Constitutional Hill

Julius Malema

The past is very much part of the present

Jun 28th, 2011
by Pierre De Vos.
77 comments

In the movie A Reasonable Man director Gavin Hood (whose movie Tsotsi won the best foreign picture Oscar) tells the story of a young Zulu herd boy, Sipho (Loyiso Gxwala) who is on trial for killing a baby. Based on an actual court case, the movie depicts Sipho’s interaction with Sean Raine (played by Woods himself) and the way in which the case affects Raine’s view of the law and forces him to rethink his long held views about the law and about himself.

Sipho insists throughout that he thought he was killing an evil spirit otherwise known as the tokoloshe in popular folklore. The prosecutor, Linde (played by Vusi Kunene) is ready to send him straight to jail and the defense wants him to plead insanity. Gavin Hood’s character, Sean Raine doesn’t believe that he is insane, he sincerely believes that he was killing an evil spirit.

In a pivotal scene Linde (the prosecutor) asks Sean: “Why are you so keen to keep this country in the grip of the past?” to which Sean replies, “the past is very much a part of the present”.

The movie asks profound questions about the way in which judges apply the law in a multicultural society like South Africa. Did Sipho genuinely believe that he was killing an evil spirit and if so, was this belief reasonable in terms of our law? And on what basis must a judge decide whether an accused acted reasonably or not? In the movie, Hood, who himself studied law, explores these questions in a provocative and complex manner.

I was reminded of Hood’s movie this morning as I took part in a discussion on hate speech and struggle songs on Radio Sonder Grense (RSG). Of course, the discussion took place in the context of the singing of a very specific struggle song by Julius Malema. That song, which in the mainstream media has become known as the “Kill the Boer” song, came to renewed prominence when Malema sung it shortly after City Press reported that companies which he had been associated with had allegedly been involved in “dodgy tenders” in Limpopo.

The lyrics of the song sang by Malema included the following passages:

Ayasab’ amagwala (the cowards are scared)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ayeah
dubula dubula (shoot shoot )
ayasab ‘a magwala (the cowards are scared)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
awu yoh
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyeah (oh mother)
awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyo (oh mother)

aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
…..
awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyo (oh mother)
awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyo (oh mother)

aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

Ziyarapa lezinja (these dogs are raping)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ay iyeah
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Ziyarapa lezinja (these dogs are raping)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ay iiiyo
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

On RSG this morning, after I gave my usual spiel that section 10 of the Equality Act requires us to ask whether the person who sang the song could reasonably be construed as having had the intention to be hurtful or harmful to white South Africans, one after the other, listeners called in to express their opposition to the song and to demand that the song be banned. One could hear the genuine fear, anger and frustration in many of the voices of those who called in. The barely concealed contempt, disgust and hatred of Mr Malema also bubbled to the surface.

I have no doubt that the singing of the song by Mr Malema is experienced as hurtful and very scary by the vast majority of white South Africans. This view is often sincerely held – also by people who are not overtly racist. For the reasonable white farmer or the reasonable white person who never took part in the struggle and do not speak Zulu, it must be as clear as day that this song constitutes hate speech.

But for the reasonable ANC member, the reasonable black (or white) person who took part in the struggle against apartheid, or for the reasonable person whose first language is Zulu, the song might arguably convey a completely different message.

Which highlights the difficulties faced by the judge who is currently contemplating whether he should find Julius Malema in breach of section 10 of the Equality Act because he sang this song. (As Afriforum had – correctly – not asked the court to ban the song outright, the demand by callers that the song should be banned, will therefore never come to pass.)

Who is this “reasonable person” that the law requires the judge to invoke and to rely on when he makes his decision? Is it the reasonable farmer? The reasonable white, middle class South African who only speaks English and Afrikaans? The reasonable ANC member? The reasonable person who took part in the struggle? Is the reasonable person a man or a woman, gay or straight, rich or poor? Does this reasonable person speak Zulu or only English and Afrikaans?

When I was a student at Stellenbosch University many years ago, our Professors did not speak of the “reasonable person” when they invoked this supposedly objective test that forms an integral part of our legal system. They referred to the “reasonable man”, by which most of them probably meant a reasonable white man who happens to have been a lawyer in apartheid South Africa for many years and had then been appointed – along with other white men – as a judge to one of our high courts. (In 1990 there were no black judges serving on any court in South Africa, while only 1 female High Court judge – Leonora van den Heever – served on the bench.)

When some of us – congratulating ourselves on our virtuous adoption of feminism – muttered in a self-satisfied manner that this “reasonable man” was a sexist concept, at least one professor scoffed and said: “What would be next – the reasonable dog or the reasonable criminal?”

The truth is that the reasonable person relied on by section 10 of the Equality Act (and in our common law rules and other legislation) is a fictitious person that is imbued with the values, assumptions, beliefs and ideologies of the judges who have to apply and develop this concept. This is one of the reasons why Julius Malema’s hate speech trial has evoked such different responses from different people in South Africa. We experience the singing of this song by Julius Malema differently depending on our own experiences, fears, beliefs, values and ideological commitments. (A more extreme manifestation of this phenomenon is perhaps the vastly different ways in which different people responded to the allegations of gross misconduct leveled against Judge President John Hlophe.)

Perhaps, as the composition of the bench changes and more women, gays and black South Africans are appointed to it, the concept of the reasonable person might change radically. Then again, one should not underestimate the disciplining power of legal education and of peer pressure in the legal community, which might instill in these judges the same beliefs about what constitutes a “reasonable person” as those currently in fashion.

Like Linde, the prosecutor in A Reasonable Man, judges who happen not to be white, male and heterosexual might reject the idea that we should rethink what we mean when we invoke the reasonable person. When confronted with difficult questions about how we should interpret the meaning of struggle songs, they might also ask: “Why are you so keen to keep this country in the grip of the past?”

Like Sean, the lawyer in A Reasonable Man, I might very well reply: “The past is very much a part of the present”.

Julius, you don’t need to change the Constitution

Jun 20th, 2011
by Pierre De Vos.
148 comments

ANC Youth League leader Mr. Julius Malema vowed again on Sunday to “take land without payment” at the closing ceremony of his organisation’s elective conference, sending a chill down the spine of many a property owner and probably creating a stampede for exit Visas to Australia. After all, how bad can it be to live in Perth? (I am told that if one does not mind being bored to death, one can live there quite comfortably without ever having to make friends with Australians or expat white South Africans.) Julius

“There is no way you can be diplomatic about the issue of land. We will never be diplomatic about willing buyer, willing seller. It has failed,” Mr. Malema told delegates. He said the African National Congress, at its last elective conference in Polokwane, in December 2007, acknowledged that an alternative needed to be found to the willing buyer, willing seller policy.

“You have failed to find an alternative. We must take the land without payment,” said Mr. Malema. But he added: “If you have got an alternative, we are prepared to listen.” Earlier Mr. Malema had said that the ANC needed to achieve a 75% majority at the next election so that it could change the Constitution to allow for the taking of land without compensation.

Mr. Malema is, of course, correct that the “willing buyer, willing seller” land redistribution policy has not been a great success.  The speed of land reform has been slow, to say the least. At the same time, the Department of  Rural Development and Land Reform has admitted that many emerging black farmers have been struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. Malema is also correct to point out that black people were dispossessed of their land during the colonial and apartheid era. I recall the old joke that white people came to South Africa with the Bible in hand and told locals the good news about their benevolent and omnipotent God. They then asked the locals to pray with them to praise this wonderful God, but when the local people opened their eyes after the prayer, their land had been stolen.

This does not mean that all white people who now own property stole that property from black South Africans. While many of us who own property might have gotten a head start in the property market because of our relative privileged position as whites who benefited from apartheid (which gave us better opportunities than we would have had if we were black) and because we were supported by many of our parents who, in turn, became far more wealthy than their average black counterparts because of the structural privileges afforded to whites by apartheid, most of us actually took a loan from the bank to pay for our property and most of us pay back our bonds every month.

Although most of us would never be able to afford a R250 000 Breitling watch (unlike Julius Malema, who wears one of these watches despite his R35 000 a month ANC Youth League salary) – no matter whether we are paying a bond or not – many of us who belongs to the chattering classes would have been financially far better off if we did not have to pay a bond installment every month.

However, seeing that President Jacob Zuma is too weak or too scared to lead the country and seeing that Julius Malema now seems to dictate the nature of public discourse, I thought it might be helpful to highlight a few points about the whole issue of land expropriation and redistribution in South Africa just to remind Julius that changing the Constitution should really not be a high priority for his organisation.

Mr. Malema might not be aware that the Constitution contains a property clause which deals with both the protection of existing property rights and the expropriation of property as well as land redistribution. To understand this section of the Constitution it must be interpreted holistically. While section 25(1) states clearly that no one may arbitrarily be deprived of property, section 25(2)  states that property may only be expropriated subject to the payment of equitable compensation.

It is important to note that this section does not require the state always to pay market value for the property when it expropriates that property. The time and manner of payment must be “equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the current use of the property; the history of the acquisition and use of the property; the market value of the property; the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and the purpose of the expropriation.”

A value lower than market value may therefore be paid for a property when it is expropriated if, say, the owner obtained that property as a result of the apartheid policy of forced removals or if the owner obtained the property very cheaply because he happened to have had good connections with the then ruling National Party.

Further subsections of the property clause all - in one way or another - underline the need for and aim at redressing one of the most enduring legacies of racial discrimination in the past, namely the grossly unequal distribution of land in South Africa. In fact section 25(5) explicitly states that “[t]he state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis”.

These sections do not require the state to follow the “willing buyer willing seller” approach to land redistribution. This policy was chosen by the present government, but our government could also choose a policy of forced expropriation, as long as it paid an equitable price to the person whose land was expropriated. In fact, given the failure of the existing “willing buyer willing seller” model of land redistribution, a court might even find that the state has not fulfilled its constitutional duty in terms of section 25(5) because it had not taken reasonable measures to achieve the goal of equitable access to land.

What this section makes clear is that the Constitution requires us to think differently about the nature of property and to marry the need for the protection of property rights with the need for a more equitable distribution of property ownership in our society. The Constitution does not provide for the protection of property rights in the caricaturist manner depicted by Mr. Malema in his speeches. As the Constitutional Court stated in the First National Bank of SA Ltd v The Commissioner of South African Revenue Services and Another:

The purpose of section 25 has to be seen both as protecting existing private property rights as well as serving the public interest, mainly in the sphere of land reform but not limited thereto, and also as striking a proportionate balance between these two functions. . .

When considering the purpose and content of the property clause it is necessary. . . to move away from a static, typically private-law conceptualist view of the constitution as a guarantee of the status quo to a dynamic, typically public-law view of the constitution as an instrument for social change and transformation under the auspices [and I would add ‘and control’] of entrenched constitutional values. That property should also serve the public good is an idea by no means foreign to pre-constitutional property concepts.

As I see it, there are at least two big problems that hamper effective land redistribution in South Africa. First, some land owners are trying to make a fast buck out of the process of land reform. Taking the gap (like any other tenderpreneur would have done) they demand rather exorbitant compensation before they would be willing to sell their farms to the state. This they are entitled to do in terms of the present policy. They know that in terms of this policy, if  such exorbitant amounts are not offered, they will not be forced to sell their property. For them it is therefore a win-win situation.

Second, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform does not have the expertise to provide effective assistance to emerging black farmers. Neither does the Department seem to have the political will to build the capacity that would ensure the success of a land redistribution programme. Far too often the focus is on how many hectares of land had been redistributed and not on how successful the farmers are who had been resettled on the land.

This is why the empty and fake-revolutionary rhetoric of Julius Malema on land redistribution is so silly and why it makes no sense.  Every true revolutionary with more than two brain cells will know that in the absence of a very well managed support programme for emerging farmers resettled on expropriated land, the wholesale expropriation of productive land will be disastrous for all South Africans – but especially for the poor.

The Department has been unable – even with the limited redistribution of land that has taken place – to ensure that all new black farmers obtain the skills required to compete with international agri-business and the big agri-businesses in South Africa. A wholesale unplanned land-redistribution programme without the required support will obviously deal a fatal blow to South Africa’s food security and will lead to high food inflation and much suffering – especially among the poor.

What is required is for a whole new approach to land reform and land redistribution. We should begin to investigate other - constitutionally-compliant – ways of transferring land to those who can actually use it productively. I am not an expert in the field, but surely what is required first and foremost is the political will to make land reform work. And such reform will only work if productive land is not transferred to others who do not have the skills (or are not assisted to acquire the skills) to work that land productively.

What is certain is that it is not necessary to change the Constitution to speed up land reform. What is required is new policies, some competence and the political will to change the status quo. Perhaps because tenderpreneurs have so far not been able to exploit the land-reform process to make pots of money, there has been no political will to tackle this problem in a sensible and effective manner.

About “unknown unknowns” and hate speech

May 17th, 2011
by Pierre De Vos.
130 comments

Donald Rumsfeld, the former American Secretary of Defence famously said: “[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” When a judge clearly does not know that he does not know the applicable law, his or her judgment usually makes for interesting but somewhat depressing reading.

I was reminded of this truism when I read the “judgment” of Judge LP Halgryn in the matter of African National Congress and Others v Harmse and Another. The “judgment” purports to deal with an application of the ANC to appeal a previous consent order granted by the judge to the effect that the singing of the song Dubula Ibhunu was “unconstitutional and unlawful”.

However, without having heard any evidence on the matter and without having considered the factual context within which the words were supposedly communicated, the “judgment” declares that the song is “unconstitutional” and that chanting it “prima facie satisfies the crime of incitement to commit murder”.

Acting judge Halgryn, dismissing the ANC’s application for leave to appeal, has now provided reasons for the original order. That order was, of course, a legal nonsense, but that has not prevented the acting judge from providing a set of rather incoherent and embarrassingly uninformed justifications for granting the order. He has also amended the original order without having received an application in terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court for a rescission or variation of the order.

The acting judge seems unaware that the Constitution itself does not prohibit any speech – be it hate speech or any other kind of speech. He relies on section 16)(2) of the Constitution which defines certain forms of hate speech to which the protection of freedom of expression does not extend. Judge Halgryn then states that section 16(2) of the Constitution “prohibits” hate speech. It does nothing of the sort.

The chanting of Dubula Ibhunu can therefore not be unconstitutional and the original order is therefore legally embarrassing. Although the judge refers to the Islamic Unity Convention decision of the Constitutional Court where the meaning of section 16 is explained rather clearly, he has either not read the judgment he cites or he has not understood its meaning. In that case, then Deputy Chief Justice Pius Langa explained how one had to read section 16 of the Constitution.

Section 16 is in two parts. Subsection (1) is concerned with expression that is protected under the Constitution. It is clear that any limitation of this category of expression must satisfy the requirements of the limitations clause to be constitutionally valid. Subsection (2) deals with expression that is specifically excluded from the protection of the right. How is section 16(2) to be interpreted? The words “[t]he right in subsection (1) does not extend to . . .” imply that the categories of expression enumerated in section 16(2) are not to be regarded as constitutionally protected speech. Section 16(2) therefore defines the boundaries beyond which the right to freedom of expression does not extend. In that sense, the subsection is definitional…. There is accordingly no bar to the enactment of legislation that prohibits such expression. Any regulation of expression that falls within the categories enumerated in section 16(2) would not be a limitation of the right in section 16.

In other words, section 16(2) does not prohibit any speech, but it allows the legislature to pass legislation to prohibit or limit the speech defined in section 16(2). If a legislature passed legislation to limit such speech, that legislation could not be tested against the freedom of expression provision set out in section 16 because it would fall outside the scope of what constitutes protected speech.

The legislature did exactly that, passing section 10 (read with section 12) of the Equality Act, which does place limits on several kinds of speech. If one wishes to enquire whether the singing of a song constitutes hate speech which could legally be banned, one is therefore required to rely on this section – not on section 16(2) of the Constitution.

Because the judge wrongly relies on 16(2) to justify his order, the judge argues that the intention of the person uttering the aggrieved words “is wholly irrelevant”. Section 10 of the Equality Act famously defines hate speech as speech that could reasonably be construed as having the intention to hurt or harm someone based on their race or some other offensive ground. The learned judge claims that “it is not for the maker/ articulator of the expression/declaration under consideration, (nor is it for the Courts), to dictate how the beholder thereof should perceive” the words.

This is of course wrong. It is exactly for the Courts to decide whether a reasonable person would construe the words uttered by a specific person in a specific context as having had the intention to harm a group of persons based on their race or based on some other ground. Whether the beholder of the words perceives the words to be hurtful is not the relevant point that would clinch the deal. This is because the beholder of the words might not be a reasonable person. That beholder might – say – be Steve Hofmeyer or acting Judge Halgryn, in which case a court might well argue that the fact that the beholder has perceived the words as hateful is utterly irrelevant.

It is for the court, applying an objective test, to determine whether the person who uttered the words could reasonably be construed as having had the intention to hurt a group of people based on their race. That is why a judge cannot ban a song as judge Halgryn purported to do in this “judgment”. To decide whether the utterance constitutes hate speech in terms of section 10 of the Equality Act, one would have to look at the specific context to determine whether the intention of the person uttering the song could reasonably be construed as having the intention to hurt a group of people based on their race.

If I sing Dubula Ibhunu at a dinner party as part of an extended riff on the fact that I have a secret crush on Julius Malema and one of my guests takes me to court for hate speech, I am pretty sure I would be able to convince the court that I could not reasonably be construed as having had the intention to hurt white people. This rather obvious legal point which acting Judge Halgryn – in his seeming rush to ban a song that he finds objectionable – has failed to grasp.

The original order stated that chanting the impugned song “prima facie satisfies the crime of incitement”. There is, of course, no such crime as incitement in our law. This did not stop the acting judge from amending the order – without having been requested to do so in the legally required manner – to the effect that the song prima facie satisfies the crime of incitement to commit murder. Quite a novel approach to the law, which would have warmed the heart of Lindiwe Sisulu’s lawyer.

The fact that acting judge Halgryn so obviously did not know that he did not know the law regarding hate speech, makes this “judgment” one of the least plausible judgments I have ever read in my academic career.

When a legal representative makes the case for the opponent

Apr 21st, 2011
by Pierre De Vos.
225 comments

Listening to TAU’s Advocate Roelof du Plessis as he cross-examines Mr Julius Malema in his hate speech case is a bit like sitting on a stage in front of a crowd of people and having one’s tooth extracted without any anaesthetic while having to listen to Steve Hofmeyer songs being played backward. It is painful. It is embarrassing. It is dehumanising. It is stupid.

Du Plessis sounds like Adriaan Vlok or PW Botha giving a speech in 1986 about the dangers of communism and the evils of ANC “terrorism” and the swartgevaar. It is like the baas telling the bloody k*@ffirs how lazy, stupid and evil they are. Talking about Lenin, Marx, communism and the evils of land distribution, is really not the way to win the argument — either inside court or outside court. The fact that adv. Du Plessis thinks this is all relevant, suggests that he does not get out enough and that he has no idea that he lives in a South Africa that is now a constitutional democracy.

Du Plessis’s approach is so tone-deaf and so obnoxious that it manages to do exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do: it creates sympathy for Julius Malema and for the singing of the Kill the Boer song. Instead of dealing with the legal issue — whether the singing of the Kill the Boer song by Julius Malema at a politically charged event constituted hate speech – Du Plessis is seemingly trying to put Julius Malema’s political views on trial, caricaturing these views in the process. But because his own views are so extreme, it is adv Du PLessis’ views that one ends up judging as being unreasonable, paranoid and bordering on racist.

In any case, the court is not the place to deal with such issues. These are political disagreements that run deep. This once again reminds me that it is inappropriate to deal with the singing of the song in a court of law. What is needed is to engage the ANC leadership on this issue so that it could return to its former position that the singing of this song in certain contexts is not helpful and that it should be avoided.

But Du Plessis, alas, is so clueless that he natters on in defence of the old South African flag and other obsessions of AWB types. He seems to suggest that Afrikaners are in danger of becoming victims of genocide. This kind of view is so ignorant of our history and the nature of the democratic transition, that it cannot but alienate any right-thinking or reasonable South African. By performing in the manner that he has, adv. Du Plessis has managed something of a miracle — he has managed to make Mr Malema sound reasonable, level-headed and dignified.

The cross-examination serves as a timely reminder (if any reminder is needed) that some South Africans still do not see the ANC as the legitimate government of South Africa. Seething with anger and suffering from a historic amnesia, he seems unaware that South Africa has emerged from a deeply evil system and that we now live in a democracy in which a legitimately elected government is implementing the policies of the ruling party.

In a constitutional democracy one has a right and a duty to argue about whether the policies of the governing party are wise or not and whether it is good for all of us (by which I do not mean only white South Africans) or bad for all of us. But even if one does not agree with the ANC government’s policies or even if one is critical of the corruption and arrogance of some ANC leaders, this does not make the ANC government illegitimate.

I must say, watching adv. Du Plessis’s performance today is almost enough to make me want to burst out singing: “dubul’ibhunu / dubula dubula”.

The astonishing self-denial of Sunette Bridges

Nov 4th, 2010
by Pierre De Vos.
336 comments

Sunette Bridges is probably not a household name for the vast majority of South Africans. They should count themselves lucky. Sunette Bridges is an Afrikaans singer, but I use the term “singer” rather generously here. For those who have not had the misfortune of encountering this artiste, I can only say: “Count your Blessings” (this is a pun: see next paragraph). Listening to the music of Sunette Bridges is about as gratifying as listening to the wonderful melody of a chainsaw being used by a sadist to sever your hands and feet from the rest of your body.

Some years ago Sunette’s late father, Bless Bridges (pun explained!), sold quite a lot of CDs. He was famous for gallantly dishing out satin roses to the middle-aged women who swooned about his velvety voice and his ability to yodel (alas, a dying art amongst Afrikaans singers) as well as at his rendition of that classic Afrikaans ditty Ruiter van die Windjie (roughly translated as Jockey of the little wind).

Sunette did not inherit her father’s musical talent (and that says quite a lot about her spectacular lack of talent). Unlike real artists like Amanda Strydom, Koos du Plessis and – more recently – Jan Blohm, she has also seemingly not inherited any social conscience or, come to think of it, even an ounce of decency and respect for others. She is a rabid racist but she is in deep denial of that fact.

Sunette is in “trouble” (but maybe not in as much trouble as she should be) because she has exposed herself as a typical racist on her Facebook page. These days, most racist white South Africans will speak in code. They will mask their racism by talking about how the country is going to the dogs and how “they” cannot be trusted. But Sunette is one of the old school racists who does not feel any need to hide her hatred and disgust of black people behind code phrases. As the channel24 website reports:

Singer Sunette Bridges, daughter of the Afrikaans singer Bles Bridges, has laughed off complaints about allegedly racist comments made on her Facebook profile. ”It’s absolutely pathetic that people think it’s racist,” Bridges said, after Chris du Plessis brought the comments to Beeld‘s attention.

On Tuesday afternoon Bridges posted a message to Facebook: “Of all the instruments one can use to build STRAIGHT – a spirit level, profiles, measuring tape, fishing line, square – a sjambok is the only one that works for this Greenie of mine!!! EISH!!!!! Sx.”

Thirty people indicated that they “liked” this statement. By Thursday afternoon there were also 17 comments praising Bridges for her words. ”That is, after all, the only language they’ve understood all these years. 3x hurrahs for you!” said a certain Rene Smit.

Ms Bridges evidently believes that referring to a black South African as a “Greeny; referring to this (as yet unnamed) person as if he belonged to her and was in essence a slave; and indicating that she needed to whip him with a sjambok to ensure that he did his work properly, was not racist at all. In fact, she thinks its hilarious and informative. What planet is this sorry excuse for a human being living on?

So much for the readers of this Blog who claim that hardly any white South Africans are still racists. Yeah right. Sunette and her many fans have obviously not received the memo that we now live in a democracy in which (at least) naked racism of this kind is frowned upon in polite society. This kind of thing is, of course, morally reprehensible and wrong. It is deeply dehumanising to the majority of South Africans. It is also rather counter productive as it fans the flames of racial hatred and intolerance.

Imagine Julius Malema saying such a thing about any white South African.

The outcry from white South Africans would have been harsh and prolonged. Why is there no similar outcry at the mad ravings of this untalented racist? Now is the time for all white South Africans (including the members of Afriforum and the leadership of the Democratic Alliance) to show some consistency by condemning these statement as disgusting and reprehensible. If they remain silent, we would know which side they are really on.

But more interesting and important perhaps is the question of whether the statement by Sunette Bridges is illegal. It is not illegal in South Africa to make racist statements. If it was, hundreds of thousands of South Africans would have had to be brought to court every month, as racists statements (as well as sexist and homophobic statements) are made every day by thousands of South Africans who probably preface their statements by phrases such as : “I am not a racist/sexist/homophobe, but……”

Some racists, sexists and homophobic South Africans are more sophisticated than Sunette Bridges, of course, and often say offensive things without realising that they are giving themselves away. Complimenting a black South African on her excellent command of the English language, say, or inadvertently referring to gay men and lesbians as engaging an “abnormal” sexual behaviour might be done with the best of intentions and one would seldom think that such statements – while objectionable – pass the threshold of illegality.

But what about the statement by Sunette Bridges?

Readers might recall that section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) prohibits any person from publishing or communicating “words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds (including race), against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to (a) be hurtful; (b) be harmful or to incite harm; or (c) promote or propagate hatred.”

As I have written before, I am far from convinced that this section will pass constitutional muster as it limits freedom of expression far more than is permitted by section 16 of the Bill of Rights. But as the section stands, it seems obvious that Miss Bridges will not be able to escape conviction for hate speech on the basis that she had no intention of saying something either hurtful or harmful about someone else based on that person’s race.

What one has to determine is whether her words could reasonably be construed as having the intention of being hurtful or harmful towards black people in general or her employee in particular. I don’t think it would be too difficult to show that any reasonable person would construe her statement as having the intention to be hurtful or harmful to black South Africans. Afriforum therefore has every opportunity to win this case if it complained about Bridges’ statement to the Equality Court. The DA similarly might want to show some even-handedness and take this case to the Equality Court.

Personally I am not holding my breath that this will happen, as both organisations are vying for the support of people like Sunette Bridges and  her fans. I might be wrong, of course, and Helen Zille herself might announce in her weekly newsletter that the DA is submitting a complaint to the Equality Court about this outrageous statement. If that happens, I apologise in advance for assuming that the DA had a double standard and was – in effect – condoning the racism of a white public figure which it would have condemned if the public figure was black.

Just another day in South Africa, I guess.

PS: For a demonstration of the racism in the music of Sunette Bridges, see this Youtube version of her song “Genoeg“. Warning: it will make your stomach turn.

“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”

    But what about the alleged corruption?

    May 13th, 2010
    by Pierre De Vos.
    58 comments

    The outcome of the disciplinary process against ANC Youth League President Julius Malema has elicited much comment – not all of it very well informed. Opposition parties have (predictably) decried the “slap on the wrists” for Malema, while some commentators have argued that the outcome augurs well for President Jacob Zuma as the sentence imposed on Malema will muzzle him and will prevent him from making trouble for the President – at least for the next two years.

    Who knows where the truth lies.

    More interesting though is the reasons given for the dropping of some of the more serious charges against Malema. It has been stated that these charges were prepared by Gwede Mantashe, who was not authorized to do so as he was not the person actually charging Malema. The charges were therefore procedurally deficient.

    Despite this, Malema was eventually found guilty of contravening Rule 25.5.(i) of the Constitution of the African National Congress “by behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a break-down of unity in the organization”, in that:

    At the ANC Youth League Limpopo Provincial Congress, on Sunday, April 11, 2010, when addressing the media, you issued the utterance that, “Even (former) President Thabo Mbeki, when he differed with the Youth League, and the Youth League had taken firm radical positions against him, he never did that” thereby implying that the ANC Youth League, of which you are the President, has taken a position against the President of the ANC.

    Whether this outcome can be squared with rule 25.2 of the ANC Constitution is debatable. This rule states that disciplinary charges shall not “be used as a means of stifling debate or denying members their basic democratic rights”. Although I am not a great fan of Juju’s style of politics, it is difficult not to conclude that his offending statement was basically true and that he had a democratic right to make it. The finding of the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC) suggests that an ANC member who criticizes a fellow ANC member – even if this criticism is based on fact – may face disciplinary charges, something that seems rather undemocratic to me.

    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.

    This seems rather counter-productive and even dangerous. Surely we need more ANC members exposing and criticizing their comrades for doing the wrong thing – not less of it? A culture of corruption and lawlessness flourishes where good people fear to speak out and to criticize their comrades.

    I suspect the ANC Youth League will pursue this line of reasoning in its attempt to have the findings of the NDC overturned by the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the ANC.

    According to the regulations attached to the ANC Constitution, disciplinary charges can be brought by “any organ or official of the ANC at Branch, Regional, Provincial or National level”. The National Disciplinary Committee is also empowered to hear and decide cases “referred to it by the ANC National Officials, NWC, or the NEC or of very serious violations or offences on its own initiative”. A charge must be prepared on behalf of the organ or officials of the ANC instituting the disciplinary proceedings.

    This suggests that Mantashe should not have prepared the charges, but that these should rather have been prepared by the person actually prosecuting the case on his behalf. This is, as far as I can tell, why the three other charges against Malema were thrown out. However, the NDC itself  is empowered to hear cases “on its own initiative” where the charges are serious. This the NDC did, choosing the one charge mentioned above.

    This suggests the NDC did not feel that the other three charges regarding Malema’s visit to Zimbabwe, comments about Eugene Terreblanche, and the attack on a British journalist were “serious”. The NDC apparently believed it was far more serious for Malema to have criticized the President of the ANC than to have interfered with South Africa’s foreign policy, to have ignored ANC instructions not to comment on the death of Terreblanche in order to calm the nerves of the whiteys, and to have displayed a rather shocking lack of respect for media freedom.

    To my mind the whole disciplinary process seems like a side show as it skirts the real problem with Malema. Newspaper reports suggest that Malema has R53 million in the bank, that he is a major shareholder in companies that had secured tenders from various municipalities in Limpopo despite the fact that the companies were not eligible for tenders because they had no tax compliant certificates, and that the companies did shoddy work. If any of this is true, Malema is the quintessential tenderpreneur, milking the state dry for his own benefit – to the detriment of the people whom the ANC was elected to serve.

    If these allegations are true – and it is difficult not to suspect that there is a grain of truth to them, given the confusing and contradictory explanations and justifications offered by Malema and his failure to sue the newspapers for publishing these defamatory claims – it would suggest that Malema is a thoroughly corrupt man who is using and abusing his position in the ANC for personal gain.

    Surely, if the ANC wants to retain the trust of the majority of South African voters, it needs to deal with the growing perception that leaders like Malema are using their power and influence to get rich while service delivery is fatally compromised. Is this perception – now widely shared by people of different political persuasions and races – not far more detrimental to the well-being of the ANC and the people of South Africa than the mild criticism Malema leveled against our President?

    Of course the chattering classes are far less dependent for their survival on the efficient and honest functioning of the state than the poor and marginalized in our society. The chattering classes hire private security companies to protect them, hunker down in gated communities where services are delivered by the body corporate, and eye the opportunities to enrich themselves through legal and illegal means, while those who are absolutely dependent on the state are left to their own devices. That is why members of the chattering classes get more worked up when Malema sings “Kill the Boer” or when he jets off to Zimbabwe, than about the allegations that poor black people in Limpopo had been fleeced by Malema through tender scams.

    What we all desperately need – whether we are ANC supporters or not – is for investigative journalists and honest ANC members to expose any corrupt practices linked to Malema or any other ANC leaders. If alleged corruption by ANC politicians or their enablers in the private sector is not mercilessly exposed and stopped, the legitimacy of the state itself will be endangered. And once the state loses any legitimacy, it would lose the ability to keep the fragile peace in South Africa, a peace that is required for the chattering classes to continue enjoying the benefits of their wealth and privilege.

    Sadly, the outcome of the disciplinary case will do nothing to address these real problems.

    PS: What we also need is a police service and a prosecuting authority that will go after those suspected of corruption, whether they are in government or the private sector. That is why the appointment of Menzi Simelane seems like such a disaster to me.

    The ANC, Julius Malema and the NDC

    Apr 21st, 2010
    by Pierre De Vos.
    104 comments

    It’s all rather confusing. Maybe the ANC – more pertinently Secretary General Gwede Mantashe – has charged Julius Malema with various counts of misconduct. Then again, maybe Malema has only been informed that the ANC will press charges against him at some future date. Or perhaps he has been charged but President Jacob Zuma has now been pressurised to have the charges against him dropped. Who knows what’s going on? I suspect not many in the ANC know what is going on either, so the rest of us will also remain in the dark.

    All this talk of discipline made me wonder just how the ANC deals with this sort of thing. Like any political party, it is required to deal with the disciplining of members in terms of its Constitution. Section 25 of the ANC Constitution (and an appendix to that Constitution) sets out in detail exactly how this should be done. A study of the relevant sections of the ANC Constitution, reveals a few interesting facts.

    First, disciplinary action can be initiated against Malema by any of the national officers of the ANC (that would include President Jacob Zuma, Gwede Mantashe or any of the other “top six” ANC leaders), or by the National Working Committee (NWC) or by the National Executive Committee (NEC) if any of these individuals or bodies “refer any violation or misconduct directly to the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC)”. Once a authorised individual or body has referred the matter to the NDC, the NDC has to conduct a disciplinary hearing after the person or organ who had referred the matter to it had finalised the drafting of a charge sheet.

    The ANC Constitution is not very clear on this, but it seems that once a matter has been referred to the NDC, neither Zuma or anyone else can stop the process. It would be in the hands of the NDC who will have to make a finding and hand down penalties (if appropriate) – although the NEC may review any decision of the NDC.

    If I am correct, this means that if news reports are to be believed that the matter has already been referred to the NDC, Malema will have no choice but to appear before the NDC. News reports that the ANC Youth league made representations to President Zuma and other members of the “top six” leadership to have the charges dropped, then also makes no sense. Such representations should be made to the NDC.

    Second, section 25.5 of the ANC Constitution contains a long list of activities that may be invoked by the NDC to discipline any ANC member (including Julius Malema, of course). These include:

    • 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;
    • Sowing racism, sexism, tribal chauvinism, religious and political intolerance, regionalism or any form of discrimination;
    • Abuse of elected or employed office in the organisation or in the State to obtain any direct or indirect undue advantage or enrichment;
    • 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; or
    • Fighting or behaving in a grossly disorderly or unruly way.

    Malema could be found guilty of any number of these provisions. Let’s face it, if the NDC wants to teach Julius Malema a lesson or even wants to expel him from the party, they will not have much difficulty in finding reasons to do so. However, many of these provisions are rather vague, so it leaves much leeway for the NDC to decide on whether to find Malema guilty or not.

    If they have the political will, the NDC will therefore find Julius guilty and meet out strict punishment. If, however, the NDC does not have the political will to deal with Julius (say because they are scared of him or because they get the impression that President Jacob Zuma, the NWC or the NEC would not back up any finding they might make), they can easily wriggle out of responsibility and can exonerate Malema.

    Although the ANC Constitution thus lists many grounds on which any disciplinary action against a member may be based, and although this gives the disciplinary process somewhat of a legal character, it would be naive not to see that political considerations may well play a role in decisions by the NDC on whether a member has breached any of the above rules and if so, what punishment should be meted out. (Other rules, such as the rule – not mentioned above – that a member who has been convicted for a serious non political criminal offence may face disciplinary charges, are more “objective”, of course.)

    To use one example: on what basis does one decide whether Julius has sown “racism, sexism, tribal chauvinism, religious and political intolerance, regionalism or any form of discrimination”? Your average housewife in Sandton (and, it has to be said, quite a few ANC officials irritated with Malema) may think it is obvious that Julius should be found guilty on this charge, but many others might argue that Julius was merely singing old struggle songs and that he was speaking the truth when he praised Robert Mugabe and said nasty things about Eugene Terreblanche.

    Third, the NWC and the NDC may summarily suspend the ANC membership of any member facing disciplinary charges and such suspension shall remain in force until the disciplinary proceedings have been finalised. This means that if either the NDC or the NWC really believed that what Julius had done was as serious as President Zuma intimated last week, they have every right to suspend him temporarily from the ANC. The fact that this has not happened says more, perhaps, than anything else about how careful these bodies are and how worried they are to upset Malema and his backers (Tokyo Sexwale, perhaps?).

    Lastly, if the NDC finds Julius guilty of breaching any of the provisions set out above (assuming that he ever faces the charges before the NDC) the Committee can reprimand him, suspend him for a period of expel him from the organisation. A reprimand would obviously be seen as a slap on the wrists and as a slap in the face of President Zuma who last week claimed that the actions of Malema was alien to the culture of the ANC. If the NDC actually finds Malema guilty of anything and then merely reprimands him, it would say much about the lack of control that Zuma has over the organisation that he leads.

    In conclusion, it seems to me the manner in which the ANC handles the disciplinary charges against Malema will help us better to understand who stands where in the Byzantine power struggles inside the ANC. Just because the process appears to be quasi-judicial does not mean that it will not have a strong political component (and political ramifications). Is it too melodramatic to claim that the future trajectory of Jacob Zuma’s presidency will be revealed as the disciplinary process against Julius Malema unfolds?

    What should come next?

    Apr 12th, 2010
    by Pierre De Vos.
    255 comments

    It has been, to say the least, a bizarre and upsetting week in South Africa. What started with the killing of the politically irrelevant old supremacists, Eugene Terreblanche (who might or might not secretly have been attracted to young black men and boys), ended with the tepid “dressing down” of Julius Malema by ANC President Jacob Zuma  (who sometimes also moonlights as the President of South Africa).

    Most analysts, journalists and fearful members of the white minority have interpreted these events against the backdrop of the singing of an old struggle song by Julius Malema.

    But surely all this would never have been blown out of all proportion like it was, if all members of the ruling party were impeccable democrats with an abiding respect for the Constitution and the judiciary, if the Road to Ventersdorp were not littered with potholes and empty election promises, if service delivery protests were not gaining ground because of the complete collapse of local government service delivery in some areas of the country, and if some ruling party members were not deeply implicated in cronyism, corruption and abuse of power.

    The hysterical reaction to the killing of Terreblanche and the antics of a little corrupt demagogue like Julius Malema would not have occurred if – 16 years after the advent of democracy and the supposed end of apartheid – all farmers had learnt to treat their workers with dignity and respect, if all white South Africans had learnt to face the unpalatable truth that they had unjustly benefited (and in some ways are continuing to benefit) in  myriads of ways from apartheid, if most members of the white minority had made serious attempts to come to terms with their own lingering (but often unspoken and undetected) racial prejudices and attitudes of racial superiority.

    It is in this atmosphere of discontent about lingering racism, rampant corruption and a lack of respect for the democratic rights of ordinary citizens in which extremists could momentarily dominate the national conversation. It is time for us to take back our country from the Malema’s and the Visagies and try to think of ways to fix what is broken.

    So what should come next?

    The ANC and its President (who seems more worried about spin-doctoring and about spending quality time with his wives, mistresses and many children than actually running the country) should begin to face up to some unpalatable truths. It should accept that it is in power, that it is ruling the country and that it should take responsibility for what is going wrong in the South Africa. The ANC  is the ruling party and should behave like one.

    It should stop pretending that it is still in exile and that the Nationalists are still in power. It should stop talking about what it will do, and actually do something for the voters who elected the ANC into office. Instead of buying fancy cars, throwing obscenely lavish parties and generally wasting our money, the ANC government could learn to be a bit more frugal with our taxes so that it could be spent to build houses and school libraries or to pay for a Basic Income Grant to assist the poorest of the poor.

    Stop blaming others. Stop blaming the past. When racists exploit and abuse their workers, do something about it. When big business, school governing bodies, and other social actors resist principled and fair forms of racial and economic transformation, stop complaining – as if, as the governing party, you have no power - and do something about it. But, of course, act in a manner that is in the best interest of the country as a whole and not in the interest of a few well-connected ANC politicians, tenderpreneurs or Kebbilists, who are out to exploit BEE and transformation in a manner that will reward incompetence, laziness and greed.

    Fire corrupt, lazy and unqualified officials who sit around at home when they should really be fixing the potholes, when they should be making sure our water is clean and our electricity is working, when they should be attending to the everyday needs of poor people who live in informal settlements, when they should be making sure that our school teachers arrive at work sober and on time and actually teach our children to read and write.

    Strictly enforce the existing rules regarding conflicts of interests and clean up the tender processes to prevent the Kenyafication of our public finances. Expel ANC members who steal from the poor, who corruptly obtain tenders which they cannot competently, efficiently and cost-effectively honour. Try and respect the voters who have elected you into office. Stop acting as if voters are stupid and ungrateful, as if they have to be told by heartless technocrats what their real needs are and how these needs should be met. 

    At the same time, white South Africans need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Very few of us supported Eugene Terreblanche and most white people would claim that they are appalled at the kind of racism displayed by the average AWB supporter. But what do we do at dinner parties, in office meetings and at rugby matches, when our fellow white South Africans say blatantly racist things, when they patronise black South Africans, when it becomes apparent that they hold black South Africans to a higher standard than they do their fellow white compatriots?

    Do we speak out about such injustices and do we make common ground with our fellow citizens whose human dignity is being attacked and whose honesty and competence is being questioned explicitly or implicitly because of their race? Do we mutter under our breath or smile benignly instead of challenging the racists? Do we turn away from the social and economic injustice that lives and breathes all around us? Do we shrug our shoulders when we are confronted by the poverty and deprivation caused by apartheid and blame it all on the ANC or on black people in general? 

    For example, why do so few white lawyers speak up about the need for transformation in the legal profession? Why do so many such lawyers perversely still brief less competent white  advocates merely because the advocate is white or was an old school buddy or plays golf with the partners of the firm?

    Until white South Africans take a long hard look at themselves, until they stop hiding behind a smug facade of racial superiority to insulate themselves from any responsibility for the past political oppression and economic exploitation of black South Africans, how can we move forward as a country? How can we claim to be any better than Eugene Terreblanche and his followers if we ourselves – through our silence or through our often unspoken assumptions about white superiority – help to fan the flames of racial animosity?

    All white South Africans need to take responsibility for the past before we as a nation can move on. This does not mean we should become cringing apologists for incompetence, laziness, corruption or abuse of power by members of the governing party or anyone else. Taking responsibility is not the same thing as accepting second class status in one’s own country. It does mean that we should accept that we have either contributed and/or are still benefiting from apartheid. It means we should show through, words and deeds, that we are prepared to do more than merely sit on the sidelines and whine and complain about the ANC-led government while trying to make as much money as we can – all the time scanning the papers for immigration opportunities.

    It is probably naive to think that the killing of Terreblanche and the embarrassing antics of Malema will lead to a sudden transformation which will allow both the ANC and the government it leads and the vast majority of white South Africans to suddenly take responsibility for the part they have played and are continuing to play in the creation or perpetuation of South Africa’s problems. But one has to start somewhere, with one ANC leader or member at a time, with one white South African at a time.

    It could be you. It could be me. We have to start somewhere.

    PW Botha = Julius Malema?

    Apr 8th, 2010
    by Pierre De Vos.
    144 comments

    Regular readers of this Blog will know that I have not responded to the antics of ANC Youth League President, Julius Malema, in the same hysterical fashion as some of my fellow South Africans. I have joked about my fantasy of sharing a night of passion with the Youth League leader (maybe after he loses a few kilograms first). Malema has returned the compliment by quoting me approvingly in the Mail & Guardian two weeks ago.

    However, after watching the video of Julius Malema ranting at a journalist from the BBC for having the audacity to point out that Malema stays in Sandton, I was left with an uneasy feeling. At first, I was not sure why this outburst was so unsettling. Surely we have seen all this before from the youngster? Then it hit me: Julius Malema reminds me of PW Botha!

    Like Botha, Malema is a man of limited intellect who never had much success with his formal education. Like Botha, Malema joined his political party of choice at a young age and despite limited abilities raised quickly through its ranks to serve in a leadership position. Like Botha, Malema is a bully who insults and intimidates opponents and some members of his own party in such a way that it gives great pleasure to his core supporters while scaring the hell out of everyone else.

    Like Botha, Malema has become a figure that is both feared within his party and laughed at behind his back. PIeter Dirk Uys published a satirical book called “PW Botha in his own words”, made up entirely of quotes by PW Botha. Recently Max du Preez and Mandy Rossouw did pretty much the same thing with Malema when they published “The World According to Julius Malema”. Like Botha, Malema is often economical with the truth, making claims that cannot be sustained.

    Of course, Malema does not have the finger wagging abilities of Die Groot Krokodil and he belongs to a party which fought against apartheid – unlike Botha who had people killed because they fought against apartheid. Nevertheless, both men seem to be cut from the same fascist cloth.

    Just have a look at these quotes from Malema and Botha and spot the similarities! First, here is Julius Malema yesterday:

    You can go out…rubbish is what you have covered in that trouser – that is rubbish. That which you have covered in [your] clothes is rubbish, ok? You are a small boy you can’t do anything. Go out…bastard! Go out! You bloody agent! >We cannot be allowed to be undermined in our own terrain, you can do that in your own offices, but here, once you come in here – this is not a playground, this is Luthuli House. It’s the head quarters of a revolutionary party which has liberated the people of South Africa. Here you come, you restrain yourself and behave in a manner that is befitting of being in the head quarters of the ANC. It’s not a beer-hall here, it’s not a drunk beer-hall – cheap beer-hall, this. And you ask anybody including political parties which tried to undermine this house what happened to them. You can undermine all of us but not the house. Never undermine the house. When you are here, you are in a different terrain. You are in our space and you are going to behave in a manner that is befitting of being in the ANC office. You don’t howl here especially when we speak and you behave like you are in an American press conference? This is not America, it’s Africa. You must behave in an African way. If you are in Rome you do as the Romans do.

    Now check out some of the things Die Groot Krokodil said:

    Most blacks are happy, except those who have had other ideas pushed into their ears.

    The people who are opposing the policy of apartheid have not the courage of their convictions. They do not marry non-Europeans.

    The free world wants to feed South Africa to the Red Crocodile [communism], to appease its hunger.

    I am sick and tired of the hollow parrot-cry of “Apartheid!” I’ve said many times that the word “Apartheid” means good neighborliness.

    We have such a vast task ahead of us and such great challenges to create a better future, that we can ill afford the irresponsibilities and destructive actions of barbaric Communist agitators and even murderers who perpetrate the most cruel deeds against fellow South Africans, because they are on the payroll of their masters far from this lovely land of ours. I have the knowledge because I have the facts. As head of this Government I am in the position to tell you tonight what the facts are.

    No, my friend, I am not a communist. [After being heckled at a political meeting by a man who shouted: "Give black people all the vote."]

    The ANC eventually got the better of PW Botha (with a little bit of help from FW de Klerk, Pik Botha and a stroke of luck). The question is whether its leadership will get the better of Malema? Or maybe the real question is whether ANC leaders want to get the better of him? I often wonder why the good people in the ANC do not take on Malema and if this silence means that they are not good people after all.

    But I suppose that is a question to be left to the conscience of the good people inside the ANC. Wonder if they sleep well at night. [Botha said in 1987: "I switch off the lights and sleep within a few minutes. I never take a guilty conscience with me to bed."]

    ← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →