wants a constitutional democracy and will dismantle it step by step, setting up a dictatorship in its place.”
And that is exactly why most of these debates detoriorate into name calling and personal attacks. That is total conjecture, political fear mongering of the worse kind . That is also why I take issue with “constitutional experts” like PdV making statements like he did to the media. At best he is stooping to the same level than his hot-headed counterparts in the ANC. At worse he is showing us all in a rather cynical way that he is a wolf in sheep clothing and that the constitution is nothing to hi but a political play thing.
ozoneblue // Apr 12, 2009 at 10:20 am
is everything a conspiracy to you? I suppose easter is to?
Now if your agreeing that Moseneke may have been misunderstood then I think you owe everyone an apology esp hitting out on someone about there sexual preference is rather cheap.
You need to stop being so irrational
Ozoneblue, I challenge you to point to any statement I have made that was not based on fact (or the very least) my interpretation of the facts and the law. I know we are not used in South Africa to people speaking Truth to Power, what with the Nationalists who banned everything in site and the ANC who completely overreacts every time every one does not agree with it. All I can do is as honestly and as fairly as possible call the law as I see it. Given the fact that the ANC is the party serving in government for the moment, this would obviously mean that I would often have to point out what I see as abuse of power or of illegality. This does not make me a bad person or a counter-revolutionary or whatever the fashionable phrase is these days to try and shut people up (or send signals to underlings to “punish” people) who point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes. The fact that you think it does, says more about your lack of commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and constitutionalism, than it says about me, my integrity or honesty. Unlike you I am prepared to subject my views to self-criticism and criticism by others and to change my views when I come to the conclusion that I was wrong. I am not emotionally invested in Zuma, Ngcuka, Mbeki, Zille, Holomisa etc. They are all politicians and worthy of scrutiny and – often – criticism. There are only really two things I believe in: the constitution and having (responsible) fun. Life is too short to become a disciple of someone or something else, it seems to me. I lived at a time and as part of a community who hero-worshipped Vorster and Botha, for God sake. I will NEVER fall for that trick again.
Pierre De Vos @ 10:52 am
“Ozoneblue, I challenge you to point to any statement I have made that was not based on fact (or the very least) my interpretation of the facts and the law.”
That would be hard to tell since I have asked you four times now to please send us a link to the NPA “prosecuting policy” you are referring to – or since you you have a documents upload section on your blog to upload some material to substantiate your claims that the NPA is now “breaking the law”.
I think that you would concede that transparency and access to basic information is part of a democratic compensation. Please Pierre – just for the benefit of us plebs.
Its a bit difficult, onzoneblue, to debate with someone who seems not to want to read. I have refered you to the Blog post where i cut and pasted the policy. But to make it easy: click HERE. Or if you want the whole policy, click HERE. Really, don’t have better tings to do than help lazy people find the bloody blindingly obvious!
I sense JZ’s remarks as exposing their { the current ruling faction’s } unease with the CC judges appointed by Mbeki. Minions appointed by a previous ruling faction and thus not “loyal”.
So a new dawn arises for the CC.
One encouraging aspect: The CJ position most certainly won’t be handed to an ex PAC deputy leader!
Pierre, the notion that the constitution is supreme, is a fallacy. We are a free people. Parliament is supreme in SA. The constitution can be amended by the democratically elected representetives of the people. Moseneke was wrong. It is about what the people want, not what unelected judges deem “is good for our people”. If he wants to govern SA, he should return to politics. Zuma would be derelict in his duty as president if he does not make sure that judges do not use the bench to further their political beliefs. We are electing him to run the country, not Moseneke.
You’ll need more than fancy links containing words with two or sometimes three syllables. You’ll need a few pictures to turn this around from constipationally speaking to constitutionally speaking.
JJ, you are spectacularly wrong and uninformed. The Constitution explicitly states it is the supreme law and that any action or law that contravenes the Constitution can be declared invalid by a court. It is called a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. There are other types of democracy where the majority can decide to infringe on the rights of others, but that is not the kind of democracy established by our Constitution. That is also why it more difficult to change the Constitution (requires 66% and 75 for the founding sections). If the ANC gets 66% and they do not like this they can of course change the Constitution. Until then, it is supreme.
jj @ 3:02 am
“It is about what the people want, not what unelected judges deem “is good for our people”.”
You should realize that those judges are indeed like God. To hell with a democracy – what we have here is a bizarre sort of secular fundamentalism where the constitutional judges are God “knowing what is good for the people” and the high priests are the lawyers and the “constitutional experts” explaining to us how we should think and feel about that.
Ozoneblue,
so I guess Zuma knows what’s best for the country…
The CC judges must interpret the Constitution and apply its principles and precepts – that’s their job, and if that makes them God, so be it, but it’s still the job they have. That’s why there are so many of them on the bench – it’s the highest court of the land, and there cannot be any mistakes made. Judges may not apply personal opinion, bias or favouritism in applying the law, they may only apply facts to the legal framework available and rule according to that.
Ozone talks about side-tracking the issues, which is ironic, because I haven’t really heard him comment on whether or not he believes JZ was correct in threatening the judiciary (because that’s what it was – a threat).
Perhaps we could hear your thoughts on this, Ozone, Spuy? Think it’s a good thing for our future president to threaten interference with the judiciary?
Big Slipper:
To hear their thoughts is almost asking as much as hearing their definition of democracy. Forget about the constitution, a show of hands will do for all verdicts.
Sarah Palin // Apr 11, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Fair enough. I agree that Moseneke may have been misunderstood. So we have to be careful when we jump to conclusions on exactly what we are saying to each other – especially when it is based on unverified media reports where the context of the quotation is not always clear. The same goes for Zuma allegedly wanting to “engage” the CC court or his highly controversial comments about Afrikaners being the “only true white South Africans” .
Wow what a climb down after how many people pointed out the error of your interpretation. Then again your great leader calls what Moseneke said “War” so where does that leave you?
Pierre,
The current ANC majority is 70% & they have not fundamentally changed the constitution. The fear mongering is misplaced. The constitutional democracy you seem to want to protect has actually been protected- by the ANC. On your assertion that the Constitution is supreme, as I have stated before, that is a fallacy. The courts do not have the power to stop a constitutional amendment. Only Parliament can do so.
I probably am entering this debate a little too late. Nevertheless, I think the points made on the statements by Judge Moseneke are quite correct, especially on the context. In this regard to interpret the Judge’s statements as an attack on the ANC is out of context, but rather the judge was only trying to show that the judiciary tries to make decisions based on the Constitution and the law. Very good.
But there is one worrying aspect. Liberal creepism. In other words the liberal idea of objective and independence creeps in all sorts of ways. This is also true for Prof de Vos, in his public statements. The idea that to be truly independent and and objective is to disagree and make a decision against the government. It is liberal creepism because it regards government and its legislative arms as necessary evils, and on the contrary the market as perfect. So to be objective, to be fearless, to be courageous, to be fair, and to be independent, just disagree with the government.
In our country this is far more dangerous than in the US or Europe. We have an economic legacy and inherited poverty that is entrenched within the system. The only access to power the poor have is government and its legislatures (read the political sphere). By denigrating this sphere is therefore to slow down transformation.
Thus as much I understand the views and the context of the judge, one does think he should have said that the judiciary, and himself in particular will remain objective at all times, regardless of who shall choose to attempt to influence him, the private or political spheres. His statements only read as an underhanded attack on the political sphere and his liberal (conservative) hue.
jj – “The current ANC majority is 70% & they have not fundamentally changed the constitution. ”
That is if you leave out of the reckoning the constitutional changes bulldozed through parliament on the change of Provincial boundaries to do some gerrymandering before the previous municipal elections – to the great dismay of many people and, now, anticipating the loss of their vote, the “new” ANC promises to change the boundaries right back – which will again require a constitutional change.
Donovan @ 2:17 pm
Excellent post.
“The idea that to be truly independent and and objective is to disagree and make a decision against the government. It is liberal creepism because it regards government and its legislative arms as necessary evils, and on the contrary the market as perfect. So to be objective, to be fearless, to be courageous, to be fair, and to be independent, just disagree with the government.”
That is now besides for the Scorpions and the NPA as long as they were conducting the witch hunt against Zuma. Although the NPA/Scorpions are also state organs they always been romanticized by the likes of PdV as some kind of “independent” hit squad fighting for the people against the evil government.
No. To be truly independent one has to be, well, independent. Problem ís, for some in ANC any criticím of it, no matter how valid, is akin to treason.