Constitutional Hill

COSATU

“I told you so”

Jun 2nd, 2010
by Pierre De Vos.
37 comments

Time will say nothing but I told you so,
Time only knows the price we have to pay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

If we should weep when clowns put on their show,
If we should stumble when musicians play,
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

I don’t often say I told you so, although I would lie if I denied that I am often tempted to do so. But in the wake of reports that the ANC National Working Committee (NWC) on Monday discussed the possibility of charging Cosatu leader, Zwelenzima Vavi, (or may have already decided to charge him), for insulting ANC leaders in public, I have to say: “Well I told you so”.

The Times reports that the ANC wants to charge Vavi as he is a card carrying member of the ANC. They argue that ANC Youth League president Julius Malema was also charged as an ANC member. They are very, very, cross with Vavi because last Thursday, he accused President Jacob Zuma of not taking action against corrupt ministers, specifically mentioning Minister of Cooperative Governance Sicelo Shiceka and Communications Minister Siphiwe Nyanda. Vavi said reports that Shiceka had lied in his CV and the conduct of Nyanda, who spent R500 000 on hotels in Cape Town, should be probed.

The tenderpreneurs in the ANC obviously did not like this talk of probing Ministers for corruption. What will be next? Charging President Zuma for taking money(“taking a bribe”, our courts called it) from a crook and then doing favours for that crook? Exposing the various business dealings of ANC leaders making a fast buck while service delivery flounders? I mean really, who does Vavi think he is? How can one effectively loot rule a country when one’s allies want to have corruption probed and exposed? Have you ever heard of such an absurd idea?

There are no fortunes to be told, although,
Because I love you more than I can say,
If I could tell you I would let you know.

The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

Vavi is, of course, an ANC member and according to the ANC Constitution he is subject to the discipline of the ANC like any other member. It would therefore be perfectly legal to charge Vavi. I am sure if the right disciplinary committee is selected Vavi could also be found guilty of contravening section 25.5 of the ANC Constitution which prohibits any member from, inter alia: 

  • Behaviour which brings the organisation into disrepute or which manifests a flagrant violation of the moral integrity expected of members and public representatives or conduct unbecoming that of a member or public representative;
  • Behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a break-down of unity in the organisation;
  • Undermining the respect for or impeding the functioning of the structures of the organisation;
  • Prejudicing the integrity or repute of the organisation, its personnel or its operational capacity by: Impeding the activities of the organisation; Creating division within its ranks or membership; Doing any other act, which undermines its effectiveness as an organisation; or Acting on behalf of or in collaboration with: Counter-revolutionary forces.

    • That is exactly why I warned after the conviction of Julius Malema that it was a bad idea to find him guilty of criticising the President of the ANC. At the time I wrote:

    Surely, if this approach were to be strictly applied, it would stifle democratic debate within the ANC and would severely limit the freedom of expression enjoyed by ANC members. If an ANC member criticized one of his comrades because that comrade had been found guilty of corruption, say, disciplinary charges could be instituted against him or her for sowing division within the ANC. This would leave good members in the ANC who spoke out against the wrongdoing of comrades vulnerable and would make it rather difficult to raise questions about the conduct of fellow ANC members – even if this criticism is based on proven facts.

    And that is exactly what Vavi is now facing. Those who want to stop Vavi from speaking out about corruption in the ANC (so much the better to loot govern the country) are even using the Malema saga as an excuse to do so. This is the problem with curtailing freedom of expression and endorsing censorship: today it is being used against your enemies, but tomorrow it is being used against yourself – even when you speak the truth and are one of the good guys.

    The fact that the NWC even discussed the possibility of charging Vavi clearly means that the tenderpreneurs in the ANC are more stupid and vengeful than they are greedy (and that takes some doing). Charging Vavi would be a calamity for President Zuma and the ANC. Unlike Malema, who has no real power base, is being manipulated by a few rich benefactors to do their bidding, and could easily be dropped when he passes his sell-by date, Vavi is the leader of Cosatu. Without the organisational skills of Cosatu and the active support of its members, the ANC will find it difficult to get more than 50% of the vote at the next election.

    One assumes President Zuma and Mr Gwede Mantashe will outflank the tenderpreneurs on the NWC and will make sure that charges against Vavi never see the light of day. If they do not, the ANC would probably be done for as the governing party.  But what President Zuma will not do is to order an investigation into the credible allegations of corruption against Siphiwe Nyanda. If one lives in a glass house one is surely not going to throw the first stone.

    Meanwhile, all I can say to Zwelenzima Vavi is: “I told you so”. When Vavi supported President Zuma as the alternative to Thabo Mbeki and said Zuma was an unstoppable tsunami I warned that President Zuma was an African traditionalist and deeply conservative man who did not share the values held so dearly by Cosatu. Now Vavi is realising that this is indeed the case and that he had helped to elect a man that is ethically weak and holds reactionary views.

    Perhaps the roses really want to grow,
    The vision seriously intends to stay;
    If I could tell you I would let you know.

    Suppose all the lions get up and go,
    And all the brooks and soldiers run away;
    Will Time say nothing but I told you so?
    If I could tell you I would let you know. – - WH Auden “If I could Tell you”

    Cosatu can do better

    May 19th, 2009
    by Pierre De Vos.
    66 comments

    I am deeply disappointed in the leadership (and legal and political advisers) of Cosatu in the Western Cape. The ANC-led Alliance was handed a public relations coup when Premier Helen Zille appointed ten men to her cabinet and then tried to defend this decision, not by singing the praises of her new cabinet and explaining how the cabinet would deliver services to the poor, but by personally attacking the ANC and Jacob Zuma.

    But now Cosatu in the Western Cape is acting in a manner that is both politically unwise and legally uninformed and is in danger of losing the moral high ground in this fight.

    First, Cosatu pulled a cheap – but ultimately doomed – stunt by launching an ill-advised equality court application to challenge the composition of the Zille’s cabinet.

    Now Die Burger is reporting that Cosatu is threatening to institute a motion of no confidence in Zille and her cabinet via their ANC allies in the Provincial Legislature. If that does not work, it is threatening to use section 109 or 125 of the Constitution to unseat Zille.

    Section 141(2) allows the Provincial legislature to pass a vote of no confidence in the Premier and her cabinet which would force the Premier and her cabinet to resign and would require a new Premier and cabinet to be appointed. But this is not a secret vote, so if any DA members voted for this motion they would be fired and new DA members brought in, which would allow Zille to be re-elected as Premier and to appoint the very same cabinet.

    Section 109(1) allows the Provincial Legislature to adopt a resolution that would resolve the Legislature and have fresh elections, but only if at least three years has passed since the previous election, so it could not be relied on. Section 109(2) allows the Acting Premier to dissolve the Legislature if a motion of no confidence in the Premier and the cabinet has been adopted, and the Legislature has been unable to elect a new Premier within 30 days.

    Section 125 does not seem to be applicable at all as it deals with the executive authority of the Provincial cabinet.

    These moves will ultimately all be unsuccessful. The DA has an outright majority in the Western Cape and unless some of its members are on a suicide mission, they will never vote in favour of a motion of no confidence or for the dissolution of the Legislature for fresh elections to be held. This is because such a vote is not done by secret ballot and any DA member who votes for it will summarily be booted out of the party and lose their seats.

    The stunt is also politically unwise because it suggests that Cosatu and the ANC is unwilling to accept the democratic will of the people of the Western Cape. Such a move would hand Zille a very big political gift because she would be able to argue – as she will surely do – that Cosatu and the ANC is anti-democratic and is trying to get rid of her because they do not like the verdict of the voters. Suddenly her all male cabinet and her disastrous attack on Zuma would have been forgotten and the Alliance would be painted as undemocratic spoilsports.

    If Cosatu and the ANC want to demonstrate their unhappiness with the appointment of a ten man cabinet, while simultaneously displaying a respect for the democratic process, it could institute a vote of no confidence in Zille’s cabinet in terms of section 141(1). If such a vote of no confidence were to be successful (which it would not because the DA controls the Legislature and any DA member voting for such a motion will be kicked out of the DA), Zille would retain her position as Premier but would be forced to reconstitute her cabinet.

    But the latter move – even if unsuccessful – would highlight the disastrous decision to appoint an all male cabinet without sending the signal that the ANC is a sore loser who does not respect the will of the people. It would be a symbolic gesture, working within the spirit and letter of the Constitution, to try and make an important political point about the ten man cabinet.

    The fact that Cosatu has not raised this as an option invariably creates the impression that it is anti-democratic and hands Zille a propaganda coup of her own. Better to work within the letter and spirit of the Constitution and to keep the focus on the real issue – namely that Zille appointed a ten man cabinet of varying ability to try and placate her political enemies within the DA. This will allow the Alliance to argue that Zille is guilty of the worst kind of cronyism and that her attacks on ANC cronyism is hypocritical and self-serving.

    Politics can be a dirty business, but surely we all have a duty to respect the will of the electorate and not to send signals that could be interpreted as anti-democratic? Cosatu can do better but, like Zille, they seemed to have been influenced by personal animosity instead of sound legal and political tactics.

    The electorate deserves better from all of them.

    Newer Posts →