Members of the ANC caucus are a forgiving bunch. Yesterday the caucus issued a statement in support of fellow MP, Nyami Booi, who earlier this week was convicted of stealing money from Parliament. The caucus stated – correctly – that the Constitution does not prohibit a criminal like Booi from serving as an MP. One is only prohibited from serving as an MP if convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment without the option of paying a fine.
I have re-read the Constitution and to my shock discovered that the Constitution is silent on many things, which – on the ANC caucus logic – allows for a lot of ethical leeway in public life. It does not prohibit an avowed white supremacists from being appointed Chief Justice, nor does it prohibit Wouter Basson from being appointed South African Ambassador to the United Nations. Neither does the Constitution prohibit the appointment of a wife beater to head the Commission for Gender Equality or a child rapist from being appointed headmaster of a primary school frequented by MP’s children.
If the ANC caucus were to be consistent and were to followed its own logic, it would therefore wholeheartedly support all of the above appointments. After all, a commitment to ethics, logic and common sense does not come into it. As long as something is not prohibited by the Constitution it must be worthy of support. And as neither the Constitution nor other legislation criminalises racial discrimination, one would have to assume that the caucus would also support any MP found to have discriminated against anyone else or to have uttered despicably racist sentiments.
I happen to have a different view. It seems to me that political parties have an ethical duty to take a principled stand against corruption and should fire any criminal who had been convicted of stealing from Parliament. Let me quote from something I wrote previously to demonstrate my point:
Corruption in the public sector means theft of resources that belong to the people. In the private sector, it deprives the economy of resources that would be used to increase the national wealth, and thus create the means to meet the needs of the people. Corruption takes many forms: abuse of power; manipulation and misrepresentation of facts; opportunistic theft of government resources; planned theft of government resources; tender manipulation; bribery; dereliction of duty; any action for illegitimate and illegal gain or profiteering.
Corruption in the public and private sectors therefore directly undermines the critically important national effort to defeat poverty and underdevelopment, and thus ensure sustained progress towards the achievement of the goal of a better life for all. It entrenches poverty and by diverting key resources away from programmes designed to improve the quality of life especially of the poor, it negates the potential for development. Accordingly, corruption benefits the few, and harms the majority.
Public servants and political office bearers have a responsibility to lead by example. None of the objectives of development can be attained if the state of corruption is high in the public and private sectors, and is condoned by and/or rampant in society as a whole. Laxity in executing public service duties constitutes corruption. Most of the public servants employed in government today are not from the apartheid era, but were engaged during the democratic dispensation. Apartheid cannot be blamed every time we fail to discharge our responsibilities or get involved in corruption.
As a society we must resist the worshipping of the value-system that deifies individualism and the material possession as the pinnacle of human success. Only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity, can we succeed to defeat and eradicate the value system that justify naked selfishness represented by acts of corruption.
We need politician and civil servants who share the vision of our government and people; and who can manage the inherent conflict of interest between personal and public interest. In this way, we will succeed to create a harmonious relationship between the private and public interest, and treat these two as not mutually exclusive.
We all have a role to play in this war against crime and corruption. We must actively participate in Community Policing Forums. We must stop buying stolen goods, which encourages crime. We must report crime and assist the police with information to catch wrongdoers. In this way, we will move forward towards a crime-free society combating corruption.
The ANC as an organisation must place the elimination of corruption high on its agenda by ensuring that: branches and members are educated on the various forms of corruption and the necessity for its eradication; a nationwide anti-corruption campaign is initiated and mechanisms developed to build a link between state intervention on corruption, and our movement’s own initiatives and responses to the matter; every ANC cadre must be offended by acts of corruption and prompt disciplinary action must be taken against any member, regardless of office, who is guilty of any corrupt practice.
We cannot continue to allow our new democratic state to be indistinguishable from the previous such that national democracy would seem pretty much like apartheid and thus be equally doomed. To succeed in combating corruption, it is not enough that people should fear the law and punishment; they must also be ethical and possess the ethos that makes corruption fail to thrive.
We must inculcate a culture of hard-work in society as a whole; and the leadership must lead by example. At the same time, we must strive to achieve a balance and harmony between both material and spiritual needs. There is need for united action by all stakeholders such as political leaders, business leaders, civil society, public intellectuals and academics, and others, to expose the root causes of and combat corruption. We must implant in society as a whole the values of integrity, hard-work and respect for public resources and the common good.
Dear reader, I apologise for deceiving you. I did not write the above. It is in fact a (slightly edited) version of an article which appeared in ANC Today on 5 June 2009. But the piece admirably sets out the ANC policy on corruption and if we were to take it seriously we would demand that the ANC immediately repudiates its caucus and demands that Booi – and any other Travelgate criminals – resign from Parliament.
It is time for the ANC not only to talk the talk but also to walk the walk. It must fire the criminal MPs representing the ANC in Parliament forthwith. If it does not and offers the excuse that the Constitution does not demand it take action against MPs who steal from Parliament, I for one would find it rather difficult to believe anything the party says on this topic in future. It would also be difficult not to conclude that the ANC has no understanding of ethics and that it supports corruption and criminality by its own members.
It would be a sad day indeed in the history of the ANC.
Well it is a sad day, and its been sad days for far too long. What is the way forward when we who care are virtually powerless. You’ve reported the ANC car salesman view as follows:
“We all have a role to play in this war against crime and corruption. We must actively participate in Community Policing Forums. We must stop buying stolen goods, which encourages crime. We must report crime and assist the police with information to catch wrongdoers. In this way, we will move forward towards a crime-free society combating corruption.”
For some reason, stealing from the public en masse, doesn’t equate with home invasions, hyjackings, murder and robbery. Perhaps the brain tissue just isn’t there.
There has to be a way, non violent, effective. What is it? This is not a matter of hindsite. We must have foresite, lose our apathy, our feelings of hopelessness, something, there must be something. Enough is enough.
Otherwise, like Lao Tzu, we simply retire and allow the world to be.
Prof,
the ANC fire Booi?
don’t hold your breath. ANC = inept government. ANC = corruption. ANC = nepotism.
i can go on and on and on and on….
All that “ethics” stuff is for other people. General society. You know, the general citizens who are the puppets of the party.
The ANC ethics committee room had to make way for the expanded propoganda department and now meets in the broom cupboard at the end of the hall. We would apologise for the inconvenience, but the propoganda department recommends that all complaints should be studiously ignored and we should all carry on about our business as if nothing happened.
A pinch of salt is required given that the ANC president clearly took bribes and then managed to dodge prosecution. A fish rots from the head and all that…..
However, as Ken Owen says, a bunch of white racists whining about corruption is not going to help. Only our black compatriats can save the country from this cancer, and there are currently very few (Rampele, Tutu …?) with the courage to withstand the demonisation that rains down from above. Aluta!
Sad day indeed Prof. Excellent posting.
To Peter.
Ramphele, Tutu, Asmal, Ginwala and others are way below what is required of a black compatriots. Their timing and selection of issues leaves much to be desired. We need to carefully choose genuine black voices who are prepared to risk their lives, livelihoods, careers and not conveniently speak after their terms in office. They must also stand up and be accountable for institutions that they led during this dismal performance of our country. Their actions have done more harm than the gain that can come from their convenient noise.
Yes they gave us a good service in the past but they wobbled when we needed them most.
Gwebecimele says:
September 30, 2009 at 11:47 am
“We need to carefully choose genuine black voices who are prepared to risk their lives, livelihoods, careers and not conveniently speak after their terms in office”.
Carefully chosen Black voices who are prepared to risk their lives to appease those who are too scared to open their mouths lest they be called racists?
Read this http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20090930042143942C993210.
Don’t get too excited – it’s a lot of hot air!
@ Maggs
Precisely my point, where was Mdladlane all this time. Can he also apologised for failing to implement AA and EE or will start making noise half way through his retirement. He is former president of SADTU has been a cabinet minister for donkey years and what is there to show for it.
I agree with you there is a lot of hot air around us.
Gwebecimele says:
September 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Two things annoy me, in addition to the blatant in-your-face insincerity that is.
One is that they are only pulling their fingers out their ears because the ANC lost the WC, not because it’s the right thing to do.
Two is that it’s unlikely that anyone who is guilty of wrongdoing will be made to pay the price, except some soft target, dispose-after-single-use types.
Peter and Gwebecimele are right.
Kriegler and other racists must shut up. So must “Madam” Zille.
Come to think of it, all whites must just shut up.
As Gwebecimele points out, Ramphele, Tutu etc must also be quiet. They have been very pally with the white racists.
And the “black leadership” of the CC have shown themselves to be “House Negroes.”
So whom can we trust?
Malema, Hlophe and Motata, that’s who!
Actually we’d all be better off if Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder just shut up.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder appears to think that Kriegler, Zille, Ramphele, Tutu and the “House Negroes” from the Constitutional Court all became emotionally attached to their captors (oppressors) and therefore suffered Stockholm syndrome?
I see Mdladlana described what the ANC needed to do, and used words like “council of war” and “pronged battle plan”. That seems to be one of the biggest problems within the ANC, their total inability to realise that a ruling party is not in engaged a war with the opposition in Parliament and everyone who didn’t vote for them in the last election. To reprimand Booi would, in their minds, be to admit that they have lost a battle.
At least the SCA has the right idea:
Hamilton Ntshangase, a former director in the provincial Arts and Culture Department, found guilty of misusing R1.2m of public funds more than six years ago, lost his final legal battle to hang on to his job, says a report in The Mercury. Although he was appointed municipal manager with the uMvoti (Greytown) Municipality last year, Ntshangase continued with his case in the SCA against the MECs for Finance and Education, saying they had acted incorrectly in dismissing him. The dispute dates back to 2000, when Ntshangase was suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary inquiry into misconduct allegations. While finding him guilty of 12 charges, the inquiry chairperson Wentworth Dorkin gave him a final written warning and he was re-instated in 2003. The report says the responsible MEC at the time deemed this to be a ‘slap on the wrist’ and took the matter, unsuccessfully, to the Durban Labour Court and then to the Labour Court of Appeal, which overturned Dorkin’s sanction and ordered that Ntshangase be immediately dismissed. The SCA’s Acting Judge Ronnie Bosielo said he agreed with the Labour Court’s conclusion that Dorkin’s decision was not just unreasonable but was, without doubt, grossly unreasonable.
Pierre De Vos says:
September 30, 2009 at 16:56 pm
And a teeny, tiny bit of credit for the MEC for following this through to the SCA.
Unless you don’t like the ANC that is
.
I wonder what possessed the ANC to employ this guy as municipal manager.
This is the kind of stuff that fairy tales are made of…if we were in Japan, Booi would have committed suicide by now for staining his honour and the honour of the country. If we were in America he would have been summarily dismissed from his position, and prohibited from occupying any significant fiduciary position in the future – his political career would be over. If we were in Britain, the same thing would have happened.
However, we are in South Africa, where Boy meets Power, Boy abuses power and enriches himself at the taxpayer’s expense, boy gets found guilty in a court of law, boy gets a pat on the back from the ANC is the love story of the day. I also enjoy the way the man only has to pay his fine off in R1,000 increments until 2014.
What a massive deterrent to commit fraud and theft!
Very interesting, this matter of Hamilton Ntshangase. I read Bosielo’s judgement, and it is a fine judgement in my opinion but …
Mr. Ntshangase was a public servant, not a politician. Does anyone know where his political allegiance law? Was he perhaps a public servant who was appointed/promoted when the IFP was still controlling KZN? I don’t know the answers, but I am rather curious to know. Whatever the answers, I’m not convinced that the MEC would have acted in the same manner had the dear Mr Hamilton Ntshangase been a parliamentarian (for the ANC).
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder: Is your irony getting the payback, awareness?
Sirjay, irony is in the eye of the beholder. The only “payback” I seek is the overcoming of white liberal racism, the denunciation of the liberals’ House Negro allies, and the appointment of Mr Malema to a commission of enquiry to get to the bottom of the Caster Semenya fiasco.
Good that I’ve been around for a while Mikhail: Good on ya. I’m just trying man to decide on strategy… the goal is….???
Chris says:
September 30, 2009 at 18:51 pm
Whatever the answers, I’m not convinced that the MEC would have acted in the same manner had the dear Mr Hamilton Ntshangase been a parliamentarian (for the ANC).
———————————————————————————————————
I too am willing to bet that he is not ANC aligned.
Far too disposable.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 30, 2009 at 20:08 pm
F-O-M going too slowly then.
Keep up the spirits, something is bound to steer in your direction soon!
The topic of the ANC and corruption is deeply depressing. There seems to be a sense of entitlement to power and State resources in the ANC (granted a generalisation but not overly so) and Julius Malema is the current poster child for this mindset. I contrast this with Barack Obama’s constant references to the responsibility he bears as President and it places our so-called leadership’s approach to their positions in perspective.
Trends in our judiciary are even worse. Granted they are hardly representative of the entire judiciary but judges like Hlope and Motata are doing irreparable harm to the judiciary with their antics and bolstering the corruption in other spheres of our government.
I keep hoping these are growing pains but we are 14 years down the line and the degree of corruption seems to be accelerating. The fact that we have the “leadership” we have is indicative of how much lip service the ANC pays to its stated goals of attacking corruption and how permissive it is of such misconduct.
Cry the beloved country, indeed.
Crime does not pay and people must unite for the good of our country.
@Zwakala:
So which is it to be? Crime must not pay (i.e. Booi should get his walking papers), or we must unite for the good of the country and forgive corrupt officials and politicians, for they know not what they do?
Its an even sadder day because the ANC is now sanctioning – or some evidence suggests actively organising – militia mobs to go and destroy mass social movements. See the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8gQv19cD4Y
See statements about the ANC’s involvement in the attacks here:
http://www.abahlali.org
Please help the residents of Kennedy Road where you can
Google is indeed a wonderful tool. It took me less than 2 minutes to find out that Hamilton Ntshangase’s was indeed an IFP member.
Zwakala – Amen!
Zwakala & Peter
Crime does pay in South Africa. In volume four (I think cause it is the white covered book not the greenish one) of his book, Criminal Law, CR Snyman argues that it pays to be a criminal in South Africa. He says that one may follow a criminal career without ever being brought to book. It was way before the Zuma, Nyami Booi, etc. sagas when he wrote and published that book (2004?).
@Zwakala
Not all crimes by all people at all the times doesn’t pay in SA. Some crimeS by some people at some times do pay in SA. Payments range from presidency of the republic, minister, mec to government tenders; illegal parole, JSC accquital, cover-up of one’s punishable illegal and criminal deeds and other government related financial favours. This is more possible if you belong to the right liberation movement and also to the right faction that talks good and relevant things nicely and does exactly the opposite and very well.
Zwakala – In answer to your assertion that crime does not pay in SA, a few words from Bob Dylan:
“Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time,
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time.
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours.”
I said that.”
Of course crime pays: according to Unisa criminologist, Rudolf Zinn, hijackers and house robbers commit “an average of 105 offences before they are caught for the first time”.
@Jared, I blogged your video…
I will say it again, as soon as any of these ANC bastards no longer have to struggle, they stops caring about the poor.
The Big Slipper says:
September 30, 2009 at 18:37 pm
This is the kind of stuff that fairy tales are made of…if we were in Japan, Booi would have committed suicide by now for staining his honour and the honour of the country. If we were in America he would have been summarily dismissed from his position, and prohibited from occupying any significant fiduciary position in the future – his political career would be over. If we were in Britain, the same thing would have happened.
———————————————————————————————————-
Japan, USA and Britain are inappropriate examples. I pasted some links showing that they are not materially different to us but my comment “walked the walk”.
Rather rely, as Michael pointed out elsewhere, on Scandinavian countries. http://www.transparency.org/
Maggs I refer to those countries because, even though they are not perfect (which I never stated), there have been several events where there was a markedly different response to what we have in SA.
In the USA, when Rod Blagovich was caught trying to auction off his public seat to the highest bidder, he was caught in a storm of demand for him to step down. He refused, and it got to the point where Obama himself said he hoped the man would do what was right and go. They’re both democrats.
I haven’t seen JZ saying he hopes Booi will go – he can’t because he’s not exactly as clean as a whistle himself, is he? Therein lies the problem…I can’t tell you to go if I’ve done exactly what you have…
In Britain, MPs’ expense claims were recently made public, revealing widespread dodgy practices. Most of them were actually, techincally, within the rules – but ethically the public was outraged. Things like MPs declaring their childrens’ apartments as their primary residences so they could get a second housing allowance on the residences they actually used. The outcry was huge – Gordon Brown himself stated that people would be held to account. MPs resigned en masse, even the Speaker of the House of Commons, over things that were techincally legal and/or trivial in some cases.
In Japan, when the financial crisis hit – a crisis that started in America, not Japan, a crisis that hurt everybody equally, a crisis that was started through private business, not government dealings – when the crisis hit Japan and the banks were starting to get bailed out, the finance minister simply resigned. He didn’t actually do anything wrong at all, it was more pure bad luck that he happened to be the finance minister at the wrong time, but he said it was his responsibility and if he couldn’t protect Japan from the crisis and hadn’t anticipated it then he was not doing his job.
Compare that to our lazy, fat, self-indulgent wa-benzi driving blue-light brigade government and civil service.
But I agree with you – the Scandinavian countries are also good examples. Didn’t the entire Finnish government just about resign after the financial crisis for not doing more to prevent it?
The Big Slipper says:
October 1, 2009 at 18:33 pm
Without labouring the point search the web for corruption in those countries. It makes what we experience seems like small change – yet they have developed through centuries, while we are not even two decades old.
I often argue that corruption follows power – however, it’s mind boggling that the ANC allows some people within its higher structures that are less than savoury.
It is the most powerful political organisation in South Africa, possibly the whole of Africa, maybe in all of the developing world.
It has within its ranks some of the most formidable people anywhere in the world – yet it sometimes appears that it is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to selecting its cadres, something that I struggle to understand.
It’s even more worrying that the many good people within the ANC are silent – hopefully in time this will change.
We have to pay tribute to the people of Rwanda who, often at great personal cost, have dedicated and committed themselves to rebuilding their country – it will be great if we take a leaf from their book.
It seems there is some hope after all.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/onkgopotsejjtabane/2009/10/01/is-nomvula-mokonyane-a-lone-ranger-against-corruption/
Maggs, you rightly say that the good people within the ANC should speak out. And maybe they will.
But should not good, thoughful people, whether within the ANC or not, also consider not actually voting for the ANC?
This is a truly revolutionary notion for many, many South Africans for whom the ANC is much more than just another political organisation.
But I am convinced that it is only when the party grasps that it may actually lose at the polls nationally (not just in a single white racist sub-republic), that it will change its ways.
Instead, many people — including yourself, I take it — still view the ANC as the only game in town. The one and only source of change MUST come from within the party itself, you suggest.
But so long as the party is assured of predictable victory at the polls, genuine change will come only when a system of true inter-party competition is established.
History teaches that even a party founded by heroes and saints will sink into a mire of corruption if it stays in power for more than a decade or so. (See e.g. Mexico’s PRI, India’s Congress and Japan’s LD.)
Michael says:
October 1, 2009 at 20:48 pm
It’s still early days for the current leadership – time will tell if they will be able to turn this ship around.
As I said previously, 2012 is going to be telling. I suspect that the political landscape will change.
Maggs, I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong.
And the ANC will win handily again in 2012, no matter how corrupt and inept it is in the meantime.
Consider:
1. Americans voted AGAIN for Bush in 2004.
2. Mexico’s PRI stayed in power for six decades.
Do you really think South African voters are any less stupid?
Michael says:
October 1, 2009 at 22:29 pm
Americans may have voted twice for Bush, but consider that Mbeki and his motley crew’s attempt to continue to lead the ANC and through that, our country, was brought to an abrupt end. That’s already a clear and strong indication that dictatorships, Presidents for life, power mongers and the like have the unwelcome sign thrust in their faces. So in that sense we have done better than the Americans although they have several centuries of democratic experience ahead of us.
I think voters are far from stupid, rather they are far wiser than given credit for. That they do not vote the way some would like, does not make them so.
The choice between having the festering corruption or turning our country back into a “white racist republic” is really no choice. It’s probably easier to stop corruption than to reduce the structural and systemic impact of that latter.
Be that as it may, in the past year or so I have been engaging with people randomly across the country and the sense I get is that while loyalty to the ANC at national level remains high, at local level the picture is very different.
In an odd kind of way the sleep over by Minister Sexwale in Alex and the surprise visit by President Zuma to Balfour is having the opposite effect in some sense to that which was intended.
I heard it said that unless Zuma personally takes charge of local governments, service delivery is unlikely to improve and since that is not possible, the ANC is going to have a hard time convincing people at local levels to rise in the numbers which they did during the national elections.
Maggs, you romanticize the voters. All voters, everywhere, are stupid, in the sense that they are often sheepish creatures readily led one way or another by the media, peer pressure, prejudice etc. The difference is that voters in highly literate societies tend to be somewhat better informed than voters in less literate societies. (This does not necessarily help, though; see US 2004; Germany 1933).
Also, I may be wrong, but I believe there were opinion polls around the Polokwane time suggesting that Mbeki remained more personally popular than Zuma. Am I right?
Michael says:
October 2, 2009 at 8:57 am
“Also, I may be wrong, but I believe there were opinion polls around the Polokwane time suggesting that Mbeki remained more personally popular than Zuma. Am I right?”
LOL!
That was Mluleki George’s polls – some hectic massaging went on there, don’t believe it.
Mbeki was preferred to Zuma by the “middle class” but nevertheless largely disliked – there are very few people whom I speak with who do not think that that regime were cruel and callous.
In my social/family circles I was often vehemently engaged (nice euphemism for attacked) for my preference for Zuma.
Now those smart Alecs are reluctantly conceding (little by little) that Zuma is better for us than Mbeki would have been – but I have to extract the concessions under threat of torture
.
@Maggs Naidu
What is the basis of your comparing of Mbeki and Zuma to reach a conclusion that Zuma is better for “US”? Who are you referring to by “US”? Better in what? Could you unpack it so we could understand your point?
mayimele says:
October 2, 2009 at 10:48 am
“US” = those who think Mbeki was not a better option than Zuma.
It includes those who are convinced that Mathais Rath and his AIDs theories are nothing short of qwackery.
It includes those who think that crime, violent crime in particular, is at an extraordinarily high level.
It includes those who think that there’s a humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe.
It includes those who think that public debate was stifled post 1996.
It includes those who think that a lot more could have been done with the state resources than has been done.
It includes those who think that the media should not be threatened with the withdrawal of state advertising because they dare to have a different opinion.
It includes those who think it was a mad idea to shut down teacher training colleges.
It includes those of us who think service delivery at various levels is in shambles.
Should I go on?
Better in the sense that we are now returning to the era of a people driven, participatory democracy, when matters that should actually be up for public discussion and participation will be up for discussion and public participation.
Better in the sense that there’s lines open to the President, even if it still at the crawling stage.
Better in the sense that our President actually goes to people, listens and speaks with them.
Better in the sense that our President respects the offices of the opposition parties.
Better in the sense that our government is actually acknowledging that state funds have been stolen.
Better in the sense that government accepts that Home Affairs is in a mess and that it is causing enormous harm.
Should I go on?
I do concede that for some the Mbeki era was good and for whom having Mbeki still in high office would have been wonderful.
I concede too that my exchanges are with a relative handful of people, not sufficient to be statistically significant but it’s nonetheless enough for me to hold the views that I do.
Mayimele
TM’s era is unfolding infront of our eyes. I will not repeat what Maggs said but I fully support his comparison and conclusion.
I also have friends who are and were supporters of TM and are slowly conceading that he may go down as one of the worst moves by the ANC.
It is unacceptable for any government to perform worse on Education, Health, Inequality etc especially if you claim to be pro poor.
On the voting for corrupt ANC.
It is just the better devil. After all the trauma we went through during apartheid it will be difficult for blacks to trust whites. That gives the ANC enough room to mess up. The discrimination in the workplace,churches, schools, hospitals noise by Tereblanche, harsh economic system and tense race relations are a good reminder of where we come from.
annnnnnd the failing public health service, lack of ability to make any significant dent in South Africa’s extremely violent and prolific crime, lowering of education standards, crippled civil service, complete inability in general to deliver any sort of decent services to the poorest of the poor, the continued enrichment of upper-level ANC cadres, purchases of R1m vehicles in the middle of a recession by government ministers, the welcoming back into parliment of convicted thieves like Mr Booi, Mr Malema’s uncensured ranting and raving about racists and conspiracies amongst other things and the fact that racial tension now is probably worse than 14 years ago thanks to the wonderful implementation of “I didn’t join the struggle to be poor” action is a good indicator of where we’re going.
Keep voting for the “better” devil – can’t imagine how there could be a devil with a worse track record, but you keep voting for them. When you’re 65 and wondering why you have as little wealth and prosperity as you (and I) do now, remember those words.
Moderate levels of corruption are better than racism and oppression ?
Maggs Naidu & Gwebecimile, thanks for your responses. I must say I acknowledge your views and the fact that there are indeed many people in South Africa who share your views in the way you have captured them. I can also add the names of some of these people who share your views such as Sipho Seepe, Dr. Mancqu and Malekgepuru Makgoba who are chief advocates of the lies that under Mbeki intellectual debate was stifled without pointing at any policy or Act of government to that effect or show us one intellectual who has been arrested/detained/tortured or prosecuted for having participated in or initiated intellectual debate. If I remember very well the very same Dr. Manqcu’s forum at Wits which he now runs from UJ was and still is a forum for intellectual debate. I know of no time in which Mbeki or people associated with him as a person or government ever disputed this and other related forums or sending police to arrest them which could have been easy for him to do. This he did not do because he is an intellectual himself and understood the freedom of speech entrenched in chapter two our constitution. It is also against this background that you and I today know about Mathais Rath’s Aids theories because Mbeki and the government have never had a policy that stop anyone from expressing their views; not unless this happened because of JZ and the current government. And it is surprising that under this perceived period of stifled debate which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech, people like Vavi, Blade, Malema, Mbalula, Seepe and mobilized school kids to insulted Mbeki openly and on national television based on lies similar to the ones you have cited above who was in control of all the powers and institutions that he could have used to punish and destroy anyone, but he didn’t to that. What I remember with sadness though, is that after Polokwane to date, it became a sin to exercise freedom of association which is entrenched in the very same chapter of the book quoted above. It is a sin to be associated with anything to do with Mbeki, let alone Mbeki himself; yet this crime or sin is not documented in either the constitution or the bible. But we have today many meetings of people that have been disrupted by the people associated with the BEST JZ, as a person and as a President of the republic simply because they are perceived to be against him. There are countless people who have been dismissed from their positions for being associated with Mbeki or Cope. There are some of the former government officials who had their security arrangements withdrawn under the guise of a routine by the government institution concerned while in fact it is for the same illegal and ulterior motives cited above. There are well-meaning institutions and government departments that have been working very well but because they are associated with Mbeki, have been dismantled for personal gain and at the expense of the South African citizens who are suffering as a result and tax payers’ money. Today it is still an undocumented punishable sin and crime for government officials to be heard saying anything good about Mbeki in particular and the previous government in general, for it is seen as the vote of no confidence against Zuma and the current government. And this in you and other people’s view is facilitating, promoting and encouraging freedom of speech as opposed to stifling it.
On crisis in Zimbabwe – there is no way in which Mbeki could have said there is not crisis in the context at which his detractors and some of the media people blew it out of context, otherwise what was he mediating for? Mbeki is not stupid. Some of you may hate him for whatever reasons, but truth be told, this is the by-product of greedy people who hated him and wanted to see his back.
A lot more could have been done under Mbeki. I would add that not only under Mbeki but also under Mandela. But what informs this assumption and what suggest that a lot more is done to date under JZ or will certainly be done come end of his term?
Participatory democracy – is the placing of arrogant indoctrinated and patronized alliance partners in different forums of public hearing as we have seen during the dissolution of the scorpion the type of participatory democracy you are talking about?
Acknowledging theft of state funds – but what do you do about it? Paying lip service while protecting the same criminals as it is happening with JZ himself, travelgate and Booi and rewarding them with high paying positions in government?
Gentlemen, I can go point-by-point providing the factual opposite of what you think is good about JZ and bad about Mbeki because you are basing a lot of your arguments on unsubstantiated noise without looking at facts and figures that could have made you to pause before raising the issues above. Zuma has said a lot of good things, yes, but his words have not to date been supported by deeds. My understanding of service delivery that our people need is not synonymous to a president of the country going around dancing like a kwaito boy, president visiting Mayors without a warning, wasting money by installing a toll free number to listen to the same problems that have been documented in many of the organisation’s manifestos and government’s reports, ministers like Tokyo sleeping around in some squatters and claiming not to have seen the poverty state under which our people live before while he lives in Gauteng and was a premier before in the same province, a president accepting wrong doings and apologizing while doing nothing about it. Service delivery refers to provision of houses, basic services such as water and electricity, public facilities such as schools and hospitals, paving and tarring of streets and roads, among other things. And I doubt if there is anything like these that Zuma and his government did that makes him better than Mbeki. If this is the case then he not just better than Mbeki only he is also better than Mandela. Instead we see corruption by government officials being covered up, ministers buying expensive cars at tax payers’ expense, beefing up of the justice system and security cluster with brainwashed friends and people who corruptly supported him during his corruption case. May be I do not know what to look for in order to see how good JZ is and how bad Mbeki was, but these are my views. See also Big Sleeper’s post on this issue which I share wholeheartedly.
mayimele says:
October 5, 2009 at 11:54 am
“based on lies similar to the ones you have cited above”
Which are those?
I would gladly retract if I am convinced that any of what I said is untrue.
Mayimele
I must also acknowledge your response and I believe it is an honest attempt to make us see light. However, I differ with you on your assessment of our last fifteen years. I will try and not minimize my comments to comparison between TM and JZ but rather to a missed opportunity of bettering our lives.
In my view Mandela is not a saint and I say this fully aware of all the good things he has done and sacrfices he made. It was during his term that we initiated arms deal and failed to deal decisively with HIV/Aids. Whilst his role was to stabilize our new found democracy but he did not deliver much on education, health, inequality etc. He also failed to transform the ANC from a liberation movement into a political party. He made questinable appointments to cabinet/Premiers such as Sigcau, Mhlaba etc. I am starting to believe that we sacrificed a lot at the negotiation table and the promised rainbow nation will only come after my lifetime. We developed lot of policies that were never successfully implemented.
Then came Mr Delivery(TM) who failed to do the most basic thing expected from a manager let alone a President, (Hire the best and fire the worst). He continued the underperformance on all of the the above under Mandela and made things worse in certain areas. The stiffling of the debate in the ANC is real unless you do not believe some who have spoken about it such as Tutu, Ramathlodi etc. The appointments of usual faces in government and parastatals during this time cannot be a mere coincidence. Qualifications and Performance stopped being a criteria for consideration for appointments. Ministers and DG’s did not have performance contracts (PSC Report). State institutions were used to manouvre decisions in the chain of command. Even local politicians and concillors realised that it was every man for himself and helped themselves to tenders. This culture was never there before or at aleast not in the same magnitude. Why no one was caught and punished? That is not a million dollar question. Ginwala has confirmed on how the executive undermined parliament and why no minister was read the riot act? Any politician who seeks a third term says enough about himself. You may ask where was everybody(ANC) when this happened? I do not believe they suddenly lost voices but they knew the consequences. There was enough walking wounded around until the group was big enough to stage Polokwane.
You may argue that JZ is not the best to lead us and I might be tempted to agree with you but I was prepared to give a chance to anyone who was capable to stop the Zanufication of the ANC and the country. Sexwale and Cyril tried and failed. Since the change of course in the 2005 NGC and Polokwane, I sincerely believe we are on a better route. This did not come with its own challenges are we were all united behind the hope to unseat what may go down as the most powerful leader of the ANC. Now that we have achieved our goal, cracks are starting to appear and usual opportunistic tendencies are rising and I hope these will manged better. Thanks to cOPE, a lot of what was bad in the ANC left with them including third term and undemocratic election of leaders.
Since the new admin came to power a significant of these underperforming DG’s have left and they shout PURGING. The alliance is on each others throat consolidating the gains of Polokwane and there is a real sabotage inside the ANC. The Booi saga is not palatable together with the extravagance that we see in purchasing of cars and booking 5 star hotels. Atleast we can challenge that, unlike when we were ignored during the procurement of arms, PBMR, Gautrain, Presidential Jet, Coega ETC. We sold Iscor, Vodacom and allowed dual listing by SA companies to impress the world for FDI that never came and thanks now we are asking the right questions on MTN deal. ANC members are making their views known in public without fear and that gives us the chance to hear them speak for themselves. If SAA or Eskom goes down we will know exactly who to blame.
The sabotage inside ANC and the challenges to the legitimacy of the Zuma Presidency is not making it easy for him to focus on running the country.
I have hope and yes there is lot that needs to be done. There is a lot of what happened in the past that we need to get rid off.
Apologies by Mdladlana and others are not enough.
Maggs Naidu, with due respect, as I have indicated above, I think it is untrue that Mbeki or his administration stifled debate during his reign. If this is incorrect please help with proof so I may retract this statement. By similar lies like this I refer to lies that some (and many people, I must state) who share your views above are spreading around without any proof that (a) South Africans were poorer under Mbeki than they were under apartheid (Vavi) – lies, I do not need to proof this (b)Zuma had no case the allegations against him were manufactured by Mbeki and his friends – lies, because a prima facie case against him was confirmed by our courts (c) that Mbeki wanted was contesting for the 3rd term in government-lies, because he was contesting for the 3rd term as ANC president. I can go on and on. And these are not the issues you raised in your post but I find them similar to some of your points like I have mentioned one of them above.
Gwebecimile, thanks again for your honest response. In fact in the previous post I was just responding to the points raised by Maggs Naidu which you supported. Had I engaged in analyses of the past 15 years I would have come to the same conclusions you reflect in your post above. By this I mean I share your analysis of the past 15 years because I hold the view that there are good and bad things in Mandela’s admin inasmuch as there was the same in Mbeki’s’ admin; and that there are some of the good and the bad things now in Zuma’s admin and will be so even after the end of his term. There is nothing wrong in highlighting the negatives in either of the admins, but we must also acknowledge the right things. At the same time we must not only do so in one admin and leave the other like it is the case now with the current ANC leadership that associate itself with the success of the last 15 years but only quote Mandela as if Mbeki never features at all in the successes but only in the negatives which are even escalated to cover the past 15 years as if Mandela never features anywhere. Again I detest this attitude and practice of demonizing one person as if he was the only one in that administration occupying all the positions from the presidency to the councilor in the community. As you have indicated, people are either not aware or just decide to be ignorant of the damage caused by some of the concessions made during the codesa like the private property right policies that we have inherited to date. And that was not Mbeki but the whole ANC. Without any waste of time I agree with you in this analogy.
Mayimele and Gwebecimele
Such a fruitful discussion. I like the manifested maturity in your posts…
mayimele says:
October 5, 2009 at 15:02 pm
Mayimele – I prefer not to labour the point, but one example of the attempt to stifle debate is this http://www.journalism.co.za/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1056
I distance myself from the opinion that South Africans are poorer than under apartheid. Anyone who holds that view is simply mad.
Re the corruption charges, let’s consider that people were selectively targeted for prosecution – there are a whole lot of issues around that. Contrast the protection that Mbeki offered Selebi vs his enthusiastic relieving Zuma of his duties. Mbeki wanted to get rid of Zuma – he used the state institutions to try to do so. He wanted to keep Selebi on, he fired Pikoli to do so.
Why was Mbeki contesting for the 3rd term if not to control government through the ANC?
Mayimele and Gwebecimele
I agree with both your comments on Codesa.
Maggs, it is a little rash of you to say that people who allege that people are poorer now than they were under apartheid are “mad.”
First, it seems beyond doubt that relative poverty – the level of inequality — has increased since 1994; you must have seen last week’s report that SA has overtaken Brazil as having the highest Gini coefficient in the world.
The number of unemployed increased from nearly 2 million to 4.3 million people between 1994 and 2007.
On the other hand, it may well be that the absolute level of poverty is down, but of course the figures do not take into account the current downturn, and the collapse in commodity prices in particular. (The post 1994 govt benefited greatly from the commodity boom of the decade to 2008).
I am not sure why you would be surprised that levels of poverty may by some measures increased since the ANC come to power. Political freedom and economic welfare are not necessarily correlated. Indeed, some would say that China’s excellent growth rate relative to India has something to do with the fact that China’s particular form of capitalism features a continuing high level of political repression.
I do think that we need to bear in mind that since 1994 we have had a large number of illegal “refugee” immigrants entering our borders, a factor that surely contributes to the 4.3 mill unemployed and skews the Gini coefficient to the position it finds itself in 2009. Apples with apples?
Michael Osborne says:
October 5, 2009 at 17:59 pm
Poverty during the iniquitous days was massively hidden.
To the extent that it was possible to assess, the Second Carnegie Commission went some way towards recording the really horrid realities.
If “Poverty is the condition of lacking basic human needs such as nutrition, clean water, health care, clothing, and shelter because of the inability to afford them”, there can be no sensible argument that would support the notion that absolute poverty increased post 1994.
Relative poverty is entirely another matter, but is not the essence of what was intended in the original comment.
@ Maggs, it does not assist to say that poverty pre-1994 was insidiously hidden.
Looks at studies that track absolute year on year post-1994. The first study to show an increase in absolute poverty was published by Statistics South Africa in 2002, the results of which were confirmed in later studies. (See the literature review at http://www.tips.org.za/files/forum/2006/papers/VanderbergTrends_in_Poverty.pdf.)
Please note that I am not saying as a matter of dogmatic certainty that absolute poverty has increased since 1994. Different studies point in various directions, and it is difficult to calculate the effect of income grants. I just ask that you not too quickly jump to the conclusion that, beyond all doubt, poverty simply MUST have dropped since the ANC took power. I suspect that your conclusions is based upon intuitions, anecdotal observation, and political loyalty. (Although, of course, dislike of the ANC will lead observers to interpret the evidence the other way.)
@ Justice, yes, no doubt the influx from other counties has increased the poverty level. But some would say that can be blamed in part on the government’s failure to patrol the borders, the collapse of Home Affairs, and Mbeki’s “constructive engagement” with Mugabe.
But the causation is complicated. The ANC govt was not to blame for the wave of HIV-AIDS that crippled the Health Care System. Or for the wars in the DRC that produced waves of refugees. But the ANC by similar token cannot take credit for the commodity boom of the past decade that did produce economic growth, the recent collapse of which has produced much hardship.
Above all, the ANC has much to answer for in failing to provide a decent education for the majority of poor black South Africans. This is a result of a stubborn adherence to OBE. Also, the absurd decision to pay white teachers big severance packages to leave their posts, so as to create more demographic equity …
mayimele, Mbeki had a habit of personally attacking those who criticised him and of arguing that critics had no right to raise their objections thus stifling debate. Instead of engaging with the criticism, he tried to denigrate and humiliate opponents personally or arguing they were racist, unpatriotic, subversive or counter-revolutionaries guilty of sedition. See http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2004/at47.htm and http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20041003105528114C807482 and http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/speeches/2002/sp0927.html and http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/512/27331. He also got his Minister of Police to announce that Sexwale, Ramaphosa and Phosa was part of a plot to overthrow him. Often he did not do this personally but got his attack dog Essops Fables to do his dirty work. Read “After the Party” for more details. One can stifle debate not only by arresting and torturing critics but also by acting in such a way that anyone would be scared of being smeared by the most powerful person in the country, thus becoming persona non grata and beyond the pale. That is what Mbeki often did.
Michael says:
October 5, 2009 at 22:01 pm
Thanks for the link.
It’s all post 1994.
The report concludes :
“While the trend in poverty rates over the first part of the period is not so clear, recently these rates have undoubtedly been declining. Poverty headcount numbers first rose, and then declined, as progress in combating poverty started making headway against population growth.”
“In addition to the encouraging reduction in the poverty headcount ratio, the numbers of people living above the poverty line have been rising throughout the period.”
(”Whilst there were no strong trends in poverty for the period 1995 to 2000, both data series show a considerable decline in poverty after 2000, particularly in the period 2002-2004.”)
I am not clear how it supports your contention that poverty increased post 1994.
Maggs, I can only ask you to read the document in full, note the various studies cited, and recall that I was very, very careful to say that I was not dogmatically committed to any simple summary of the post 1994 trend. It is undisputed that unemployment has risen dramatically; that poverty rose in the first 8 years of ANC rule, at least according to Stats SA; that poverty is likely to rise again in current conditions; that the level of inequality and relative poverty is way up since 1994. Why cannot you accept that the position is nuanced and complicated?
Michael Osborne says:
October 6, 2009 at 9:08 am
“Why cannot you accept that the position is nuanced and complicated?”
I accept that post 1994 (as your comments and per the report that you have kindly pointed out).
I will stand by my view that anyone who holds the view that poverty is worse post apartheid is mad.
I hasten to add that some very important things have been made worse post apartheid and ridiculously so – like shutting down teacher training colleges.
Prof, I agree with you on how Mbeki used to deal with his criticism against him, the government and its policies. This is common knowledge anyway since he was doing it both viva voce in various forums and in writing. To this extent I see nothing that stifles debate, be it within the ANC, parliament or in SA in general. Coming to the contents of his responses, I only observe the fact he tended to raise the debate to the highest level whereby he demanded a lot more than raising unsubstantiated claims and allegations that people based their criticism on. For instance, whether correctly or wrongly, in one of his ANC TODAY you referred to, he is demanding from the Archbishop that he bases his argument on facts and figures that seem to be lacking in his argument. Example, by the BEE benefiting only the recycled few, the Archbishop seemed to be focusing only on Cyril, Tokyo, Macozoma et al, forgetting about the other structures and their beneficiaries that are associated with them such as WHIPHOLD, DINOSA e.t.c, which if considered support his (Mbeki’s) argument that it is not only the few who are benefiting from the empowerment policies. While the tone he uses to the Old Man may not be palatable to many of us as I felt then when he responded to him, Mbeki is merely saying the truth which he supported with facts and figures, whether we like it or not. Of course, sometimes he used the demand for one to be accurate in terms of facts and figures to support their arguments as a defense even where the criticism is correct. This for me is still not stifling debate. All it requires is for one to familiarize themselves with facts and figures before criticizing not only Mbeki but anyone for that matter which is only going to help our debate to be fruitful in addressing the challenges we are facing as a country and human beings. It will also help us not to be denigrated for having raised issues for which we have no substantial evidence to support them or having scant view of such evidence. This for me is no problem. I can also mention that that is what we are doing even in this blog, demanding bogglers to base their arguments on valid, relevant and correct facts and figures. And I must say you are one of the best in this regard for you research a lot before you compile your post. This is despite the fact that we hold no powerful position, which, even if we did could not mean anything, truth is truth and needs to be told to power. If it was not the case, we could not challenge you Prof like we do in this blog on some of your views that we do not agree with.
The fact that people tended to withhold their criticism of him, the government and its policies for FEAR of being denigrated should not be used to justify why cowards who lack courage to challenge the powers that be when they have strong conviction that something is wrong and do so by familiarizing themselves with facts first before they utter the words. And here we are talking about people most of whom claim to have been the champions of the struggle against the harshest evil system ever visited our country and people compared to Mbeki? If this cowardice fear is justifiable how did it come about that you Prof, and others including myself were able to write and say all the critical things about Mbeki without such a fear of denigration? Was Mbeki so stupid that he could not read some of these critical things that were said about him on various blogs, print media and televisions? Or if he did why if he was indeed able to stop anyone from raising his critical views he did not do anything about such people like Seepe, Mbalula, Vavi, Blade et al who made it his gospel to criticize Mbeki even when it was unnecessary?
Just like you Prof, I dislike what Mbeki did to Cyril, Matthews and Tokyo. Those who are close to me could tell you how much critical I have been to Mbeki for this. And not only this but also for the way he engineered the dismissal of Holomisa, suppression of Pallo Jordaan e.t.c. I even went to an extent of saying this while being interviewed by some media in the UK without any fear, favour or prejudice. But we should remember this Prof; this Mbeki did not in the context of stifling debate if my memory serves me well, but rather to eliminate competition for presidential power. So it is one of the things that Mbeki would certainly denigrate you on if your evidence is not accurate or relevant, to which denigration cowards would then refrain from talking again under the guise that Mbeki is stifling debate.
I agree with you that stifling debate does not amount to arrest and torture but rather by smearing opponents with bad and illegal acts, among other things. If we agree on this definition, as I do, what is the different between what Mbeki often did and the current practice by the new ANC leadership that calls opponents and critics counter-revolutionaries, snakes and cockroaches who must be killed and dealt with, which is not limited only to words but rather to the translation of those words into real actions as we have seen many meetings of alleged cockroaches being disrupted around the country, cockroaches being denied venues to hold meetings, snakes being killed (in Lipompo whereby a cope member was even slashed by a sharp object and another one who was not a cockroach while he was still an anc member but only became a cockroach when he joined cope and had to be killed in the Eastern Cape. Between these two scenarios which one is instilling more fear? Surprisingly, even under this current undemocratic situation that is ravaging our country where people are not really free to associate and express their views based on real and well-founded fear we, PdV included, are continuing to challenge what we think is wrong in whatever small measure we do it because we are not cowards. So in a nutshell, I am not convinced there was what we call stifling of debate by Mbeki, for, it there was, then we have more stifling of debate now than then which is accompanied by violent punishment to dissenters by those who hold power today. Let us be fair in removing weeds and focus on real substance which bust given same weight and value all the times in all the places.
Maggs Naidu, the article for which you have provided the link does not dispute my argument that Mbeki did not stifle debate, nor does it strengthen yours that he did. The article in summary, even if it was based on Mbeki, the official government position or his officials did not end up being an official policy of government to censor the media. Again I do not agree that Pahad or any government official’s views in this regard should be labeled Mbeki’s or his government. In any case, in the same article does indicate that the view referred to in it is the personal view of the official quoted in the article. It also indicates that this never happened as you can also attest that we do not have such a policy or Act of government that provides for the censoring of the media.
If this is your understanding that whatever said in this article amounts to Mbeki and his government’s position and that it then amounts to the policy of government; then it will mean we should take what Zuma said in Soweto about pregnant children during the election campaign as the policy of the ANC which we could also elevate to be the policy of government now. But my view is different, Mbeki inasmuch as Zuma or anyone for that matter have rights to express their views irrespective of the positions they hold as long as they make this clear that this is their views and they do so responsible. So I know that this Zuma said in his personal capacity although his detractors would like as they did try to capitalize on it. It is against this background that I view the article provided as not supporting your argument or weakening my position.
Mayimele. Zuma is currently being challenged on race debate, nationalisation, Planning Commission, Section 49 etc and I assume that this is clear indication that debate is alive in the ANC. Since Polokwane we are all free to make statements about HIV/AIDS. Recently Ramathlodi wrote an article on how Mandela was humilated in a meeting trying to intervene on HIV/AIDS. Lekota once made a statement about Zimbabwe, critisizing TM approach and he was made to retract it in the next few days. Senior civil servants were instructed to implement particular decisions and threatened with dissmissal if they do not oblige.
Can you answer one question for me. Why there was no descenting voice in all this madness? Do you want to suggest that it is because the majority agreed with him? It might be fair to request other people to provide facts and figures to support their arguments but TM himself never had figures.
During his time we had no vision, plan and no measureable targets. Our country was led with a budget that was not coherent with any measurable targets. Hence our policies were never costed nor properly funded. wE only had figures on economic figures which we had to produce to meet UN obligations. The latest report on socio-economic indicators released by the Presidency also highlight lack of indicators and availability of information.
This idea of challenging others using facts and figures was just a technique to wear them down.
Do you honestly believe that on Crime, HIV/AIDS and Arms deal etc people lacked figures to support their arguments?
Parliament and its committes such as SCOPA were bullied 2 Chairpersons eventually resigned.
Was Pikoli not instructed not to arrest Selebi?
Was it mere coincidence that those who differ with him fell by the wayside?
Pikoli cried, Masethla cried and there will be more to confess.
By the way Blade was removed from a cabinet list at the instruction of……….
TM refused to appoint BEE Council and eventually accepted that it(bee) has fallen short, hence the introduction of BBBEE.
I agree with you that those new found voices of Ginwala,Tutu, Ramphele, Asmal, Kriegler etc are not so different from him. They led some of the institutions during his time and are yet to account for their shortcomings.
mayimele says:
October 6, 2009 at 13:27 pm
I think many things that Zuma said are nothing short of plain silly. He’s a powerful voice in society and that has to be taken into consideration. For example, his comment that as a young man he would have knocked down a gay man was irresponsible at best.
That which you noted add to this.
Many of the people that he allows close to him leaves much to be desired.
I cannot subscribe to the view that there is a personal view and an organisational one from someone as high up as that – if in the course of his life, he changed a position through association, that is sensible. If he holds a view contrary to the organisation than that is unacceptable.
Back to Mbeki – recall the full page advert that Zuma took in the Sunday Times, swearing allegiance etc. It’s hardly likely that Zuma got up one sunny morning and decided to place that ad for no reason whatsoever.
Maggs, OK, I give up.
I humbly accept that, by your definition, I am about 60% “mad.”
Michael Osborne says:
October 6, 2009 at 14:45 pm
Maggs, OK, I give up.
I humbly accept that, by your definition, I am about 60% “mad.”
– maybe it’s time to visit the apartheid museum (again if necessary).
——————————————————————————————————-
As an aside – I recently visited some the Durban Beach front.
It was such a pleasure to see children playing in all the facilities – a far cry from when my kids of one and three at the time had to watch while only some children were allowed.
It was quite a challenge at the time having to explain to the tiny ones then why they could not set their toes in the water – that was the better side of the evil regime.
p.s. I support the view that things could have been done a lot better post 1994. Buying arms for many, many billions and granting 40 casino licences, amongst other things was really crazy.
Gwebecimile, I think you and I must pose a little bit and try to find each other here. I do agree with you in most of the issues raised above. But what I am saying is a wrong action must not be right because it is done by Zuma and wrong because it is done by Mbeki and vice versa. A wrong action must be wrong irrespective of whether it is Zuma or Mbeki who performs it. If you share this view I would have expected your response to agree to some of the issues I have raised in my post and then add whatever you think will help me to understand how to a certain degree Mbeki was more evil than Zuma. For instance, you are not accounting to the illegal and democratically unacceptable things that are happening under Zuma which could even be regarded to be twice or more bad that the way they happened under Mbeki – which squarely fit to PdV et al’s definition or description of what stifling of debate is. If you have realized in my posts I am not advocating to change anybody’s mind to view Mbeki as having been the best president we had whether or not compared to Zuma. All I am arguing for is for you and others to be honest and agree that whatever we blamed Mbeki for as the undemocratic practice that stifled debate is still happening under Zuma – without measuring the proportions. And I am saying the same way we blamed perpetrators of this practice then must be done the same way today. Your example of Mbeki dressing down those regarded dissents and ordering them to apologies is not helping because it disregards the same behavior and practice under Zuma if you remember what Barbara Hogan went through on her comment on SA’s refusal of visa to Tiban leader? Did you forget that her dismissal was on paper? Do you need to be reminded about the same treatment that the deputy minister of Sport is currently going through for speaking his mind on why Chuene must resign? Could all these still be Mbeki’s error? If not why in your opinion and democratic political understanding is this practice different from that of Mbeki? To what extent does it not achieve the same results as the ones achieved through Mbeki’s actions?
You are talking about being free to talk about HIV/aids – I have already explained how there was never a point in the past 14 years when people were not allowed to talk about anything except that they had to be truthful and base their talk on relevant facts and figures. I have indicated how this freedom of expression is being suppressed in some quarters of our social life under JZ and you neither accept nor account to it?
Maggs Naidu, you argue that Pikoli was instructed to arrest Selebi – is this more evil in democratic terms where all must be equal before the law than the minister of correctional instructed to release Shabir Shaik while millions other not so political connected inmates die in prisons and jail lock-ups?
Gentlemen, Zuma is neither a better evil than Mbeki inasmuch as Mbeki was not a better evil than Zuma. They are all either good leaders who have their weaknesses just like any other person or they are all bad.
Maggs Naidu, on Zuma pleading allegiance – I agree he might have done so under duress; but again, do you think JSC really take full authorship of the `acquittal’ of Hlophe JP?
If you can honestly look on both sides of the camps gentlemen, with fairness and even handedness, you will realize that there are actually more similarities than differences. And if you really care about this country, its future and that of the future generation, you would be worried that while Mbeki may have done his damage we preach in 14 years, JZ is matching it pound-for-pound with only 6 months in office. The question is what more damage would have been done in 10 or 14 years?
mayimele says:
October 6, 2009 at 16:26 pm
I agree that Zuma’s administration may possibly be problematic if left to run its own course.
However, now it’s easier now to raise concerns and make loud noises.
I don’t hold out much for the opposition parties, but they have a role to play – JZ hears them out.
“JZ is matching it pound-for-pound with only 6 months in office” – like what?
@ Maggs
I agree that JZ is less autocratic in style and tone than TM was.
(Although was not TM also quite conciliatory in his first year or so?)
Please give some examples of where the input of the opposition has made any practical difference.
Also, could you suggest matters in which the opposition may in future make any practical difference via their input to JZ?
mayimele says:
October 6, 2009 at 15:59 pm
“Maggs Naidu, you argue that Pikoli was instructed to arrest Selebi – is this more evil in democratic terms where all must be equal before the law than the minister of correctional instructed to release Shabir Shaik while millions other not so political connected inmates die in prisons and jail lock-ups?”
I assume that you meant “not to arrest Selebi”.
I think the release of Shaik was a dastardly deed – in spite of the denials I suspect that Zuma had influence over that.
However, letting out one “terminally ill” rogue in a questionable way is vastly different from allowing the then Commissioner of Police to get away with all that is now emerging in the trial.
Maggs Naidu, by matching it pound-for-pound I refer to the issues and practices that you, PdV and Gwebecimile have raised above so far as the things and practices that were commonplace under Mbeki which stifled debate and instilled fear in people to an extent that they refrained from challenging Mbeki, his government and policies.
Michael Osborne says:
October 6, 2009 at 16:58 pm
“Please give some examples of where the input of the opposition has made any practical difference”.
It seems that the “handbook” is being moderated, even though some Ministers are thumbing their noses at attempts to moderate their spending.
Tony Leon got deployed as an ambassador – would that have been remotely possible with the Wise One?
Now it seems that the nominations for the CC have been circulated to the opposition parties before the public announcement.
Our position re Zimbabwe has changed quite radically.
Our position on AIDS has changed.
These are some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition parties.
Now if JZ will only appoint a judicial commission into the arms deal …..
mayimele says:
October 6, 2009 at 17:02 pm
I don’t understand what you mean at all.
In six months, what “damage” has been caused by this administration (excluding the crazy purchases of cars that is)?
Maggs Naidu, I have already raised these issues above as a background to my conclusive statement of what JZ’s admin did in 6 months. However, I will summaries some of them for you. Over and above the purchasing of cars which I do not consider much in the scheme of things, i am talking about, inter alia, the dismissal of cope aligned member (Prof Nkuhlu, Dexter e.t.c), the attempt to remove Prof Barney Pityana, release of Shaik, dropping of case against Hlophe JP, instilling of fear that government people have today to talk about or say anything good about Mbeki or associate themselves with Cope, labeling of people who criticize JZ and his alliance and government as counter-revolutionaries, taking of fight against corruption and corrupt officials while doing the opposite by protecting the travelgate criminals and Nyami Booi, corrupt senior official in the office of the Mpumalanga Premier and the Premier himself, failure to act against the people who released illegal tapes to his lawyers simple because he is the primary befeneficiary, failure to act against and instead instigating the murdering of innocent people by the police under the shoot-to-kill `policy’ (check last week Wednesday’s Sowetan if not mistaken of a number of children under the age of 10 and 15 who were riddled with bullets for allegedly having posed threat to the police), failure by the same police to arrest the killers of former Mbombela municipality official Jimmy Mohlala whose death is suspected to be politically linked, appointment as a clear pay-back of people with highly questionable character into most important public offices such as Vusi Mona, Ranjeni Munisamy and Moe Shaik. The list is endless Maggs. But hopefully this will help you understand my point.
Mags and mayimele, I must say I am enjoying your debate. Its nice when we do not shout at one another, but try to think things through after looking at the evidence. My personal view on President Zuma after such a short time in office is mixed and confused. I would quote Mao Tse Tung who said when asked what he thought of the French Revolution which had happened two hundred year ago: “Well, it’s too early to tell…”
mayimele says:
October 6, 2009 at 18:02 pm
Ok – now I understand – thanks for that. I agree partially
There’s some really shaiky characters around Zuma and it sucks that he’s placed or allowed to place some of these wierdos in important positions.
South Africa can do much better.
The ANC can do much better.
I said elsewhere that it seems sometimes that the ANC is scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons that don’t makes sense. It has an enormous wealth of experience and good people.
I think this is going to impact on the strength of its support in the LGE in 2012.
p.s. Remember the public spat between Pityane and Dennis Davies?
It is telling that no-one on this blog is prepared to defend the ANC across the board. Even Maggs – the closest we have to a coherent and consistent ANC loyalist – will not defend the almost daily demonstrated foolishness of Mr Malema.
Can you imagine if the DA had as its youth leader a manifestbuffoon like Mr Malema? The party would rightly be crucified in the media.
I can only conclude that the ANC is subject to the ultimate insult — it is held to lowest possible standards, even by its most ardent supporters.
Michael Osborne says:
October 6, 2009 at 21:50 pm
“I can only conclude that the ANC is subject to the ultimate insult — it is held to lowest possible standards, even by its most ardent supporters”.
It seems that you are missing a lot of what is current and topical.
Check this out for example http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article136819.ece
Mayimele. I accept the list of shortcomings of the JZ administration but I do not agree that they match pound for pound the 14yrs of TM. This morning, I listened to Sdumo Dlamini indicating that there will be a meeting of the alliance to discuss how the Green paper on NPC is not aligned with Polokwane Resolutions.
I have listed many examples of debates that are happening in the ANC and also highlited instances where TM stiffled the debate including the Cronin rebuke for warning on Zanufication of the ANC.
I will not list anymore examples but rather say may be this is one of those instances where we agree to disagree.
I agree with you that the ANC must be saved from itself.
Gwebecimele, I do not dispute Mbeki’s rebuke of not only Cronin, but others like Winnie Madikizela Mandela. But the question still remains, does rebuking someone amounts to stifling of debate? If that is the case why are we not saying the same about JZ rebuking ANC members including Cosatu and SACP from debating the succession issue now? Why are we not saying the same about Mandela rebuking Cosatu on their challenge of the GEAR policy then? Why should Mbeki’s rebuke be seen different from the other two presidents, one former and the other, current? Does what constitutes stifling of debate in the name of the person or in what one says, how he says it and their consequences in the event of the ordered failing to heed the call? If this is the case, the next logical question would be what is so evil by the name Mbeki that whatever it says automatically turns into eradication of democratic principles and practices while when the names Mandela and Zuma say the same automatically turns into strengthening of our democratic principles and institutions?
On the 14 years issue, I agree with you that in reality what I have mentioned as anomalies in JZ’s admin do not necessarily equal what Mbeki may have done in 14 years, but you should understand this statement within the context of my responding to the issues that you guys highlighted as the issues that stifled debate during Mbeki era, whereby I am therefore saying, if these are the things that Mbeki did to stifle debate then they are equal in number but less in the accompanying violent undemocratic punishment and its consequences which are happening today under JZ. And I have listed all these things to demonstrate my point. For instance, one thing that is not necessarily bad that Mbeki did but which had negative consequences to the ANC and the nation which Zuma has not done to date, was to try and exercise his democratic rights in line with our constitution and that of the ANC – since it is silent on the issue – within the people who are not matured enough politically and democratically by campaigning for the 3rd term as an ANC president.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 6, 2009 at 18:17 pm
Mags and mayimele, I must say I am enjoying your debate. Its nice when we do not shout at one another, but try to think things through after looking at the evidence
——————————————————————————————————-
The evidence it seems is whatever we want it to be.
I am reflecting on mayimele’s comment October 6, 2009 at 16:26 pm that “If you can honestly look on both sides of the camps gentlemen, with fairness and even handedness, you will realize that there are actually more similarities than differences”.
I would argue at length that the Zuma Presidency is better than the Mbeki Presidency for South Africa, for the region and possibly for Africa but whatever I would point out in support of that view could quite easily be demonstrated as well during the Mbeki era, whatever I point out that was bad during the Mbeki era would find similarities in the current administration.
If reduces to personal qualities, as seems to be the case, then our constitutional democracy cannot be as robust as we would like to believe.
Admittedly we have been able to withstand the authoritarian tendency and avoid having a president for life, but by a narrow margin.
And that is worrisome – what if we end up with a dictator for president who is better able to connect with people?
Mayimele. Debating and rebuking people is not necessarily a problem but threatning their livelihood is another.
You have not answered my questions. Why do you think all the people who have suddenly found voices now could not speak then? Asmal, Ramphele, Ginwala, Feihnstein, Maharaj, etc. If it is/not easier to speak up now then what has changed?
Thanks once more for your responses.
Gwebecimele says:
October 8, 2009 at 11:14 am
“Why do you think all the people who have suddenly found voices now could not speak then?”
The bigger question to my mind is why were the people who were ready to die for freedom under the mad apartheid regime, so petrified to open their mouths under the democratic government that they fought for?
It sounds lopsided at best.
Having their livelihoods threatened is not an answer.
Maggs. I agree with you we need to ask these questions.
May be not everyone who went into exile or sttruggled was prepared to die but left for opportunities in London, New York, Soviet, Geneva etc and are again lining themselves for opportunities now. We need to properly record our struggle and authenticate our heroes. Some have sold us in the process and they must be exposed.
While some went through rough passages to exile, others were flown in jets to London.
@ Maggs
“Why were the people who were ready to die for freedom under the mad apartheid regime, so petrified to open their mouths under the democratic government that they fought for?”
A very good question.
Maybe a historical analogue assists; Bolsheviks who fought the Czar’s autocracy until 1917 quite quickly accommodated themselves to the “Democratic Centralism” of the Party in Power, 1918-1925.
The deep illegitimacy of the ancien regime aroused the fury of opposition. The new regime, precisely because it presents itself as the heroic antithesis of what went before, enjoys a stong and enduring presumption of legitimacy.
@ Gwebecimele
I don’t know about the rest of those you mention, but Feinstein (and Preggs Govender), did speak up in the Mbeki era.)
Mayimele. This is for you.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=84614&sn=Detail
@ Michael. If I remember well Preggs was vocal on some issues in the Portfolio Committee and later lost or walked out of her MP postion but other than that I do not know much about her.
Similarily Feinstein first cooperated and later changed when he was pressured as Scopa Chairperson also lost or walked out of his position.
He became more vocal after the release of his book.
Now this supports my theory, they find it more easier to speak up now and they lost their positions then.
There is also the related issues of time and hope as well as institutional change (which is very slow).
Obviously the ANC has tendencies to being a controlling, centralizing one party state–which, of course, was exacerbated when it was an illegal, exiled organization, and dissent was (more?) legitimately seen as threatening its survival. Changing to become more democratic internally is not an easy or quick process.
Further, as Michael points out, everybody wanted to believe in the goodness of the ANC and Mandela in the period of 1994 and after. It takes time for warts to become apparent, and it is easy to keep silent at first, because you hope that the problems you see are simply isolated incidents–a bad apple here, an honest mistake there. It takes time for patterns to appear.
And then you want to believe that reform is possible from within. You want to believe that change (the election of JZ as an example?) is a sign that the real problems will be addressed–or is it just window dressing? Will the new crowd be co-opted like the old crowd was? Is the problem the system and the institutions, or just the people?
Personally, I think that it is the system and institutions (the ANC itself, and the control that a political party in SA has over the system and individual legislators, for instance), and that it doesn’t matter who the people that are in control are. JZ will no more be able to resist the temptations of the type of power than Mbeki was able to do. And another Mandela would not be able to make it all better–not without changing the system and the institutions.
Gwebecimele says: October 8, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Michael Osborne says: October 8, 2009 at 13:03 pm
It may be something less sinister – our electoral system.
Cadres may be kept in line by, as Gwebecimele says: October 8, 2009 at 11:14 am, “threatning their livelihood” – perhaps patronage is more powerful than the pen and the sword – to misquote the good book “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away”.
Like suck up or else!
@Gwebecimele
You say “Mayimele. Debating and rebuking people is not necessarily a problem but threatening their livelihood is another”. I fully agree with you this is not good in life in general and worse in a democratic country like ours. Where we seem to be missing each other to an extent of disagreement is that you still do not get my counsel which I argue is what Mbeki required of anybody interested in debating issues particularly if that his or her contribution will be critical – to familiarize oneself with facts and figures as well as being fair and honest in your analyses of such facts and figures to provide benchmark of your view and reach consistent and sustainable conclusions.
Maggs Naidu has put it very clearly above that the dilemma to anyone who wants to choose one person between the two leaders of our time is that whatever bad or good things you can argue happened under Mbeki you will find that they are also happening under JZ. And this is what I have been trying to illustrate all the time on the basis of which I therefore challenged you et al as I still hereby do – to honestly and in an even handedness look on both camps if the same thing you regard as bad under Mbeki is not happening under Zuma, as well as what you regard today as being good about Zuma has not happened in the past under Mbeki. I will be surprised if you can find more differences than similarities and if the analysis of such a situation leads to the conclusion that Zuma is better than Mbeki. My argument is that there are, and unless JZ changes his way of doing things since he still has chance, there will still be more similarities between the administrations; or JZ could even be worse. Based on the above analogy, would you therefore Gwebe in your honest opinion and understanding of the South African political and democratic situation since 1994 if you like safely say under JZ there is no such a practice of threatening people with their livelihoods (i.e. positions not only in government but also in the private sector) if they do not heed the ANC and the government’s call? I will certainly doubt your honesty if your answer to this question could be affirmative, but I would like to comply and observe the audi rule first.
On why people who have suddenly found voices now could not speak then? Maggs Naidu has correctly answered this question. In addition, they are (a) obvious cowards, and (b) have simple substituted their brains and reasons for which they joined the struggle in the first place with jejenums and duodenums – they are now in the struggle to retain their positions and huge salary incomes and other benefits in the current government. For instance, how do you trust Ramathlodi’s criticism of Mbeki; the man who together with other people like Sam Shilowa benefited greatly and silently under Mbeki, only to start talking now when he realized that power has now shifted from Mbeki to Zuma? Are we so stupid enough to believe that a man who once ran away from his home country to live in exile in Lesotho in the fight against apartheid now developed fear from a fellow disarmed comrade, brother and a black South African in the constitutional democratic South Africa that he could not talk for almost 15 years? Even if such a fear is real and not perceived or manufactured, what do you think between FEAR and ACCESS TO POWER AND RESOUCES what could have been the real reason behind his silence for 15 years? I doubt if fear is the answer.
Gwebecimele, on the article you have referred me too; it is not different from any other article critical against Mbeki that I have come across. It is also similar to the ones that PdV also referred me to two days ago. With regard to this one by Van Zyl Slabbert’s my account is – it amounts more to what we call reputation which is what and how people view you and not necessarily what and how you are or what you think of yourself. This is Van Zyl Slabbert’s view of Mbeki based on his close or distant knowledge of the man. And if all the 45 million people could be given an opportunity to document their views of him, they would paint different pictures some of which will be critical while other would not. The same applies if the subject could Zuma or anyone for that matter. And in actual fact we do have plenty of such articles, for instance, by Max Du Preeze that are as critical to JZ as Van Zyl Slabbert’s. Some of these articles about JZ are supporting a certain view held by certain significant number of people who are against him inasmuch as some are to the contrary. The same applies to Slabbert’s article, it strengthens a particular view of Mbeki held by those who criticize him and would certainly use it as a bible to justify and support their beliefs about the man. This is common, not only to the two beloved leaders of our country, but to all human beings holding public offices like the one the two happened to share in their lives.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 8, 2009 at 8:54 am
Maggs, I cannot agree more with you on this one.
mayimele says:
October 8, 2009 at 15:04 pm
“Even if such a fear is real and not perceived or manufactured, what do you think between FEAR and ACCESS TO POWER AND RESOUCES what could have been the real reason behind his silence for 15 years? I doubt if fear is the answer.”
I was reluctant to go there in my earlier comment.
Now that the question has been posed, I would venture that there have been many hands in the cookie jar.
Far too many people “did not join the struggle to be poor”.
I do however think that there are many who have been less than vocal to maintain their role in pursuit of the NDR (being thrown in the political wilderness would not have been helpful in that regard).
Gwebecimele/Mayimele
What’s with these dudes?
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article144145.ece
And this!
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-09-spy-boss-haunted-by-tender-probe