Winnie Madikizela-Mandela has denied giving an interview in which she criticised Nelson Mandela because “he negotiated a poor deal for Black people” (although she has not denied saying these words – just that she did not say them during an interview). Over at Politicsweb, Musa Xulu is perplexed that this statement has caused so much controversy. According to him the negotiated compromise which produced our 1996 Constitution sold out black people – just like Winnie is reported to have said.
The indigenous people’s rights to land, mineral resources and everything else that was stolen from our forefathers back in 1652 when Jan Van Reebieck first sailed into our shores were trampled upon in the process. When the founding father of the ANC, one Themba Pixley kaIsaka Seme pooled all tribes together in 1912 under the slogan “MSotho, MZulu, MXhosa hlanganani” he had the complete economic emancipation of Black people in mind.
He certainly did not intend for the half hearted compromise that was achieved in Kempton Park. Under the stewardship of Chief Albert Luthuli, the ANC led a campaign called the Congress of the People through which the Freedom Charter was written in 1955.
Mr Xulu is of course correct that in the process of colonisation, black people were dispossessed of much of the land. He is also correct that much of the economic wealth in post-apartheid South Africa remains in the hands of whites (as well as, one could add, in the hands of a few well-connected black tenderpreneurs and Kebbilists). He is also correct that this is not fair as it perpetuates injustices of colonialism and apartheid.
But the question is whether our constitutional compromise should be blamed for this state of affairs. I think not. In fact, blaming the constitutional compromise is lazy and unhelpful. It might be politically beneficial to says such populist things, but it might expose one as a rather thoughtless and uninformed person. Worse, it might make people wonder about your commitment to democracy and may lead people to conclude that one supports a kind of African fascism.
First, the 1996 Constitution establishes a multi-party democratic system of government and guarantees regular elections in which all adult South Africans can vote for the party of their choice. It invests the indirectly elected President with enormous powers to appoint the heads of the security services, the NPA and the judiciary. It creates a new Constitutional Court whose members are in effect appointed by the President. In short, the “half hearted compromise” endorses the power of the majority through the creation of a powerful Parliament and Presidency who has a decisive say in the appointment of key state actors.
Unless Mr Xulu and Winnie are not real democrats, they can therefore not complain about nature of the constitutional democracy negotiated for South Africa.
This means that they must be upset because they believe some provisions in the Constitution hampers the economic and social transformation of the country. Sadly they do not refer to the specific provisions of the Constitution they believe to be objectionable, so one is unclear whether they actually have a clue of what they are talking about or whether they are merely saying things without thinking because they want to score a few cheap points.
Well, if one wants to be generous one could try and conjure up the arguments they would have made had they been informed and had they had any knowledge of the Constitution. First they might have said that a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights hampers the achievement of justice because such a document contains an equality clause which prohibits the state from taking aggressive corrective measures to rectify the effects of past injustice. Anyone who has read section 9(2) of the Constitution (and that provision’s interpretation by the Constitutional Court) would know that this is nonsense. As our Constitution endorses substantive equality an equality clause assists, rather than hampers the achievement of social and economic transformation.
Second, they might be referring to section 25 of the Constitution, which prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property, requires that compensation be paid when property is expropriated and gives individuals or communities who have been dispossessed of their property since 1913 the right to restitution of that property or to equivalent compensation.
Because all white individuals who are deprived of property must be compensated and because the market value of the property is one of the factors (but not the only one) to be taken into account when deciding on the compensation, this section could perhaps be said to hamper the process of correcting for the past injustices. A new government cannot steal the property from white settlers – even when that property was stolen from local inhabitants 100 or more years ago.
However, if one looks at the results of land reform and considers South Africa’s precarious position in the global economy, this line of reasoning would, however be difficult to sustain. We know that most farms that have been expropriated and returned to its original owners are not productive. We know this (and we know this statement is not the racist ranting of disaffected whites) because the Minister of Land Affairs has told us so. This is not surprising. If one takes land from people who have the skills and the knowledge to run successful agribusinesses and one gives it to people who were never given the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to make a success of a large scale agribusiness, chances are that food production on those farms will decline.
If all the land stolen from black South Africans were handed back without a massive, highly effective, skills transfer programme, food production would collapse and many South Africans (mostly poor and black) would starve. We know such a programme is not presently in place, despite the relatively modest scope of land redistribution efforts, so chances that it will be in place if large scale redistribution were to be undertaken are zero percent. As skills transfers would have to conducted by the very people whose land were repossessed without compensation, it is rather unlikely that they would be eager to take part in such a programme. By preventing the large scale transfer of white-owned agricultural land to black South Africans, it could be argued that section 25 of the Constitution protects the interests of all South Africans – even if it unfortunately leaves much of the productive farm land in the hands of white farmers.
This might not be emotionally pleasing and it might fly in the face of our sense of justice, but it is the reality any government in South Africa has to live with.
Section 25 constructs a careful regime of land reform, coupled with the right to redistribute white owned land after payment of fair compensation. In any case, there is no evidence that in its absence, the government would have proceeded with large scale redistribution of white owned land. This is because the government is scared out of its wits of foreign investors and South Africa’s image amongst those investors, so they are not likely to do anything that would scare away those investors. Even if this was not the case, large scale redistribution of land would have required a relatively efficient Department to drive the process. As the department would not even be able to organise a beer fest in a brewery, the current Department would not be able to drive a large scale land reform programme.
Granted, there is much wrong with the land reform process in South Africa. The willing buyer, willing seller concept (which is not mandated by the Constitution) is not working. The Department seems to be clueless and lacks the political will and the skills to provide the necessary support for emerging black farmers. Questions about nepotism and incompetence are often asked. This is not the fault of the Constitution but the government of the day and of the officials who are not doing their jobs.
It is easy to blame the constitutional settlement for everything that remains wrong in South Africa. Easy, but also wrong.
The journalist who conducted AND TAPED the discussion / interview / conversation was Nadira Naipaul, a distinguished journalist and wife of the writer Sir VS Naipaul.
Winnie does not deny uttering the words, nor harbouring the views contained in the discussion (she would have difficulty doing so as they were taped) – she merely denies having giving an interview.
In other words, she is implying that a private or personal conversation was published, or that “off the record” remarks to a journalist found their way into print (wow! That’s never happened before, hey?).
Read her denial carefully – “I did not give an interview, so it is not neccessary for me to respond to the contents of the story” – cynical political sophistry?
How does Winnie explain the photograph of Naipaul and her husband posing with Winnie outside Winnie’s mansion?
Was that also fabricated?
Perhaps it was not a “photograph?”
I believe that the views expressed are in fact held by a significant number of South Africans, and that is a major cause for concern.
Self-professed millionaire “champions of the poor” such as Winnie Mandela and Julius Malema pose a serious threat to our democracy.
At least Ju Ju has to guts to stand by his rantings and basically say “yes – I said that, so what – up yours and what are you going to do about it” .
So whose version of the “interview” or whatever it was, should we believe – distinguished journalist and wife of a knight of the realm and distinguished writer, or a convicted kidnapper?
Hmmm – tough one, that, hey?
There is no doubt that the damaged caused by apartheid and colonisation since 1652 will be with us for decades to come but after 16 years, surely we should be able to take stock and determine whether our choices/actions are providing any relief or we have just legitimise the distribution of misery to our people. Ours was a negotiated settlement between two unequal parties and was guaranteed NOT to produce A FAIR DEAL. I will not pick on the constitution but I can safely say, it will should not be the differentiator or the most important indicator of fairness of the negotiated settlement. The plight of the majority under this constitution and other tools should be the ultimate test of how we have come closer to the promise.
“We want the mayor to resign because she has a feud against us.
“We want a white leader again, because the people of our race are destroying us. It’s better if a white person fights for you.”
From a resident of Brits
Wnnies statement: I returned this week from a week-long visit abroad to be confronted by headlines generated by a story in the London Evening Standard. Their story was based on comments I am alleged to have made in an interview with a journalist, Nadira Naipaul, wife of writer VS Naipaul.
Let me start by categorically stating that this is completely false. I gave no interview of any kind to Ms Naipaul. It is therefore not necessary for me to respond to the far-fetched content of a fabricated interview.
That the Evening Standard published the so-called interview without checking with me is disturbing, but one supposes that this is the way the tabloid media industry works. That the South African media would pick it up and publish it verbatim is even more disturbing. Does it mean that because they could not reach me they would give a distant journalist and a paper known for its sensationalism the benefit of the doubt, and not me?
I am on this occasion taking this unusual step of addressing myself particularly to the South African media, although it is common knowledge that I prefer not to explain myself or discuss family matters in the media. I do this now because of the very real danger that this kind of irresponsible reporting could undermine the unity of my family, the legacy of Nelson Mandela and the high regard in which the name “Mandela” is held here and across the world.
Journalists often forget that we are human beings. I know that being a Mandela seems inherently to attract public scrutiny. Everything we do and say is put under the microscope. But often this is not because of the content and context of what we say, but because of some “new angle” that makes for good headlines.
Take last month. We, together with the whole world, were celebrating a truly historic 20th anniversary: the release of political prisoners, including my ex-husband; the unbanning of political organisations, including my own organisation, the ANC;and the return of exiles.
I was privileged to deliver a paper at the University of the Witwatersrand, entitled “Madiba: 20 years on”. I also granted a few interviews. But I remained silent when my daughter was vilified for telling the story of her father’s release, something she sacrificed her youth for. I did not respond when I was the victim of a flurry of criticism for allegedly boycotting an event at Victor Verster Prison. The truth is, I learnt about my expected appearance from the media, who had received an itinerary of events from the ANC. I assumed once again that my name had been put on yet another programme by some Johnny-come-lately revolutionary who wanted to use the Mandela name to draw crowds, but who really did not care if we were there or not.
I did not set the record straight even when all manner of speculation was printed on my choice of seat at the opening of parliament, even as I was shunted about from place to place, simply because I was honouring a request, by both Nelson Mandela and Graça Machel, to sit with them at this event.
I raise these examples to illustrate the tendency of the media to publish anything they are offered about the Mandelas, especially if it is negative.
Well, Ms Naipaul is a liar and a fraud – I gave her no interview. Why did my rare interviews during that 20th-anniversary week and the speech I gave at Wits not get any real media coverage?
Is it because journalists don’t want to tamper with the stereotypical “bad” Winnie Mandela that many of them created? I would like to see who asks what I said during my recent trip to the US. No, I did not go to raise money, nor was it a social junket. I delivered a lecture at the University of Alabama on our experiences during and after our struggle for liberation.
Is this the aggrieved outpouring of an angry and bitter person? I am more hurt than angry, and I will not allow myself to sink into bitterness. But I now have the task of undoing the damage that Ms Naipaul, a charlatan and imposter, has done through her libellous article.
I have already had the opportunity to speak to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was also in Atlanta. I intend to speak with Madiba and Graça, as I always do. I will have to deal with the hurt caused to my children and grandchildren by the unwarranted and untrue statements about their private lives. I appreciate the fact that my organisation, the ANC, decided to hear my “side” before making any judgments.
Beyond that I have nothing to explain, certainly not about the contents of a nonexistent interview. I will also not allow that malicious report to stifle my participation in the very real debate about economic freedom and the endemic inequalities in our country.
It is also necessary to reiterate what my daughter Zindzi said recently: Nobody owns Madiba. Nobody, not even the ANC which he and I love equally can dispossess his family of the Mandela legacy. Although it is the duty of all of us to use every opportunity to make reference to Madiba in an effort to enrich our democracy, it is only Nelson Mandela and the legacy institutions he has created (like the Nelson Mandela Foundation) that have the right to speak on his behalf.
Finally, I repeat, I did not give Ms Naipaul any interview. It is a figment of her malicious imagination.
If any journalist has any further questions about what she wrote, call her – don’t call me. I will continue to address my people at community meetings and in conversations with the youth. If you are genuinely interested in my views, come to those encounters.
______________________________________________________________
I am waiting for Nadira Naipaul to charge winnie for defamation.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article356676.ece
Mr Jackson Mthembu might have an early christmas.
Did we have to wait until we catch a big shot.
You must have had a rough weekend, Pierre, as your reasoning faculties seem to have abandoned you (again). When your arguments have been demolished in previous postings on other topics, this does not seem to deter you from resurrecting these arguments again as if they are factually correct.
For example:
“Mr Xulu is of course correct that in the process of colonisation, black people were dispossessed of much of the land. He is also correct that much of the economic wealth in post-apartheid South Africa remains in the hands of whites (as well as, one could add, in the hands of a few well-connected black tenderpreneurs and Kebbilists). He is also correct that this is not fair as it perpetuates injustices of colonialism and apartheid.”
Could you perhaps cite a few names of victims, where specifically this land is situated, and maybe post a facsimile or replica of the title deeds of the land in question? Could you also cite accurate data to validate your claim regarding how much wealth is in so-called white vis-a-vis black hands?
“A new government cannot steal the property from white settlers – even when that property was stolen from local inhabitants 100 or more years ago.”
Could you perhaps name a white settler or two, refer to the land belonging to them which of necessity has to be expropriated, proof of original theft, and also explain what makes such a person a “settler”? Again, please name some of these local inhabitants whose land was stolen and where one can examine the original title deeds.
“– even if it unfortunately leaves much of the productive farm land in the hands of white farmers.”
Could you please explain why having productive land in the hands of white farmers is ‘unfortunate’? Does skin colour play some role in the practice of farming?
“Granted, there is much wrong with the land reform process in South Africa. The willing buyer, willing seller concept (which is not mandated by the Constitution) is not working.”
What specifically is wrong with it? And who of substance says it is not working? If I want to buy and you want to sell, the transaction takes place. If you happen not to want to dispose of your property, that is your democratic choice and the sale doesn’t happen. If Piet Poggenpoel, Shadrack Shabalala or Tom Jones pitch up with the right offer, you will sell. It doesn’t get fairer or more workable than that.
The point I am making in responding is that you repeatedly make sweeping generalisations in order to try and validate your arguments. The arguments invariably have the taint of political correctness and evoke a feeling of nausea. These generalisations are always debased to “black” vs “white” and don’t stand up up to closer scrutiny. You appear to be fixated on racial nationalism, just like the National Party of yore and the ANC. As an aside, will you perhaps confess to us that you (along with Sampie Terreblanche and others) voted Nat at least once?
Interesting to see the Prof. de Villiers has also fallen for the old lie about the land being stolen in 1652. Did you study history, Professor ?
For example, the Zulu nation were originally from the broader Nguni people who migrated from up North to SA via the Eastern coast of Africa. Many only arrived here in 1709.
Given that there was no international law or current geographical boundaries at the time, and that the Boers PAID the Zulu nation for much of the land, how do you still justify that the land was stolen ?
Only the Khosan were really indigenous. And where are the now ? Exterminated by the murderous Zulu and Xhosa tribes.
Perhaps the Professor thinks our constitution was writen in 1652.
@Gwebecimele
Quote – “Ours (political settlement)was a negotiated settlement between two unequal parties and was guaranteed NOT to produce A FAIR DEAL”
Where in the world is there such a thing as a “fair deal”?
The closest societies that I can think of are the Social democratic Scandinavian countries with their mixed economies and generous welfare systems.
The world is essentially an unfair place wher the bright have a big advantage over the dim, the educated have a big advantage over the uneducated.
The “stolen land” issue is very problematic in the absence of title deed transfer etc – how far back to we go – to the strandlopers, the Khoi and the San, the only true indiginous South Africans?
If you go back into SA history, all SA blacks are settlers, too.
If you argue that white settlers stole some of the land from blacks and others, then you also have to say that a few hundred years previously, immigrant blacks also stole the same land from the Khoi and the San.
I support COSATU’s call for “free” (to the user – teachers will still be paid, so “free” means paid for by taxpayers) education, and Pierre’s call for support of and skills transfer to black farmers – these are the ways in which we can achieve a “fair deal”
Unless we find a way to “upskill” and educate the very poor so that their laboiur becomes a saleable commodity, they will always remain poor and dependent on welfare.
Good post Prof.
Firstly, there is no denying that there benefits for the majority of black Africans flowing from this negotiated settlement are more socio-political than economical. However, it will be bad for anyone including Winnie, if at all she did say what she is alleged to have said, to blame one man – Mandela – for this. Just like I have said with regards to Mbeki, this negotiated settlement is a by-product of the negotiation effort led by the ANC collective and not Mandela alone. So, inasmuch as the ANC of Mbeki and now this one of Zuma, boosted during the elections that it is the ANC that brought about this freedom to the South Africans – and not Mandela – they must also take its unintended consequences.
Secondly, the same constitution that is being blamed for the above inequalities also provides in section 74(2) that any party that achieves two thirds majority in the National Assembly plus supporting votes from six of the nine provinces represented in the National Council of Provinces can amend the constitution. And the ANC has once achieved this but did not choose to use this constitutional passage to correct this situation. Instead they prefer “tenderpreneurship” process it seems.
Thirdly, it will be stupid of anyone including the ANC to discipline Winnie for having said this and that she, in the process, criticized Mandela who in their view is not supposed to be criticized but others are deserving of any criticism, rightly or wrongly so. I say this because (a) the ANC criticizing itself through its various leaders in various forums and platforms have said so in many ways that the economy and the means of economic production are still in the hand s of the white minority while blacks merely enjoy political power. So, Winnie would have just continued this struggle for the economic emancipation of black Africans in SA, which cannot be wrong simple because it is Winnie who said so. Also (b) they cannot subject her to discipline simple because she wrongly or rightly implicated Mandela as an individual to this problem because when its leaders blamed Mbeki as an individual for the ANC collective’s problems, no one was disciplined. So there would be no consistency in such an action – although we know that logic, fairness and consistency in the ANC are foreign principles.
Fourthly and lastly, Prof you are raising important areas in the constitution and areas that were supposed to be given special attention if, indeed, the ANC is worried about the economic state of black Africans as a result of the negotiated deal sealed in 1994. Most importantly of these is the land distribution issue. The constitution did not fail to provide for land redistribution although at a cost which the government will not be able to afford if it is to redistribute land to the 87% of the black Africans. But when you look at what the government has done with the little resources that it had to date and the productivity of such land given back to blacks, it is clear that there is indeed lack of political will but most importantly and worryingly so, lack of skills and capacity within government to capacitate the recipients of such land to use it productively. It is therefore surprising and disgusting to hear the same government employing the unwritten policy of “use it or loose it” and the recent proposal made by Gwanya. And unless these problems are looked at realistically, come 2050 we will still be singing the very same song.
John Roberts, you do not even get my name right, so I would be a bit worried about your general grasp of facts.
Graham, for some details about land dispossession (with case studies) see Beinart et al’s book “Putting a Plough to the Ground:Accumulation and dispossession in Rural South Africa 1850-1930. See also the magisterial work by Charles Van Onselen “The seed is mine: The Life of Kas Maine, a South African sharecropper, 1894-1985″, a book that tells the story of one black farmer against the backdrop of land dispossession. Under the Black (or Natives) Land Act No. 27 of 1913 (commenced 19 June 1913) Black Africans were no longer able to own, or even rent, land outside of designated reserves (which amounted to approximately 7% of South Africa’s land, although the promise was made to increase the amount). The Cape was the only province excluded from the act as a result of the existing Black franchise rights which were enshrined in the South Africa Act. During the Apartheid era, the reserves were converted to Bantustans and later into ‘independent’ states within South Africa. See also the Constitutional Court judgment in the Richtersveld case.
No historian would today challenge the fact that many black South Africans were dispossessed of their land and that white individuals and business benefited from this. It would be a bit like denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Claiming that blacks were dispossessed of land is not controversial. If you think it is, it says much about the limits of Christian Nationalist education.
@Gwebecimele,
Does this mean that ALL drunken driving cases based on this particular machine will be dropped?
What about if a person is tested at a Metro testing station eg. Vangate testing station, will this early Christmas present apply to them as well?
I really would like to see the question of the Khoi and San answered. Especially since they have been recognised as the “first people” of South Africa. Also, how is it that their leaders are not “recognised” in Government.
Please help with this answer.
Ok, so we are having a discussion on our current (and suppose the interim) constitution…
Well during the Kempton Park negations I was only 12 years old and had little interest besides my BMX.
In order to update my knowledge of what happened during the negotiations I have read several accounts and not to mention several web blogs from a wide spectrum of contributors.
The one theme that is concurrent is that very few people is actually happy with the current dispensation.
Writers like Setumo Stone and Musa Xulu feels like black people have been given a raw deal and the whole issue of transformation is way too slow, specifically in the economic front.
Whereas the other side of the coin people like übber racist Dan Roodt feels like the National Party capitulated on issues like group rights and minority vetos.
So who then is happy with the current constitution?
oops, i meant “negotiations”
Maggs, I don’t know if I can speak for you, but I am personally incensed by PdV’s saying that large-scale handovers of land to black South Africans would lead to a “collapse” in food production, if not accompanied by a massive, highly effective, skills transfer programme.
The incendiary implication is that blacks are less “competent” or “experienced,” than whites in agriculture This, with respect, rubbish, resembling racist excuses used against affirmative action in the rest of the economy.
Gwebecimele,
That is exactly my point. Depending on whose opinion you read the definition of the unequal party differs. For the white right wing they tend to blame Roelf Meyer that was out negotiated by the ANC and that the ANC was the stronger party during CODESA.
Whereas some black writers, like Setumo Stone’s, opinion is that the National Party had the upper hand with the ANC being the weaker party…
@ Peter L says
I support COSATU’s call for “free” (to the user – teachers will still be paid, so “free” means paid for by taxpayers) education, and Pierre’s call for support of and skills transfer to black farmers – these are the ways in which we can achieve a “fair deal”
Where in the world is there such a thing as a “fair deal”?
The closest societies that I can think of are the Social democratic Scandinavian countries with their mixed economies and generous welfare systems.
The world is essentially an unfair place wher the bright have a big advantage over the dim, the educated have a big advantage over the uneducated.
The ANSWER lies in your statements. Hint: Scandinavian, Bright over dim etc
@ George Gildenhuis
Stop looking at the extremes. Answer lies somewhere in the centre.
Put simply, Big business and the political elites are happy with the deal.
Spare, Roelf and the Nats. This was the best deal ever for a minority.
Fortunately for them they have recruited blacks who are preapred to defend their cause via BEE.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder, I do not see PdV indicating anywhere that black farmers are better or worse than white farmers. He simply writes the very obvious that you need to have certain skills to be a good farmer and that the people likely to benefit from land transfer, namely persons without land, would be “people who were never given the opportunity to develop the skills”.
In what possible way can it be racist to indicate that (i) you need skills to be a good farmer (as to do most other things well) and that (ii) persons without land (irrespective of skin colour) will in many cases not have such skills, meaning that a program to transfer skills is necessary as part of a land redistribution program?
In Zimbabwe, handover of farm lands without the necessary skills led to a great decline in farm production (this is fact, not racist ramblings). Of course, another problem in Zimbabwe could be the transfer of land to Mugabe’s cronies rather to the deserving poor – one could hope for (and also assume, I guess) that any land redistribution scheme in South Africa would actually be designed to give the land to the poor.
Another matter, in 2010 and ignoring the question of past injustices (which could be argued is not the right thing to do), does it really matter if farm land is owned by a small percentage of the population? This is the case in most developed countries, at least the ones with an effective agricultural sector. In 2010 (unlike maybe 150 years and more ago), the upper classes does not consist of the landed but rather the well-educated, the owners of businesses etc.
Regards
Ricky
Best Deal for a minority.
While darkies are sitting on the driver’s seat the car seem to moving towards the interest of the other side. New found comforts of unequal society have replaced the quest for justice, freedom and economic transformation. Blacks are standing guard outside the trough and protecting the system that spit out crumbs such as BEE while mantaining status quo.
From an ANC-perspective, why would one regard Kempton Park and the Constitution as binding at all? To put it crudely: whites stole the country from the African at gunpoint. In 1990, the offer was: sign this document, and you get the country back. Otherwise, we keep you forever at bay with infinitely superior firepower.
This kind of duress could never found a binding commercial contract.
If that is so, there is no moral imperative (only, perhaps, a pragmatic one), to respect the property clause.
@ Ricky
Just check on the assets of the well educated & owners of business and LAND will be the most common amongst them
Gwebecimele, you may very well be correct in SA – but this is definitely not the case in Western Europe. There having a good education (and regrettably in some cases also the right connections) and thereby being able to land a good job (in industry, service or even the public sector) is what makes you rich and successful – and not whether you own a farm.
@ Michael Osborne:
“…infinitely superior firepower.” ????
Never. According to recent propaganda Umkhonto We Sizwe was a highly trained, committed and effective military machine that forced the regime to the negotiation table…
Try another one. “Duress” under those circumstances won’t work.
Professor
It’s a bit fallacious to believe that because I mistakenly used the auto-complete function that I lack a general grasp of facts.
I repeat, are you a student of history ?
You use selective dates. I think it’s pretty obvious to most people that blacks were disposessed by apartheid.
What I am talking about is the argument by most blacks, many of whom have little education, that whites pitched up in 1652 and stole their land.
You read it everywhere on blogs, in the news and in comment sections. You fail to answer the question of the Khoisan. How far back do people want to go ?
There is no denying the fact that the black tribes of SA moved here from the North and from central Africa.
It’s historically recorded that Piet Retief and even van Riebeeck paid for land under treaties that were later broken by the Zulu.
Besides the initial contact with the Khoisan, the next recorded contact between black and white in SA was in 1770, some 120 years after white’s settled in SA.
Whilst not denying what apartheid did, it’s utter tripe when you hear ANC members talk about 400 years of oppression. They simply were not here 400 years ago. Fact.
Now that you’ve had your snide comment I suggest you pull out some old history books. Next thing you’ll be telling us the coloured people were in the Cape first.
John Roberts says: March 15, 2010 at 16:49 pm
Just as a matter of interest, WHO recorded this history you are now referring to as “fact”?
Mzo said :
Just as a matter of interest, WHO recorded this history you are now referring to as “fact”?
Answer : Our National Archives Repository.
You should visit it some day if you doubt this. It’s time black people actually learned some history instead of relying on hysterical rhetoric for their history lessons.
If you have different facts at your disposal I would love to see them.
Pierre, your points are well taken. John Roberts has excellently encapsulated my views on what happened in the past and I for one am certainly not disputing that injustices and theft occurred – most of it 20th century by the way. What I and others such as John object to is the convenient and selective cherry-picking of the history archive in order to sustain an untenable argument about oppression, dispossession and land ownership claims. Having posited these exaggerated and quite often untrue versions of history, such generalisations are then subsequently presented as fact to justify present-day oppression and dispossession. And the best way to justify further racial discrimination is to refer to ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ – so that the new target for dispossession can be accurately identified.
So much in your blog and so much in the comments one could respond to, so I’ll keep it focused with my remarks. Why is the SA Constitution regarded amongst the western modern democratic countries as one of the best, if not the best in the world?
Winnie and others are coming up with a red herring here. They don’t like the Constitution, nor do they practice it, not because of the poor, but because of their own self evident self serving greed. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa covers virtually everything for a truly Democratic country to succeed.
The red herring? Well, the ANC has had 16 years to deal with the challenges, and now analysts are saying we’re in worth shape regarding race relations since the days of apartheid itself. Does the buck stop with the ANC. No, they aren’t interested. There is no other reason. This rising red herring is just one more attempt to justify weakening or ignoring the Constitution, as in ‘up yours, we’ll do as we please.’
Give me one example of effective legislated management towards any of the challenges SA faces. They didn’t care, they don’t care, and they likely won’t care. The poor are on their own, and as it appears, are we all. As indigestible as my next comment is, herewith: its likely only whites and white skills which can put things back on track, and that won’t happen unless there are more humble blacks in power willing to allow whites to actually participate.
Land reform: fact, 9 out of 10 of all land transfers for agricultural purposes have failed. Fact: there is no government support of any significance once the land has been transferred. Fact: commercial farming is extremely difficult and not for the faint-hearted, economically unsound, or unskilled, otherwise impossible.
Also fact, though unofficial and not widely known, new present policy is that no land transfer for agriculture is to take place without white agri experience backing it. Now that is at least a start.
sirjay jonson says: March 15, 2010 at 17:47 pm
“Also fact, though unofficial and not widely known, new present policy is that no land transfer for agriculture is to take place without white agri experience backing it.”
Now that sort of answers the question of who is in POWER, 16 years of democracy notwithstanding.
“commercial farming is extremely difficult and not for the faint-hearted, economically unsound, or unskilled, otherwise impossible.”
And then we blame the so-called tenderpreneurs when they look elsewhere to make their money. These fellows should be praised for acknowledging their shortcomings.
“its likely only whites and white skills which can put things back on track, and that won’t happen unless there are more humble blacks in power willing to allow whites to actually participate.”
And I thought Juju was the only one with balls to say exactly what they feel. I admire you Sirjay, which of course is deffirent from saying I agree with you.
John Roberts says: March 15, 2010 at 17:39 pm
“It’s time black people actually learned some history instead of relying on hysterical rhetoric for their history lessons.”
Well said. Pity I have personal issues with the likes of Viljoen, van der Merwe etc of this world being called experts in things like customary law or on South African history. Really now, what would a de Vos, Terblanche of this world take me seriously if I was going to tell them about the Boer history – I have my doubts!!
I am in agreement with Winnie (if she did have the interview) I personaly think that Mandela should have not accepted the Nobel Peace Price with former President D. Klerk, I feel that he just betrayed African people. This because we all know that it was not De Klerks intention to make South Africa a democracy!
Lastly, There are many unsung heroes of the struggle out there, why is all the praise going to Madiba like he was the only one fighting in the armed struggle?
Winnie, my only question to you, is why now? Why didn’t you say all these things years ago, why bring them up now?
Professor
Whilst reading some of your older posts I noticed several spelling errors and incorrect usage of grammar.
Shall I, using your logic, take this to mean that you lack a general grasp of the Constitution ?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
March 15, 2010 at 15:27 pm
“Maggs, I don’t know if I can speak for you,”
Hey Big D, if you don’t who will?
That aside, this is gonna be interesting.
Let keep an eye out for those who pretend that the vile Land Acts and group areas act did not happen.
And that the “separate development” policy never was.
Add those who will suggest that the “written history” as is convenient for undermining transformation is the “correct one” and not the history as recounted by those who suffered the iniquity.
Prof,
While I don’t share some of John’s or Grahams ‘tone’ I do feel that there is a point or two that needs clarification. As Graham has already pointed out, no one could (or morally should) deny the history of disposition in South Africa. Even the documented history of the frontier wars show up a colonial arrogance of arbitrary confiscation and disposition for the cause of (then) settler economic comfort. However culpable this is (and all the subsequent land acts and Bantustan policies of Verwoerd) I believe that you are disingenuous when you ‘casually’ say “Mr Xulu is of course correct that in the process of colonisation, black people were dispossessed of much of the land” because by not clarifying that statement you lend credibility to the very views that John and Graham are contesting. And this is an important point because history is seldom ‘black and white’ (‘excuse the unintended pun) and yet the political victors will always try to co-opt (and manipulate) it to justify their gerrymandering!
Let us dispense the myth that South Africa was ‘black’ and the ‘whites’ stole it. Heresy is seldom an outright lie but rather a half truth or a distortion of it.
Interestingly I noticed in New Zealand the same tendency of the Maori peoples to claim that the white settlers “stole” their land conveniently forgetting that they only arrived about 1300 ad (not to long before the whites) and that they claimed by force of arms their right to exist there as well. Certainly colonialism existed in the era of conquest by force and superior technology – whether it be that of steel “Iklwa” stabbing spear vs the primitive Koi weapons and tactics or the later rifle’s and tactics of colonial forces.
One cannot take 20 century morality and retroactively apply it to history for the convenience of claiming the ‘high moral ground’.
@ John Roberts
“It’s time black people actually learned some history instead of relying on hysterical rhetoric for their history lessons.”
Please, please Mr Roberts, teach us a little non-hysterical hystery!
mzo: I say it because I work voluntarily in food security with blacks and coloreds, as a general manager, and have for the better part of a decade, so thus I know the problems from the ground up. Thanks for your comments.
mzo says:
March 15, 2010 at 18:18 pm
“And I thought Juju was the only one with balls to say exactly what they feel.”
Does Juju really feel that HZ is a satanist and de Lille is an unsuitable partner?
Or does he believes any of the other nonsense that he utters?
I thought that he was just talking kak to grab attention in any which way he could.
If he does believe a lot of what he utters then he needs some serious help!
Maggs, Cmd Malema does not believe that “Madame” Zille is literally a Satanist.
He means it metaphorically — in the sense that she is a LIBERAL RACIST!
Thanks.
@ Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder, can you tell me how “satanist” can be a metahor for “Liberal racist`”?
John Roberts, read “THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF AFRICA 1600-1790″ which confirms that in 1600 (that is 52 years before Van Riebeeck came) KhoiSan people were living on the Southern tip of Africa and many other black groups lived in other parts of Southern Africa, including the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu and old Transvaal. Wikipedia says: “Modern humans have inhabited Southern Africa for more than 100,000 years. At the time of European contact, the dominant indigenous peoples were tribes who had migrated from other parts of Africa about one thousand years before. From the 4th-5th century CE, Bantu-speaking tribes had steadily moved south, where they displaced, conquered and assimilated original Khoikhoi and San peoples of southern Africa. At the time of European contact, the two major groups were the Xhosa and Zulu peoples.” AND “The Bantu-speakers had started to make their way south and eastwards in about 1000 BC, reaching the present-day KwaZulu-Natal Province by 500 CE. The Bantu-speakers had an advanced Iron Age culture, keeping domestic animals and also practising agriculture, farming sorghum and other crops. They lived in small settled villages. The Bantu-speakers arrived in South Africa in small waves rather than in one cohesive migration. Some groups, the ancestors of today’s Nguni peoples (the Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi, and Ndebele), preferred to live near the coast. Others, now known as the Sotho-Tswana peoples (Tswana, Pedi, and Basotho), settled in the Highveld, while today’s Venda, Lemba, and Shangaan-Tsonga peoples made their homes in the north-eastern areas of South Africa.”
Of course clashes between white settlers and black inhabitants in the Cape, and later in Free State, KwaZulu and Transvaal are well documented, as are “treaties” signed by white colonialists with indigenous groups. As white settlers had guns and the indigenous population did not, the “voluntary” nature of these treaties is not something that any credible historian would consistently endorse. Even if all this is false – which it is not – the events around the imposition of poll taxes to force black men to work in mines and 1913 Land Act cannot be denied by anyone.
Ricky, read the HARVARD JOURNAL OF AFRICAN STUDIES,
You will note that, although there is no word in Pedi for “liberal racist,” the term “Satanist” is the rough equivalent.
Pierre, if you venture into blanket discourse of the type “the whites stole the land from the blacks,” you inevitably run into some smart aleck who will point out that, also, the “blacks” stole the land from the San and Khoi, and the Zulu stole the land from the Sotho, etc.
Is it not enough to point out that, as late as the 80′s, some black people were being forcibly removed from land they had occupied for many years?
Thanks for the book reference Pierre.
Those modern human inhabitants that lived here 100 000 years ago… what colour were they ? (Or what colour hair did they have ?)
And in the 100 000 years before that ?
My point, albeit laboured, is simply this :
I think most whites would be willing to address economic imbalances that arose from apartheid if asked and if they really understood the issues.
The ANC, however, has tried to take this argument back 400 years ago and turn it into a situation of settlers vs. indigenous people. They are trying, and successfully so, to make whites feel guilty by being selective about events 300-400 years ago. This has the effect of making whites belligerent and un-cooperative. Even the foolish Jackson Mthembu said in his last interview that they don’t ask whites to stop singing de la Rey ! He has no sense of historical events yet he and the rest of the ANC act like they are the sole knowledge holders of history. I’ll bet the ANC had never heard of de la Rey before the song. Just the word Boer in the song set them off hysterically.
If government spelled out clearly what whites could do to help blacks economically, and worked in consultation with whites, they would find most whites willing. Just like most whites voted yes in the referendum. We have BEE, AA etc but nobody can tell us what more we must do. What exactly will it take from white south africans to make blacks happy ? What ? Is it a monetary thing ? Should we pay a once-off tax or a portion of our wealth over ? Do they want us to go back to Europe ? Is it nationalisation ? Anything is possible and negotiable but nobody has asked or said what it will take. Anything is possible but nobody knows what that thing is. We fight about the past because we have no plans for the future to argue over and fight about.
This, however, is not in the ANC’s interest. Their aim is to annihilate the middle class and rule by dictatorship forever. You heard it here first.
Dworky
Here is some hysterical history for Winnie to contemplate. Sorry I couldn’t find an actual link to post .
————————————————————————————————–
ANC rule in South Africa represents the biggest scourge visited upon the country since our traditional enemy, Great Britain, invaded us one hundred years ago. During the Anglo-Boer war, Britain burned most of the countryside, including churches and farm houses, and committed genocide on 27 000 Boer women and children in the concentration camps. British soldiers, as well as their armed black henchmen, raped 35% of Boer women in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. English officers in Pretoria raided the Irene concentration camp for Boer girls as young as ten and eleven, to be kept as sex slaves and raped for days on end. It took us fifty years to recover from the British invasion. It is anyone’s guess how long it will take to recuperate from the current rapine practised by another invader, the erstwhile foreign terrorist group known as the ANC.
Since coming to power in 1994, a staggering 300 000 people have been murdered, and our beautiful country has been turned into a criminal state. Not only has government become corrupt to the core, as exemplified by the R60 billion arms deal, but South Africa is also the preferred domicile of hundreds of foreign crime syndicates. We have been transformed — to use a fashionable piece of official jargon – into a den of iniquity, the international crime capital and centre for drug-trafficking, prostitution, money laundering, child pornography, rape, murder, car hijacking, and so on. To top it all, the press recently carried details of a so-called snuff movie made in Johannesburg during which an 18- year old girl, Tanya Flowerday, was murdered. What a fitting tribute to South African mores, post-1994!
How did all of this happen? The one moment we were still at loggerheads over apartheid and forms of representation for the various ethnic and linguistic groups inhabiting the country, the next a gang of has-been communists and revolutionaries languishing in Cuba, Britain and former East European capitals were imported to come and rule us. In one of the most insane moments in history, the former National Intelligence Service under Niel Barnard, together with Justice Minister Kobie Coetsee, amid pressure from Britain in the form of M16, had decided to resuscitate the ANC from its near-death state and awaken its so-called leaders from their alcoholic torpor in Zambian camps or sleazy state-owned flats in Warsaw or East Berlin.
The image stuck in my mind is that of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, where God extends his life-giving finger to Adam’s listless hand. After forty years in power, presiding over the most advanced state on the African continent, a mini-superpower with nuclear capability, a well-developed arms industry, as well as powerful and dedicated security forces, the National Party had come to believe it was God. If not God, FW de Klerk, the naive platteland attorney who had ingratiated himself with the rest of his party to become president, thought that he had at least a hotline to God. He could muster the international media to breathe life into the veritable Frankenstein of the African National Congress and its Communist Party ally, thereby creating a new force in South African politics. Like Doctor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s tale, he thought that he could control it, tame it, bend it to his purposes of finding international acceptance for his policies and so end South Africa’s diplomatic isolation. In the end the monster he had created not only overcame him, but went on to seize power and to rule, thereby triggering the calamity that has since plagued South Africa.
The National Party created the ANC phenomenon, post-Berlin 1989. Even Nelson Mandela would have been a nobody sinking into oblivion on Robben Island, refusing to come out of his prison tell without renouncing violence as he had done under P.W. Botha. But by the mid-eighties the National Party was reeling under international criticism, and needed someone to negotiate with. They could have called a national conference of internal leaders, including the homeland leaders, the newly formed United Democratic Front, the parliamentary opposition, the Coloured and Indian leaders participating in the tri-cameral parliament, but they caved in under foreign pressure to bypass the internal leadership and negotiate solely with the most radical foreign exiles and until recently puppets of the communist dictatorships in Eastem Europe, otherwise known as the ANC.
Soon after the unbanning of the ANC and SACP on 2 February 1990, tons of weapons flowed into the country. In fact, the ANC used its newly acquired legal status to foment revolution and to plan the violent overthrow of the old government. In July 1990 the police discovered Operation Vula, a plot by three Communist Party members, Mac Maharaj, Ronnie Kasrils and Siphiwe Nyanda to overthrow the government and start a civil war. The spark would have been provided by the assassination by a high-ranking ANC official, which would have been blamed on the NP government. If the old SA Police Service had not been more vigilant, Operation Vula would have been a success and South Africa would have been plunged into a bloodbath.
The ANC then proceeded to eliminate the moderate black leadership, the homeland leaders, even its internal ally, the UDF, whose leaders with one or two exceptions — were sidelined and their organisation taken over. After the discovery of Operation VuIa, the idea of overthrowing the central state was seen as too ambitious, and Kasrils specifically started to target the homeland administrations. This led to the march on Bisho which triggered a massacre when Lennox Sebe’s police force panicked, as well as the mini-revolution in Bophutatswana during which Lucas Mangope was removed and three AWB members were shot in cold blood by a Bophutatswana policeman.
Sometimes the NP acted in cahoots with the ANC, especially to intimidate Chief Buthelezi of the Kwazulu homeland. In fact, when Roelf Meyer took over from Tertius Delport as the chief NP “negotiator”, he soon betrayed not only Chief Buthelezi, but also his own constituency the Afrikaners, whites and other minorities. In the words of Chris Louw, an independent Afrikaner joumalist and until recently the editor of RadioSonderGrense’s morning news programme Monitor:
“On 26 September 1992, after live months of deadlock, the Record of Understanding was signed between the ANC and the NP which made continued negotiations possible. With the signing of the accord the NP broke the core of its electoral promises and the basis of its own referendum… The Record of Understanding was essentially a one-sided accord in which the government finally caved in to the ANC’s demands and abandoned its plans for an informal anti-ANC alliance in which lnkatha would have played an important role… This one-sided agreement between the government and the ANC finally alienated Inkatha from the National Party, and Chief Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi withdrew from the negotiations. “
FW de Klerk is a consummate liar who has by now shifted his position so many times that no-one remembers the details from ten years ago anymore. However, he and Roelf Meyer sold out their own people, the Afrikaners, as well as their electorate and former allies such as the homeland leaders and Inkatha, For the sake of “good publicity” in the foreign media. De Klerk had so totally lost contact with reality that he had thought that not only could he and Meyer outwit the sharp—minded leftist lawyers in ANC ranks during the negotiations, hut that by drawing his belly in a bit, the ace matador could outmanoeuvre the raging black bull he had bred and fattened himself. Both NP leaders were increasingly given to phantasms: shortly before the elections, De Klerk seriously enquired from his intelligence service “whether the ANC would accept electoral defeat by the National Party.” Perhaps it was hubris, or maybe it was the excess testosterone generated by his extra—marital affair with Elita, but he regarded himself as infallible, running the risk of wiping out 350 years of history and setting South Africa upon an uncertain path under a radical black nationalist government driven by the familiar passions that had laid waste most African countries in the post—colonial period. His former wile Marike, who has since been strangely and brutally murdered in a Cape Town flat, made a fool of herself two weeks before the 1994 elections by seriously confiding to a group of German diplomats that she was not moving out of Tuynhuys as her husband “had told her that the National Party
was going to win the elections.” Obviously, the Germans laughed in her face, to her acute embarrassment. The value of such anecdotes is that they demonstrate De Klerk’s utter lack of judgement, his almost childish belief in his own political powers and equally infantile need to be loved by the foreign media. Those foreign journalists who lavished praise on him for surrendering to the ANC are today reporting in Iraq and elsewhere, and have since abandoned South Africa to her increasingly anarchic, bloody fate.
Once the genie was let out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. A self-styled “National Liberation Movement” like the ANC will seize power by any means possible, whether through a coup d’etat, a violent revolution or – as it happened the ballot box. Hitler, incidentally, came to power through similar methods: first the stormtroopers rough up and intimidate the competition, and when hardly anyone is left standing, the country goes to the polls in a populist frenzy. Mugabe attained an 80% majority in 1980 and has clung to power since. Once in power, the rule of a “liberation movement” becomes a matter of divine right, never to be questioned. We have seen this in Namibia and Zimbabwe, and in the ANC’s support for Mugabe. The seasoned liberal commentator, R.W. Johnson, made a fitting comparison of ZANU-PF and the ANC, saying:
“The National Liberation Movements share what can only be termed a common theology. National liberation is both the just and historically necessary conclusion of the struggle between the people and the forces of racism and colonialism. This has two implications. First, the NLMs — whatever venial sins they may commit are the righteous. They not merely represent the masses but in a sense they are the masses, and as such they cannot really be wrong. Secondly, according to the theology, their coming to power represents the end of a process. No further group can succeed them for that would mean that the masses, the forces of righteousness, had been overthrown. That, in turn, could only mean that the forces of racism and colonialism, after sulking in defeat and biding their time, had regrouped and launched a counter-attack. Thus it Follows that having won, a NLM should stay in power forever. Many NLM true believers still favour a one-party state – even if it has become impolitic to say so – for if other parties are allowed or encouraged to compete with the NLM, they can only become the vehicles of imperialist counter-attack.”
As long as multi-party democracy serves to legitimate NLM power, it will tolerate opposition parties. however, if ever an opposition party manages to overcome the obstacles of state and media bias, corporate fear of supporting opposition parties, de facto restrictions on organising and canvassing in areas considered the fiefdoms of the movement, as well as the virulent racial nationalism with which its followers are constantly brainwashed, (he NLM will simply resort to other tactics, like Mugabe. In the 1970s, Joe Slovo, writing in (he African Communist, his party’s official organ, acknowledged that the SACP had actually failed, abysmally so. Not only had any popular uprising against the then South African government failed to materialise, but the so-called armed struggle, urban terrorism and attacks on civilians were not making any headway, despite logistical support from
the Soviets and financial aid from the Scandivanian countries, particularly Sweden. The Swedish parliament had voted vast sums of money to be transferred to the ANC, some of it in secret, with no questions asked about its ultimate use. Oliver Tambo, the leader of the ANC in exile, became mysteriously rich and the source of his wealth was definitely not some smart deal on the stock exchange.
In 1985, when P.W. Botha made his ill-starred Rubicon speech, the ANC-SACP was a spent force. Opinion polls indicated that only 5% of the South African population had any sympathies for it; more importantly, most people had never even heard of it. Buthelezi was a far more popular figure who enjoyed widespread support among black South Africans, especially Zulus. Today we are being fed the propaganda diet of a glorious liberation movement founded in 1912 that won victory in 1994 after years of so-called struggle. This is all historical fantasy, invented retroactively. The organisation founded in 1912 was called the “South African Native National Congress” and had very little to do with the ANC of today, a new organisation that essentially came about in the early 1990s as a direct result of the National Party’s ham-fisted attempts at managing its international image problem. The old ANC-SACP of the Rivonia trial was an anachronism, completely overtaken by events in Eastern Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, and would have died a natural death, were it not for the intervention of Niel Barnard and Kobie Coetsee who thought they could create another political player in South Africa. Having seen the Mandela name being seized upon by British pop artists and European communist parties who were desperate for some moral capital amid the crumbling socialist empire, National Intelligence and Kobie Coetsee were grooming Mandela for a leadership role, actually adding to the publicity surrounding him, In buying him clothes and giving him lessons in his comfortable home on the grounds of Victor Verster prison.
Acting in cahoots with National Intelligence, the secret Afrikaner organisation known as the Broederbond, aided and abetted by British intelligence, was itself making contact with the exiled terrorist wing of the ANC in Switzerland, with a view to ensnaring it in negotiations. Throughout all of this, the electorate was kept in lie dark, while the flower of young white males were still required to fight and sometimes die in the Angolan war.
Big Business was suffering from sanctions and had never seen the National Party as competent to govern South Africa. The powerful Oppenheimer dynasty controlling Anglo and De Beers, as well as other companies, have always regarded South Africa as simply an extension of Great Britain and were horrified by the increasingly sovereign and independent state created by Afrikaner leaders in the twentieth century. The existence of a republic with its own currency was anathema to them. It is revealing that one of the first moves by the Oppenheimers, as well as South African Breweries, Old Mutual, Gencor/Billiton, Investec and others, has been to relocate to London. Under ANC rule, Johannesburg is no longer the financial centre of South Africa; London is reassuming the traditional role that it played in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a friend recently put it, “very soon the Kaffirs (British slang for South African mining shares) will be trading in London again, like they should.” He was being ironic, but what goes for mining shares, goes for everything else: most things in the new South Africa have “made in Britain” or “made elsewhere” stamped on it. We are no longer masters of our own destiny.
Over the last two decades, South Africa has been betrayed many times over, in a tradition that goes back to the Jameson Raid. In late 1895 Leander Starr Jameson and his 600 men attempted to overthrow the legitimate government of Paul Kruger by staging a coup d’etat. History repeats itself, and today we are reliving the sequel to another Jameson Raid of more gigantic and sinister proportions. The coup d’etat staged against us, the formerly sovereign people of South Africa, as well as the Afrikaner nation who fought twice to secure our independence from Great Britain, has been so subtle and well-engineered that we can only now, ten years after, recognise this Jameson Raid for what it was.
In one sense, the so-called new South Africa can be interpreted as nothing but the reintroduction of ”indirect rule” from Great Britain. The pathetic bunch of exiles recalled from former East European capitals or Zambian camps where they were living on food aid, is in essence a puppet government open to manipulation by Great Britain and global business. All governments are corrupt to some extent, and the old South African government had its fair share of financial scandals. But it was quite rare for government officials or serving politicians to be bribed by foreign powers or companies. As we have seen during the arms deal, British Aerospace and Daimler Benz distributed bribes in the form of cash or motor vehicles to members of the ANC government. The Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, entered into a secret agreement with Britain, bypassing parliament, that he would borrow money from the International Monetary Fund in the event that South Africa could not honour its hard currency obligations to British companies arising from the arms deal.
Thabo Mbeki, the current president of South Africa, represents an uitlander who spent most of his life living overseas, notably in Britain. He has no proper command of Afrikaans or any other South African language. For all intents and purposes, we might as well have been governed by the Reverend Jesse Jackson from the United States. In culture, outlook and identity, there is no difference between the two. Mbeki does not give two hoots about South Africa. First and foremost he is an “African”, meaning a black man, and the only function of our country is to provide him with a very expensive aeroplane and the necessary funds for a peripatetic existence in foreign countries where he feels much more at home than here among us. In fact, having taken the cue from his British masters, Mbeki really looks down upon us as being parochial, backward people with our own local identities, languages, poetry and the like. In a telling phrase, Mbeki made mention of American Langston Hughes as “one of *our* great poets.” He would never refer to N.L. van Wyk Louw or Breyten Breytenbach in the same vein.
The British journalist and author, Anthony Sampson, has proudly remarked on Mbeki’s very British demeanour and culture. One of the most characteristic photographs of
Mbeki, apart from the one where he is smiling and holding hands with Robert Mugabe, both of them festooned during ZANU-PF’s victory celebrations in the last Zimbabwean election, is one where he is riding in an open Royal carriage with Queen Elizabeth II of England. He did not look like a visiting statesman, if ever one could describe a
petty African terrorist and schemer like him as a “statesman”, but more like a subject of multicultural Britain paying obeisance to his queen. The man should follow the lead of others and relocate to London forthwith, except that he might not become Prime Minister there. However, being on very good terms with Tony Blair, he would surely he employable as a Minister of Cooperation and Development, a position for which he would he eminently suitable, given that his conception of politics is mostly to hold out the begging bowl for poor old Africa.
Reflect upon this for a moment. Until 1989, shortly before the organisation was unbanned and hoisted to the exalted level of “government in waiting” by the National Party, the ANC was classified by the Pentagon as a “terrorist organisation”. In terms of efficiency, it found itself fairly low down on the list of international terror cults. It had managed to commit about 500 incidents of sabotage, murder, bombing, and so on, with the help of East German and Russian instructors. By itself it was probably incapable of anything. Quite recently, ANC member Tokyo Sexwale, one of the recipients of black empowerment largesse, was refused a visa to the United States as a result of his terrorist past.
Imagine Germany being governed by Andreas Baader and Deutsche Bank or Daimler-Benz being managed by Gudrun Enslin. Or more appropriately, Osama Bin Laden ensconced in the White House. This is where we are in South Africa. At the time the National Party and particularly its intelligence operators had decided to negotiate and, as it happened, hand over power on a plate to the ANC, it was nothing hut a surrogate bunch of failed terrorists subsisting on the sympathy of the former communist regimes in the East. If De Klerk had waited another year or two, the ANC would have disappeared into oblivion, never to be heard of again. Nelson Mandela would have had to renounce violence before being freed, and would have spent his retirement in relative anonymity, like many of his fellow travellers that were released before him. De Klerk and his abject lackey, Roelf Meyer, must be the two most incompetent politicians ever to have held positions of influence in South Africa. They are directly responsible for having brought the calamity of ANC rule onto our country. If ever Afrikaners attain self-rule again, it is conceivable that FW de Klerk and Roelf Meyer might be charged with high treason by their own people; they could well die in front of an Afrikaner firing-squad one day.
But even a traitor might be motivated by the self-interest of staying in power. As we have seen, De Klerk had every intention of staying on as president. One avenue open to the National Party, given that it was under pressure from the West to negotiate with the ANC, would have been to hold out longer; more importantly, it should first have destroyed the ANC militarily before entering into any form of talks. This is the conclusion drawn by the respected liberal historian, Herman Gilliomee, author of a recent book on Afrikaner history. Many generals from the old SADF have stories to tell of how they were on the verge of “taking out” some ANC terrorist commander or installation somewhere, when the phone would ring from Pretoria telling them to hold off or to cancel the operation. South Africa was vilified in the world media regardless of what actions it took, good or had. Going up to Lusaka to bomb ANC training camps would hardly have made the old South African government less internationally popular than it already was.
Even prior to 1990 the National Party was soft on the ANC, and did not respond like any responsible government should under such circumstances, i.e. eliminate the terrorist threat wherever it was to be found. Contrast the behaviour of the Americans after 11 September 2001 with that of South Africa after the Church Street bomb in Pretoria on 20 May 1983 in which 19 people died and 200 were injured. Instead of going up to Lusaka and striking directly at the vipers’ nest, National Intelligence, unbeknown to the public and the electorate, was already secretly negotiating with the ANC and in essence surrendering in the face of terrorist violence.
The height of irony is that the author of the Church Street bomb, Aboobaker Ismail, has been rewarded by his appointment as head of security at the Reserve Bank in Pretoria, the same bank where a British subject, Ian Plenderleith, holds the position of Deputy Governor in an unprecedented move in modern history where one country’s central bank is partially controlled by a non-national. On the East Rand, the notorious terrorist Robert McBride, who murdered three innocent women and injured another 73 civilians during the Magoo’s Bar bombing in Durban on 14 June 1986, has been appointed as head of the metropolitan police force. The ANC is synonymous with outrage, either through its many half—truths and lies about South African history, or in its appointments of former terror operatives to high government posts. Mbeki himself defended McBribe’s candidature for police chief by stating in ANC Today “We will not agree that Mr. McBride should be condemned for having been a liberation fighter.”
The influence of the Western countries in Southern Africa, particularly Britain, has been very negative, on the whole. When not invading South Africa as it (lid a century ago, Britain, as well as France, Germany and even the US have been supporting the most radical black nationalist movements such as ZANU-PF, FRELIMO, SWAPO or the ANC-SACP, not as parties to be negotiated or settled with, but as rightful governments. The Western fascination with the most violent, radical, terrorist, often communist or Marxist-Leninist movements in Southern Africa has deep psychological roots in colonial and white guilt. Western politicians, representing ageing and pacifist populations abhorring violence on their own soil, seem to admire anyone abroad who believes in Mao’s dictum that “power grows from the barrel of a gun” and see a commitment to violence or “armed struggle” as it is euphemistically called, as a manifestation of youthful virility, idealism and a natural quest for power.
Issues of democracy or human rights only enter into the equation as a last resort. The French philosopher and commentator, André Glucksmann, wrote a hook with journalist Thierry Wolton on the Ethiopian genocide under Mengistu Haile Miriam in which they asked why the world was concerned about a few hundred deaths in South Africa over forty years of white minority rule, whereas it turned a blind eye to a million dead in Ethiopia within a few short years. The explanation they offered was that Western whites identified with other whites and felt guilty about their killings. When blacks kill other blacks by the millions it is just a case of “the Negroes having a go at each other.” When whites are guilty of undemocratic behaviour, it is a cause for concern. I once quizzed John Simpson, a high—profile TV journalist from the BBC, on why Britain and other countries had imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa, hut not on Ethiopia or Rwanda, and his lame reply was, “You whites should have known better, not to behave undemocratically.” The peculiarly racial approach that Westerners adopt towards human rights in Africa needs further analysis, apart from Glucksmann and Wolton’s exploratory remarks.
@ Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
I find it hard to believe that “satanist” and “liberal racist” should be considered equivalent in any language but, since I have not looked it up in Harvard Journal of African Studies (maybe you could provide a more specific reference?) I cannot say that you are wrong.
However, since Julius Malema made his comment with reference to Helen Zille’s alleged demolition of church structures, I do not find it very likely that he meant “satanist” as a reference to her being a “liberal racist” – but maybe you have another reference showing how it is considered the hallmark of a “liberal racist” to demolish church structures? This would more be the work of someone anti-christian, that is “satanist”.
By the way, I find putting the words “liberal” and “racist” together quite interesting. In most parts of the world, persons who are considered liberals, e.g. in the US, would be the most anti-racist persons. And in my understanding of the world, someone who is a true liberal, cannot be a racist. But, of course, maybe the view would be that Helen Zille is not a true liberal.
Let me state, Prof, just like your posting in issues of race, I find your comments largely helpful, especially on the matters of land.
Moreover, your closing statement: “It is easy to blame the constitutional settlement for everything that remains wrong in South Africa. Easy, but also wrong.” – I agree is correct. There can never be one single reason for the slow pace of delivery, instances of corruption, etc. On the flip-side, neither can we attribute a single fact like the Constitution for our successes, be it the 2007 and 1995 Rugby World Cup victories or the building of over a million houses, the economic growth of the nineties and the first 5-7 years of the noughties.
As you may recall Prof, in my previous postings, I have argued against what I percieve as ‘creeping constitutionalism’.
There are any myths stated about our Constitution, like its unique and one of the best in the world, etc.
Firstly, our constitution was basically based on the German constitution, and definitely not unique. Secondly, you will note that united Germany is a federal state, not a unitary one as South Africa, yet our constitution imports many of the constitutional principles relating to the structure and inter-relations of government from the German constitution. Thirdly, it seems that the reasoning behind the using of the German constitution was based on the intention of the drafters of the German constitution to promote reconciliation between east and west German.
Thus, there are certain idiosyncracies. For example, the major one is that the powers given to local government are more in line as that of a federal country. Every municipality is completely independent from the other spheres of government. Further, the separation between political powers and bureaucratic authority is quite pronounced especially at local government level. The impact, especially, when you require a certain degree of centrality to accelerate development (both socially and economically), is quite major and not necessarily positive.
The other idiosyncracy, is that our Constitution promotes a proportional representation system based on a Parliament which elects a President. The President is an executive one, with the powers of a Prime Minister. The President has a ceiling of two terms. In the rest of the world, there is only a two-term ceiling when the President is elected directly by the electorate not by the legislature. Indeed, in the majority of these countries, Presidents with two-term ceilings have ceremonial powers not executive ones. The exception is the United States, however their system is completely different to any other than one is aware of.
The reason I raise this matter on the Constitution is not because the Constitution is the problem, but the manner in which it could be interpreted can result in slowing change and development, so that it promotes co-operation. With a poverty backlog like we have, it can therefore become more of a hindrance than a facilitating document.
Finally, on the ‘interview’ of Winnie Mandela. I took the time to read the original article printed in the London Standard, before the statement by Winnie Mandela was released. What was clear in the interview is that Nadira Naipaul did not interview Winnie Mandela. Rather she accompanied her husband VS Naipaul, and listened in on the conversation that Winnie Mandela had with her husband. Indeed, she even suggests that she may even agree and commiserate with Winnie Mandela. However, could Nadira Naipaul be correct to write a newspaper article about a conversation she only seemed to be an observer thereof and not the interviewer? By writing and publishing the article she does indeed cross the line.
Thank you, JR, for the history lesson. I must say, even I got a lump in my throat when I read of the three AWB men murdered in cold blood in Boputhatswana.
Michael
I have sympathy for your statement “Is it not enough to point out that, as late as the 80’s, some black people were being forcibly removed from land they had occupied for many years?”
One can never use some of the history that John, Graham and the Prof have mentioned to justify the acts of the last century or so (for eg post 1913), that may well cause intense pain to those who are victims of racist assumptions and the inhumanities inflicted in the name of ‘apartheid’ even before 1948. I for one, am not trying to do that! However I do take issue with such comments by the Prof as:
“As white settlers had guns and the indigenous population did not, the “voluntary” nature of these treaties is not something that any credible historian would consistently endorse. Even if all this is false – which it is not…”
As I have tried to explain in the previous post; such treaties were made with the best of intentions ‘at the time’ and while the colonialists were no angels, neither were all the chiefs! This tendency to simply label things with the word ‘colonialist’ which has become pejorative in usage, is to ignore and ‘blackwash’ actual history that was acted out before our modern ethical understandings have taken root. Similarly the understanding of ‘missionary’ has resulted in a total distortion of all that many gave their lives (and those of their children and wives) in order to bring not just ‘the gospel’ but advances of medicine, agriculture, training, education etc. It is interesting to note that the missionaries were often the ones to protect some of the tribal leaders and their people from settler exploitation. They set up their homes (with the full permission and urging of the chiefs, even after being frequently destroyed) within tribal areas and boundaries. Yet they are all denigrated today and mocked as tools of the colonial powers.
The prof’s post bears out what I’m saying (I don’t have the time to dig out all the diff historical views about the ‘mfacane’ (please excuse the spelling – time is an issue) but even according to what he posted it is apparent that the black tribes DID migrate and are as much settlers as the later Europeans! Moreover they also used their technological superiority as the later whites did – that’s history not morality!
So lets get off the high horses of indignation that attempts to take the last 400 years of history and place all at the feet of the white settler colonial oppressors and make them the soul ‘vark in the verhaal’.
Rather let us support the attempts to restore justice to those who have been legitimately dispossessed and do so with good management and uncorrupted rule (a la the constitution) and leave the historical moralising to those academics who are objective enough to do so.
@Donovan,
I am a bit puzzled about your statement that in the majority of countries with two-term ceilings have ceremonial powers not executive ones and that the exception is the US. I believe this is erroneous. Even in Africa, a number of African countries with executive presidents have two-term ceilings (Rwanda, Ghana, Zambia just to name a few) – I would not be surprised if this is the case for most of the countries that does not have long-term strong-man who came to power by a coup or following civil war.
And the same is the case outside of Africa. One of the few (the only?) European country with an executive president, France, also has a two-term limit. In Latin America, most executive presidents are barred from running from more than two consecutive terms (Brazil, Columbia (might be three terms) can be mentioned) – it seems that only less than ideal democrats, such as Chavez, have abolished time limits.
So I would hardly call the South African two-term ceiling and “idiosyncracy”. What I do find puzzling is to have a President with as much power as the South African President that is not directly accountable to the electorate. I believe it would be beneficial if a presidential candidate had to make his case directly to the population; as it is, there is no way of knowing if the South African population actually wanted Mr. Zuma as its president (just as was the case with Mr. Mbeki), the only things we know are that (i) a majority of South Africans wanted ANC to be in power and that (ii) a majority at the Polokwane conference wanted Mr. Zuma to be the leader of ANC.
Talking about accountability, my main problem with the parliamentary system of South Africa is that there is no direct accountability for members of Parliament. In stead of being accountable to the electorate, they are accountable to the party that puts them on a list. I am certain that if South African parliamentarians were elected by constituancies directly, there would be a much greater incentive to solve e.g. the problem of service delivery, arguably the major problem in South Africa today. And this would not mean that South Africa would have to give up proportional representation; there are several countries, e.g. Denmark, where parliamentarians are elected by constituancies but where each constituancy elect more than one parliamentarian and where, after the mandates based solely on votes in each constituancy have been distributed, the remainder of the mandates are based on the total national votes given. I wonder that the historical reason was for giving parties (and not the population) so much power over elections.
Ricky says:
March 16, 2010 at 7:56 am
“What I do find puzzling is to have a President with as much power as the South African President that is not directly accountable to the electorate.”
For that we should blame the Constitution.
On directly electing the President, I would vote for Zuma despite my annoyance with him over several matters.
Be that as it may in my view the drafters of our constitution failed us in that regard – I reckon that the way we elect is about as undemocratic as it gets.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
March 16, 2010 at 4:21 am
“Thank you, JR, for the history lesson.”
Be careful what you wish for, it may just come true!
A very long history lesson!
Remind me quickly, who is in charge of the DEPARTMENT with its burgeoning BUREAUCRACY that is tasked with land reform?
Was that Department founded before or after South Africa started importing food?
Brett Nortje says:
March 16, 2010 at 8:19 am
“A very long history lesson!”
Factual too.
For example :
“In 1985, when P.W. Botha made his ill-starred Rubicon speech, the ANC-SACP was a spent force. Opinion polls indicated that only 5% of the South African population had any sympathies for it; more importantly, most people had never even heard of it.”
I for one am wary of all writings that pretend to be “histories”. All are written by the victor, and all histories describe the victors smelling of atar of roses. I imagine that the “History of the Second World War” would have looked very much different had Hitler written it rather than Sir Winston. But I suppose one must grant the histories one general truth – some of what is written at least may be relied upon. The question is: What can one truly rely on?
I am interested In Michael’s idea that the negotiated settlement does not constitute a valid agreement because it is the product of duress.
Can anyone tell us what the international law is when a truce is negotiated between two warring parties?
Particularly when the conflict is between two different peoples who it is generally agreed are legitimately represented by the negotiating parties; and when the agreement is ‘ratified’ shortly thereafter by a popular election in which the claim of the warring parties to the popular support – to be the legitimate representatives – of their peoples is confirmed?
Under this constitution the circus is on.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/tinyikosammaluleke/2010/03/14/julius-malema-and-the-art-of-distraction/
Perhaps from the pen of Jaap Marais?
John Roberts: Please read
—————————————————————————————————
When the British resorted to the scorched earth policy of burning Boer farms, blacks were also removed from farms and accommodated in separate concentration camps. The decision to move them to these camps was not a humanitarian gesture by the British. The blacks had to be cleared from the land to prevent the Boers from obtaining assistance, supplies and labour from them. In most concentration camps, conditions worsened every day for the black inmates. There was no material available with which to build proper housing and the blacks had to acquire on their own the little that was naturally at hand. There was also no sanitation or fresh water facilities in the camps and medical care for black inmates was very limited. By the end of the war, thousands of black inmates had died from typhoid, diarrhoea and dysentery because of the appalling conditions under which they had lived.
Different authors have speculated on the number of deaths of blacks in the concentration camps. Kessler has to date verified that there were 17 182 deaths in the black camps.(10) However, this figure cannot be accepted as a true reflection of the actual numbers because most of the superintendents did not record the deaths of black inmates in the camps.
Source: Military History Journal – Vol 11 No 3/4 Black involvement in the Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1902
Murder rate: 1938–2003
After 1990 race was no longer officially recorded in the government death records. However, the racial patterns of homicide have remained relatively consistent in the past. By comparing recent data from the National Injury Mortality Surveillance System (NIMSS) with the racial homicide trends prior to 1990, an educated guess can be made
What does the future hold?
The decline in the national homicide rate since 1994 is positive, even though projections suggest that it will take more than 15 years to reach levels below 20 murders per 100,000 people – a rate that is more in line with other countries in transition.
Source: A MURDEROUS LEGACY Coloured homicide trends in South Africa, JDS Thomson, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Also look at: http://www.issafrica.org/CJM/statgraphs/totals.htm
It is also possible that a more democratic environment increases the visibility of certain crimes, or creates conditions in which new forms of crime appear. In SA it is likely that prior to 1994, crimes committed outside of designated White areas were not reported, due to fear and suspicion of the police, or if reported they were simply not acknowledged or dealt with by a system whose primary aim was to protect White citizens only. Post-1994 these crimes have been given more attention and this may contribute to rising crime In addition, areas kept relatively secure prior to democracy, have likely statistics.
Source: The Impact of Crime on Human Rights: By: Craig Campbell and Talia Meer
I attended the Bisho march it was Brigadier Gqozos army not Lennox Sebe’s police force that killed marchers there.
In 1985 the townships were uncontrollable. The ANC had the biggest show of support since the defiance campaign. Living in the townships the ANC youth sure that the townships burnt. There were consumer boycotts, work strikes etc.
The rest I will regard as opinion, there will not bother to respond.
Thanks Thomas.
I of course never wrote the article or even necessarily agree with it all.
I merely posted it for the sake of discussion to show how people view events differently.
@ Maggs
“I would vote for Zuma despite my annoyance with him over several matters. ”
Of course you would Maggs!
You fully appreciate that, for all JZ’s faults, he is better that the alternative: a Botox-drenched liberal Madam who would reinstate a cruel system of capitalism in which a tiny minority of people, black and white, got absurdly rich!
@ Thomas
Thanks for saving us from this dose of manipulated history.
Ricky, I hope your read this. My apologies, you quite correct in terms of African countries. However they like South Africa have twisted the principle of ensuring no life-presidents. It is only in Africa, where the President is not directly elected that there are two-term ceilings. Further there is no science on the length of a term. For example, in Rwanda a term if seven years, and therefore two-terms are just one year short of three South African terms.
However, in European countries, France included, there are no term ceilings for executive Presidents, only ceremonial Presidents with Prime Ministers. France has been discussing the possibility of have terms ceilings for their President, but have not yet resolved on it. In countries with a Monarch like the Netherlands or the Britain, there is a Prime Minister, with no term ceilings. A Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament, just like our President. A Prime Minister chooses her or his cabinet, just like our President. But a Prime Minister has no term ceilings, but the SA President (and many other African countries) have term ceilings. It seems that the trust in African democracries is far less than European ones. Also note that one of the main reasons Africa decided upon term ceilings was the penchant to have life-Presidents. But this was before, when in African countries, the moment you were no longer President you were out of a job and an income. However, since the South African dispensation, with acts passed that ensured that the former Presidents stills received a salary, secretariat, security, residence, etc. the enthusiasm to remain in the position of President was no longer that strong. This makes the SA Constitution which prompted changes in other constitutions in Africa an idiosyncracy, when compared with western constitutions, including the majority of western Europe and Australasia.
@donovan,
Thanks for the message – I actually thought France hed termlimits but I stand corrected.
I don’t agree that because of various perks for ex-presidents, there is no longer an incentive to stay on. Look at Mr. Mbeki who ran for yet another term as leader of the ANC – cleary he was not tired of power and influence after his almost two terms. And South Africa is not the only country with perks for the president – look for instance at Kenya where Mr. Kibaki used fraud (or at least that is what many people thinks) to stay on in spite of the VERY generous terms for ex-presidents in Kenya.
I think that the main reason for persons wanting to stay on as president is the fear to loose power (and I also think that some presidents believe that they are irreplacable), not salary, secretariat etc.
In my mind, you cannot directly compare prime ministers in Western Europe and the President of SA. The monarchies are special cases but in most cases the President as head of state has some role in protection the constitution, e.g. in Italy where there has been some clashes between the President and the Primeminister. In SA, with the President being both head of state and of government, there is no such control-mechanism.
Also, the political situation is very different in SA compared to the western Democracies that you use as comparison. In SA there is one party with a huge majority and no opposition that may threaten this party in the foreseeable future. In Europe on the other hand, power normally rotates between two or more parties, building in a defacto timelimit of normally no more than 10-15 years. As you will note, it is seldom (but not unheard of) that a European prime minister retires out of his/her own volition.
You have not commented on the situation in Latin America, arguably more relevant comparisons than Western Europe since most Western European countries have had democracy much longer than both SA and most countries in Latin America.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
March 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm
As you say Big D.
You know best.
As usual!
@MDF
“cruel system of capitalism in which a tiny minority of people, black and white, got absurdly rich!”
Huh? Sounds like a pretty accurate description of the ANC’s rule in SA to me!
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=104109
I don’t beliave blaming our constitution we help but that will only symbolise idle mind. Our constition is far beyond blameworthy as it liberated us from the snare or angry teeth of apartheid. One should bear in mind of the bill of rights which enshrines eguality and right not to be dispossessed property without just cause. When we interogate the oforesaid,one will understand that our constitution deserves trust, protection and respect not forgeting promotion.if as south africans we can’t uphold our constitution,then our rule of law will deterorrate and as a result our country shall mechanically be like that of zimbaqwe.we should forever be alarmed that should we distrust our constitution then we’ll be bulling a cow by its horns.need not remind that our constitution is one of the best not only in Africa but the whole world. In the premises let us shower it with due protection and promotion it deserves.
Anyone else watch Carte Blanche Sunday?