Xolela Mangcu has an interesting column in today’s Business Day on Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, in which he argues that we should give Jacob Zuma a chance as President. (What would we do without the editorial pages of Business Day? Hopefully the rumours about its immenent demise are premature.)
Over the past decade we were called terrible names by Thabo Mbeki and his bloodhounds — “foot lickers of the white man”, “coconuts”, “native assistants”, “askaris”. We were banished from the public broadcaster and disinvited from many a conference. We were hounded out of our jobs because we marched to a different drum. We were called unpatriotic and plotters against Mbeki. His commandos put us down as wannabes who were only interested in meeting the president.
So bloated was Mbeki’s sense of self-importance that his acolytes actually believed the gibberish. You would have been forgiven for thinking the whole squadron was in a state of delirium. The delirium inoculated them from the reality that there were other people with minds of their own out there.
According to Mangcu he cannot be sure whether Jacob Zuma will be any different, but he is nevertheless prepared to give the new man a chance.
I attended a meeting with 100 other academics at the University of Johannesburg in which Zuma gave a clear commitment to academic freedom. Mbeki had made me so cynical about these things I kept pinching myself. . . . . And so I will give Zuma the same benefit of the doubt I gave Mbeki in the late ’90s. If he should squander that goodwill then I would be the first to let him know.
What this country needs is a wellspring of ideas that come from within its academic institutions — inspired by the experience of its people and enriched by the formful of other clever boys and girls in the land.
I have some sympathy for this view. Amongst the chattering classes there seems to be some hysteria about Jacob Zuma becoming President. As I have pointed out before, at least some of this hysteria is linked to class prejudice and the fact that Zuma is not educated and seems to be something of a traditionalist. So we would all do well to calm down and to give Zuma a chance to show that he will not only talk the talk, but will also walk the walk on everything from Aids to corruption to crime.
Can he be worse than Mbeki? Probably not.
The problem is that there are other reasons why we might be skeptical about Zuma. He is a patriarch and sexist. He is a homophobe. He befriended a crook, took millions of Rands from that crook and then did favours for that crook. This is not conjecture – we know all this from what Zuma has said himself and what has been confirmed in the Shaik trial.
Fact is that Zuma never should have been elected President of the ANC. There are far better candidates in the ANC who are not as fatally tainted as Zuma. But because Mbeki managed to scare off all the other candidates and because he fired Zuma as Deputy President, thereby freeing Zuma to campaign for the top job, it was a choice between the devil we knew and the devil we did not know.
So, I am torn. Yes, one must always give a new guy a chance to show whether he is up to the task or not. That would only be fair. But, unfortunately Zuma is ethically tainted and if we just ignore that fact we lower the standards for public morality in a most distressing way. How can we demand high public morality from our politicians when our President himself is such a deeply unethical man?
So maybe I will be a bit Budhist about this and try and hold two contradictory views at the same time. On the one hand, in government I will give Zuma a chance and will be open to pursuasion about his concerns for the poor and his skills and getting the government to do its job. On the other, I will not forget that Zuma is an ethically deeply tainted man who needs to get his day in court to answer all the charges against him.
Before we continue with this discussion. Who pays the piper named Xolela Mangcu?
I, for one, says that this description of him and the ilk is extremely apt:-
“foot lickers of the white man”, “coconuts”, “native assistants”, “askaris”
Has Xolela Mangcu ever in his academic life wrote an article without mentioning Mbeki? This so-called analyst is so obsessed with Mbeki.
If Zuma has made a clear committment to academic freedom, why then did he keep quiet when the tripatite allience partners Nehawu ( which is an affiliate of COSATU), Young Communist League and ANC youth league harassed V.C of UNISA Prof B. Pityana under the guise of mismanagement whilst we know the harrasment is political motivated…Zuma must understand that talk is cheap…
Zuma is no different from the previous leaders of the ANC, they make all sorts promises, without fulfilling any….
“I attended a meeting with 100 other academics at the University of Johannesburg in which Zuma gave a clear commitment to academic freedom.”
Firstly, I was there. And I hardly qualify myself as an academic. The same for many people in that hall. Secondly, I am yet to come across any material where Mbeki suppressed academic freedom. If such exists, please, by all means, someone make me aware.
Ironically, Mr Mangcu, was on radio a day or so ago, criticizing Barney Pityana for making known his political views while being a vice-chancellor of UNISA. Now the very same Mr Mangcu, said fuck-all when Professor William Makgoba, the vice chancellor of UKZN, said Mbeki was in the same league as Robert Mugabe, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin. Never mind the inaccuracy of these claims, Mangcu said NOTHING. Now that another vice-chancellor, who he(Mangcu) happens to disagree with, involves himself in politics, Mangcu thinks that is not a proper way for varsity principals to behave. Because in his words that would start suppressing ‘academic freedom in learning institution’.
Pure hypocritical bullshit!
What Mbeki despises is the cesspool of academic hypocrisy that many of these so-called academics, who masquerade as independent thinkers, live in.
But, that said, I did find Mr Zuma in his element on the night.
Prof, Zuma might not be perfect and I am no fan of the inept ANC government.
BUT, I do have a sense of optimism about Zuma. He might be morally flawed and homophobic. But at least he admits to being human, unlike Mbeki “I am God” like attitude.
Who knows, Zuma might just surprise us all.
Khosi and Cuzin, I agree fully with your views. I listened to Mangcu’s dubious misgivings about Pityane’s outspoken support for COPE and was shocked. He claimed he had not personally heard of any VC, internationally, who was outspoken in his support of one or the other party or political position. This in spite of the plethora of VCs, in the USA in particular, and the likes of Makgoba. The absurdity of his misgivings become all the more incredible when you consider that the chairperson of the UNISA council is Phosa of the ANC! Also, academics such as PdV and functionaries such as Ngobeni have been outspoken about their affiliations or political views, so ought they to be afforded the freedom of expression and association whilst other functionaries and/or academics (e.g. VCs) not? Is there a category of rights that certain academics or university functionaries ought to be afforded and others not? What of freedom of expression and the right to associate? Where is Mangcu et alle when a fellow academic is under siege merely for doing what Makgoba and others have done without let or hindrance for years?
Lastly, I personally believe that Zuma will ultimately become the darling of the media and the West and will therefore have a fairly uncontroversial term of office. He meets the appropriate profile (i..e. compromised, dependent on varied stakeholders to survive, no intellectual depth and prone to champion popular positions, as espoused by the media). So, like Mandela and Tutu, he is likely to receive good coverage during his presidency and the support of all the required powerbrokers (in labour and business), because he will spout all the appropriate sound-bites regardless the substantive content thereof. The likes of Mbeki, Putin, etc, prefer to question established wisdom so cannot ever meet the requirements of a “noble prince”.
“Secondly, I am yet to come across any material where Mbeki suppressed academic freedom. If such exists, please, by all means, someone make me aware.”
Spot on Khosi!
I assure you, not a single fact will emerge yet the quintessential “academic”, Mangcu will continue unashamedly peddling this falsehood with the approval of PdV, amongst others. Mangcu seems to believe that intellectual discourse translates to intellectual bulling by academia, private sector, civil society, which government, the ruling party, etc, should accept without nay a critique. The Noble prince, to Mangcu, must accept the assertions of philosopher-kings (such as Mangcu) as truth, woe to the Prince if he were to dispel the philosopher-kings truth as fiction! Were the prince to do so he clearly is nothing else but the enemy of academic freedoms and entitlements! Shameful, really shameful.
I don`t intent emigrating to Australia!
I do not look at things with Dutch/British worldview!
I do not think `Rhodesia was super`
South Africans are debating the future with Zuma as President. We are not looking for a Saint ! We are loking for a President.
I used to read Mr Mangcu’s columns with interest and appreciation. I enjoyed his penetrative thinking and his courage. I even enjoyed my intellectual comfort zone being confronted and shaken.
I do not mind the fact that he supports Mr Zuma, and i do not mind his expression of views with which I disagree. In fact I think that he does a very good job of stgimulating debate.
However, I cannot escape the feeling that, in his support for Mr Zuma’s cause, he has sacrificed some of his intellectual integrity. If he has been swayed to any significant degree by money, power, or a sense of identification with a particular cause, then he has become an intellectual mercenary.
There are also the red flags of the visceral responses to Mr Mbeki, the person. Personal hatred is the enemy of objectivity, and of the quest for truth and justice.
@Pierre.
Please take particular interest in these words by Mike Atkins: –
“Personal hatred is the enemy of objectivity, and of the quest for truth and justice.”
And you know what I always tell you about your own hatred.
Jacob Zuma – whilst electioneering at the University of Johannesburg – encouraged those in higher education to hold the government to account, and to “partner with the ANC”.
So which is it to be? Criticize the ANC at every opportunity, or form a mutual admiration club? I guess it’s the latter.
Pierre
Another bash at the non-sequitur. The True Motives 84 SCA judgment hasn’t made headlines in the popular press, but it shouldn’t be overlooked on a blog that concerns itself with South African Constitutional Law. Will you give us your views?
Ismail
Khosi and Vuyo, you really should get out more. You ahve a tendency to rewrite history just like your hero Mbeki you thinks one can change “objective facts” through lies and deceit. Mbeki and his underlings tried to intimidate the self-same Magboba about HIV/Aids and to stop him from expressing the conventional wisdom on this matter (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/16/internationaleducationnews.aids and http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/288/5469/1171 and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?_r=1&em). When people criticised the government on the arms deal – which we now know netted R28 million for the ANC from arms companies – Mbeki launched a vicious attack on the so called “fishers of corrupt men” (see http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2003/at21.htm). When Archbishop Tutu criticised the government, Mbeki launched another scathing attack on Tutu (see http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_1627385,00.html). When Mbeki wanted to win the argument about Gear he launched scathing attacks on the so called ultra-left in Cosatu etc (see http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/speeches/2002/sp0927.html and http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-06-01-daring-to-be-a-daniel and http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=722800). All these attacks have one thing in common: they paint the critic as an evil person who has no right to speak and tries to shut up the critic. On this point there is so much evidence I can go on for ten pages, but these few examples might jot your faulty memories.
It’s rather obvious that Zuma *seems* better that Mbeki in many respects – if you have been paying attention to SA politics from 1994 to 2006 that is.
Ismail, you have a good point. I have printed out the case and will study it along with the Walele decision after I have read the voting rights case – no later than this weekend…..
I am just astound that people think that Mbeki was a good president
Pierre De Vos // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Vuyo put it succinctly, when he said:- “The likes of Mbeki, Putin, etc, prefer to question established wisdom so cannot ever meet the requirements of a “noble prince”.”
All you examples speak to the fact that, you people want him to shut his mouth and not speak his mind. That is academic suppression. In all cases that you have quoted, he merely engages in an academic debate, at times in honest force. But because the persons on the opposite side are too meek and less endowed with intelligence, than he is, they pull out of the debate. And then they accuse him of shutting down debate. Those people are not academics, they are academic cowards. Maybe you do need to find the other 10 pages
One simple question for you,Professor Pierre de Vos. In his discourse with the media since 1994, when did Mbeki ever threaten or sue a newspaper publication, or anyone, for anything. How many newspapers have had their government advertising withdrawn? (Please do not quote Pahad, without proof that Mbeki was behind his utterances)And remember, a lot of lies, have been written and said about him.
Mr Zuma, loving him as I do, has concurrent lawsuits running against newspaper publications. How the hell do you make Msholozi more superior, than Zizi, in issues of academic freedom. Jeez man, you need to shake yourself of the hatred that clouds your objectivity.
William // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm
And I’m astound that someone like Zuma will be.
In this article
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=722800
“A minister in Mbeki’s administration explained privately once how she was woken by an early call from the man his acolytes call “The Chief” after she was quoted in a Sunday newspaper on some issue she considered benign.
After a draining challenge that shredded her confidence, she chose to stop speaking her own mind and to speak only his.”
If her argument was worth anything, why did she not fight? Why did she not take a stand? Why did she stop speaking her mind? I think she is a coward and Mbeki’s argument was more superior than hers. Period.
Pierre, just think about it. If you put Mike Tyson, at his prime, in the same ring with Baby Jake, also at his prime. When the later is destroyed, would you then accuse Mike Tyson of bringing guns to a fist fight?
I would tend to agree that there is some unnecessary hysteria surrounding a Zuma presidency. But that is not to say there is no basis for it. While the lengths to which some people conjure up doomsday scenarios can get exaggerated, a critical analysis still requires care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Zuma is a compromised man in many respects. While he is clearly a leader, and inspirational for millions of South Africans, he is tainted. And this is not something like he enjoys a glass too many of whisky, or says the occasional stupid thing – the man is facing corruption charges, and is looking very guilty (although he is still innocent, before the masses start frothing, until he ever gets to court).
In addition, he seems to flip-flop between opposing camps, promising each what they want to hear. He tells business that there will be no fundamental changes to macroeconomic and monetary policy, and tells the SACP that there will be a more socialist agenda. You can’t have your cake and eat it…and he will have to choose sides eventually. This will not be a moral or ethical decision, as JZ has shown clearly he is not moral or ethical. This will come down to clout – which side as more to hold against him.
Zuma is not an idiot, but I fear that he’s managed to get himself so entangled in a web of favours and promises that it will be the party with the biggest threat of blackmail / civil violence / whatever that governs policy. This is what happens when you elect a man with so little character to president (well, we won’t actually elect him – 4000 people spoke for the 60 million that live in SA, and we have to live with it, but you get my point).
I do not think the world will come crashing down and we will turn into Zimbabwe if JZ becomes president, And after TM, it’s difficult to get much lower, without it becoming a dictatorship. But I don’t see SA going anywhere significant with a man like JZ as president – it’s an inevitable consequence of electing a compromised party who is led by a compromised man.
Lobengula, how do the Dutch view the world, if I may ask? Since you seem to know?
I am also looking for a president, and not a saint. However, I would like that president to be somebody who I tell my children to look up to as an example.
Would you want your children to emulate Zuma? If so I fear for them – they will grow up with the same hatred you seem to harbour, and the cycle will continue.
*Sigh* I guess I could learn to live with the idea of President Zuma. But does anyone know who will be his deputy? Because I sure as hell don’t want her to be Baleka Mbete: there’s just something about her that pisses me off.
Big Slipper: are you saying you want your children to look up to an ANC politician as an example? You want them to emulate ANY politician?
Whatever some of you have been smoking to be, for once, so objective and constructive-must be tax free and legalized! …Anyway I am glad that stadig maar seker you guys have come to terms with the fact that Mr Jacob Zuma will be president. Let us start taking these debates constructively beyond the 22nd Apr 2009. He is a good listener; he is highly humble; he is reaching out to everybody ( which narrow-minded people incorrectly interpretes it as making promises to everybody): he has already had too much of a raw deal in his life-such that we can rest assured he has learned from his mistakes; he never really reacts negatively to critisism and being called names-except on extreme cases; he is an experienced politician and peace negotiator and of course the fact that he can sing (well-not only Mshini wam)!….Just give this guy a chance people ( well, not that you have much of choice anyway), he shall suprise you – trust me!
Lindiwe Sisulu for president! A woman, a geniune hardworking fighter for the poor, and a thousandfold improvement on any man the ANC has to offer. Not too shabby in the ancesteral legacy department either.
She will take over when oom JZ finally agrees to step aside when the trial starts.
Baleka “just use my travel allowance to buy me a drivers licence” Mbete is not presidential material.
There, I have solved all the ANC’s and the country’s problems.
“He befriended a crook, took millions of Rands from that crook and then did favours for that crook. This is not conjecture – we know all this from what Zuma has said himself and what has been confirmed in the Shaik trial.”
In fact that entire disparaging, simplistic characterization of the long relationship between Zuma and the Shaik family dating back to the heydays of the struggle is nothing but conjecture. Now I wonder what liberal academics like Pierre where doing during those dark and difficult years.
Sometimes friendships forged under difficult situations cut across differences and even transcends some serious character flaws. Hey – even Nelson and Winnie Mandela are still friends, despite Stompie Moketese and everything else that has transpired, that is a what make at least some of us human.
Spuy @ 10:56 pm
I’m with you Spuy.
Spuy wrote “…Just give this guy a chance people … he shall suprise you – trust me.”
I ask: “Do we have to use his 15 months as the President of the ANC as the yardstick to measure his capabilities? Or do we forget that and hope (‘wish’ is probably the right word) that as the President of the RSA he will be effective?
Tony in Virginia @ 11:47 pm
“Do we have to use his 15 months as the President of the ANC as the yardstick to measure his capabilities? ”
By all means. Lets enumerate some of what the ANC under Jacob Zuma has changed since he became president.
1) Negotiated a settlement in Zimbabwe.
2) Got rid of our incompetent AID denialist minister of heath.
Both those issue were a source of major criticism, endless Afropesimist and just a generally, stereotypical malcontent whining and bitching about everything and what else from the usual reactionary suspects who hate the ANC. But what happened when Zuma solved those issues : everybody just “forgot” about them and moved on the the next propaganda battlefield – i.e. Zuma’s corrupt character and his alleged “man breasts”.
Oh yes – and lets us not forget that it was only a week after Zuma and the NEC fired Mbeki that the other opposition’s beating stick, Robert Mcbride summarily got fired.
Then there was of course the much less publicized defeat of that racist Stofile at the hands of Hoskins for SARU presidency that surprised everybody in the rugby world and can only be attributed to Zuma’s intervention.
Ozoneblue,
Why take away Motlanthe’s credit and give it to Zuma? It was Motlanthe who got rid of Manto Tshabala (so we are told). It was Mbeki and Motlanthe who were involved in the Zimbabwe deal.
Zuma’s record in the ANC (among others):
• Failed to stop the dubious recall of a sitting President – albeit a lame duck and a dead snake. Who is in charge?
• Is failing to unify the ANC as the so-called third-termers continue to be purged. COPE was formed under his watch.
• On the Redi Direko show he saw nothing wrong with making conflicting promises to different audiences. Somebody once said you can’t have you cake and eat it too. So where is the backbone?
• He promised to be hard on crime and corruption; yet he would have pardoned Shaik – a fraudster – if Ngcode and company did not beat him to it (probably to save him the embarrassment).
• Crime suspects’ rights to remain silent will be abused. He said suspects should not be asked questions but just be put in jail. Apparently he is the only who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• What about the one million Rands a month of the taxpayers money for his security; yet he is not a public office-bearer?
• What about the death and destruction associated with those very security convoys?
@ozoneblue
“Negotiated a settlement in Zimbabwe.”
Stop using coincidence to lie. Even if one was to accommodate such coincidence, the Zim job was 99 percent done by the time Zuma (oh sorry Motlanthe) took over as chairperson of SADC.
TELL NO LIES, CLAIM NO EASY VICTORIES.
tony + khosi
You can try to tell lies and prop up your little Africanist dictator Mbeki all you like. Those who are truthful and understands what is up with the battle for the soul of the ANC, including but not limited to Madiba knows just who are to be be blamed for the fiasco of the past seven years and why Mbeki got fired. It is Zuma’s “left-leaning” allies who has been the most vocal critics of Zimbabwe, the catastrophic AIDS policy, the control of the SABC and the havoc sowed by Mbeki’s neoliberal economic policies – in fact his AIDS denialism was nothing but a smoke-screen cause he didn’t want to spend the money.
Mbeki achieved nothing during the past seven years of extracted “quiet diplomacy” – it is when Zuma took Polokwane when Mugabe realized his time was up.
And it is also so convenient for those propagandists who know nothing about our struggle and the recent history of South African and the ANC to know why Zuma is so highly regarded. If it had not been for his reconciliatory efforts in Kwa-Zulu Natal our country would have been dumped in an ethnically fueled bloody civil war a long time ago. You can fool some people some time – but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
@ozoneblue
I find people who claim a superior knowledge of the struggle and the ANC, which I belong to by the way, in order to prop up their ill-conceived argument quite pathetic. My experience points to the fact that even many of the people who hold positions in the ANC, use newspapers and party propaganda as the source for their information.
So please, Mr Ozone, do not come here and claim proximity or knowledge to the ANC or the struggle as a way of telling us that you know more than we do. It is the very thing that gives birth to parties like COPE, because people are always reminded that they do not know the struggle.
Then you say: – “the catastrophic AIDS policy”
My question to you then becomes, since Polokwane, has the government changed its AIDS policy? Is the government planning to change its AIDS policy?
I would call you a hypocrite but I think you just being basic.
“If it had not been for his reconciliatory efforts in Kwa-Zulu Natal our country would have been dumped in an ethnically fueled bloody civil war a long time ago.”
Do not talk rubbish. Yes Msholozi was instrumental in the achievement of peace in KZN. But in KZN, Zulus were killing Zulus. The violence was between Zulus who were IFP and Zulus who were ANC. The blood letting in KZN was politically fueled and not ethnically fueled.
Make better arguments, please.
“Shabir Shaik is corrupt” – Judge Squires 2006
“Corruption is a terrible [terminal?] illness of society” – Jacob Zuma 2007
Therefore:
“Shabir Shaik is terribly [terminally?] sick” – Doctor Naidoo 2009
Spuy, coming with terms with what is an objective reality does not legitimize the mechanizations that have led to that objective reality. Fact of the matter is that JZ may be humble and a good listener and indeed is a more likeable fellow than, say, Thabo Mbeki. But humbleness and being a good listener are not key criteria for leadership. I am informed that Chamberlain was more likeable and a better listener than Churchill. Indeed I am informed that he was a more complete leader than the boorish Mr Churchill, yet history informs us that he was inadequate in the face of the Nazi threat. I am informed that Stalin was a notorious and amoral genocidaire, but I am also informed by some people that he was the appropriate medicament for the Nazi illness.
South Africa requires clean and principled leadership, not compromised leaders. The fact that Zuma has allowed a grand departure from the ANC’s eschewal of the cult of personality, not only reveals his true character but is a source of concern. The fact that the ANC ahistorically “cherry picks” what ought to be regarded as decisions of the collective and those to be ascribed to the “snake”, Mbeki, based on whether they are considered to have been successes or reverses, shows a disregard for truth. For Spuy, Ozoneblue and Tony to suggest that Zimbabwe is a Zuma or ANC success is extraordinarily dishonest. Those who were in the ANC at the time, myself included, will tell you that a cohesive policy approach was adopted by the ANC’s NEC in 1999 already. It was subsequently affirmed in all the organs of the party and informed government policy as communicated by, inter alia, Thabo Mbeki and Ms Zuma. No doubt, it was unpopular with the West and the South African media, and its fellow-travellers. COSATU and the SACP knew that Zimbabwe and HIV/AIDS were the policies most condemned by our vocal media and in opposition to Mbeki (specifically) and the leadership collective that supported him, they took a contrary position, which was later adopted by the Polokwane gang. Hence the dithering of the post Polokwane leadership about Zimbabwe (one moment rejecting quite diplomacy and next time celebrating it). Indeed dishonesty has sunk so deep in the ANC that they refused to congradulate the facilitator when the MOU between Zanu and the MDC was signed, choosing to congrdualte the “government” and the warring parties, yet today we are informed by Tony, Ozoneblue and Spuy that Zimbabwe was an ANC project! In reality, it was initially an ANC and government project, it was (post Polokwane) driven only by government, and (post-coup de tat) it was driven solely by momentum and the influence of the mediator and foreign affairs.
What of HIV and AIDS which Spuy, Tony and Ozonblue respectively consider a Zuma victory. Now, I I was pandering to the peanut gallery I would find it easy to rid myself of the unpopular ministers, anticipating the compliments of superficial analysts of our body politic (the PdV’s of this world). But what are the facts? Hogan is merely implemented existing national health policies, the white papers and strategy documents, of which are easily accessible to those who have a respect for truth and therefore establish facts before commenting. Fact of the matter is that, already in 2000, the comprehensive HIV/AIDS strategy had been formulated, and in 2006 was reformulated (in order to better address ARVs, etc, in view of the court judgments, changed pricing landscape and new scientific information). Fact of the matter is that Hogan, like the previous heroine (Modise-Routledge) had little to do with our world renowned comprehensive strategy against HIV/AIDS. Faxct of the matter is that this strategy was supported form inception by the ANC, in conference and in the NEC) and was not changed in Polokwane (because there was nothing to change!!!!). Fact of the matter is that Zuma, Motlante and any other future president, will not change the basics of our 2006 strategy against HIV/AIDS (which was formulated from the 2000 strategy) because there is nothing to change. Future administrations may focus on one of its many pillars more than the other but the strategy itself is “divine”. Fact of the matter is that it was mid-wived with the support of the “dictator”, Thabo Mbeki, in the face of pressure from the Anti-HIV=AIDS loony brigade and the Pro-drug (and only HIV=AIDS) loony brigade (PdV, TAC, Achmat, et alle). Mbeki became the face of these collective battles because he understood the role of the president of the ANC, i.e. a steward of duly adopted policy and the ultimate protector thereof. So regardless of the popularity or not of a policy, he would defend it without a convenient rider (as Zuma does) of “the party believes, but I personally…” or “let us continue discussing…” (when policy has been agreed and only implementation must be discussed!).
Spuy and Ozoneblue, in my view you characterize the typical member of the 2009 ANC (i.e. you elevate personality over policy, tactics and operations). If you really understood the ANC, you would know that there is no Mbeki decision or Zuma decision, or for that matter, Mandela decision. Mandela’s reconciliatory talk, for which he is a darling of liberals, was a policy position originating from the ANC. The emphasis on Mandela as the archetypical cadre of umbutho was a policy decision taken (initially) by the ANC, notwithstanding that they had a leader (OR Tambo). The affront of using Mandela as the face of the ANC whilst still led by Tambo, was irrelevant to selfless cadres like Tambo. They understood that the President of the ANC’s responsibility was to communicate and protect policy adopted by the organs of the movement and ensure their implementation (regardless the personal views of the President). With the foregoing in mind, it is [plain dishonest for any person who claims to have been or to be part of the ANC to allege that decisions were unilaterally made by Mbeki or anyone for that matter. It is an unadulterated lie to claim there were any Mbeki decisions, or Zuma decisions, or Mandela decisions. It is an unadulterated lie to claim that the “good decisions” were made by leaders who are now part of “Zuma collective” and the “bad decisions”, i.e. unpopular decisions, (Khutsong, HIV/AIDS, Manto, Zimababwe, etc), by the leadership group that has defected to COPE. The fact that many (if not the majority) leaders of the NEC, more particularly the notorious and opportunistic comprador, Tokyo Sexwale, continue peddling these lies to those who cannot be expected to know better is reflective of a dishonest leadership. The fact that Zuma himself, who jointly with Mbeki were the policy hit man of the ANC, believing and supporting the same paradigm, has failed to clarify these aspects to his supporters, reveals him to be an opportunist who is willing to discard the truth for tactical purposes.
Fact of the matter is that the biggest obstacle to the liberal and western agenda in Africa was South Africa under the leadership of the ANC (led by uncompromised leaders). Fact of the matter is that the leadership of the ANC has been corrupted by its relationship with money. Fact of the Matter is that Zuma has clearly been corrupted by his relationship with money regardless the existence of a conviction or not). Fact of the matter is that money and money-networks have become more important in the ANC than ideology. Fact of the matter is that Polokwane was a strategic error on the part of the ANC, in Polokwane it just became another self serving party.
Zuma will ascend to the presidency, but the ANC (and not only its leadership) will suffer for the lies that have been told and the erroneous strategies that were followed in pursuance of these lies. Lies have very, very, very short legs!
vuyo damn im actually impressed thats a good post
I also see zuma’s best friend just bought himself a nice mansion
http://www.saelections.co.za/articles/1405/shaik-offered-to-buy-durban-mansion
Fact of the Matter, Vuyo, is that you are spot on!
Vuyo, thanks for the interesting post. I do think you underestimate the power Mbeki wielded in and outside the ANC in his heyday. Because of his forceful style of debating and his habit of playing the man and not the ball, his habit of using underlings like Pahad to terrorise people, his name calling and perceived aloofness, people feared him and he more often than not got his way inside the ANC. It took two years for sane voices in the ANC to shut him up about his Aids folly and some people lost their jobs because of this. That is why it must have come as such a huge shock to him when the rank and file rejected the firing of Zuma at the NGC and insisted that Zuma be fully restored in the ANC. It is one of the benefits of having term limits for the President, I suspect.
Vuyo,
Please read my response to ozoneblue again before you accuse me of anything. Do not misrepresent me.
@Pierre,
I think you are trying to be conspicuous in you rebuttal of what Vuyo is, as a matter of fact, saying. What Vuyo is saying is that, Mbeki was the embodiment of all the collective decision of the ANC. It did not matter whose views prevailed in that decision, Mbeki represented and defended the ANC in whatever decision, that the ANC collective took.
What you are, as a matter of illicit persuasion, trying to imply is that because Mbeki was powerful, all the decisions that the ANC took were, in actual fact, Mbeki decisions disguised as ANC decisions. It is the same mentality that informs many when they claim that the ANC has done a lot to improve the lives of people but the country is in a mess because of Thabo Mbeki.
I am not too sure that you can present facts that support your supposition. If you can please, by all means, please do. If you cannot, lets just stick to Vuyo’s version of the Facts of the Matter.
P.S. I am glad that you are now saying that Mbeki is a forceful debater and not a ‘dictator who shut down debate’. Vuyo, there is progress on this front.
There are no facts, only interpretations.
– -Friedrich Nietzsche
I got a question, im alittle confused on something…maybe someone can enlighten me….
I just read R1 million a month?! is being spent on Zuma’s security.
1) Is Zuma a government official?
2) What is the difference between Zuma and Lekota?
becuase if i can remember the anc was blasting Lekota about his body guards, “why does he need body gaurds is he under threat?”
3) How is it a white woman (Zillie) and a woman of color (de Lille) seem to be more safer than a black man in south africa im sure they have some sort of protection but alot less than R1m on body guards seems to suggest they are clearly not under threat?
4) Zuma being the man of the people and a populist with the mass’s of the people who would want to hurt him or threaten him?
one can critizes me on Obama but lets face it Obama was the first candidate to receive Secret Service protection before he was the official party choice and earlier than any other candidate not to mention a level of protection unprecedented for any other candidate. There’s good reason for it. As the first African-American candidate with a realistic chance of becoming President, Obama faced a high level of threats to his personal safety and now that he has won the election
Logical deduction, mousie
Pierre De Vos // Mar 13, 2009 at 11:15 am
I agree with Khosi, you seem to be making a very dangerous proposition that TM made virtually all the decisions for the ANC and everyone else who was in leadership at the time (including JZ, Kgalema etc) just did not have the balls to challenge him. With respect, that is giving TM too much credit.
Mzo, I hope you are right……
Vuyo thank you very much for your immense contribution and clarity of thought. Khosi you also deserve a pat on the back. It is sad that Pierre has a myriad of facts about what is/was wrong with Thabo Mbeki. The same dictator the ANC managed to replace with impunity and never called his cohorts to rise up against his tormentors. The same cadre of the ANC when he was recalled has not even once put the ANC into disrepute by offering an opinion on his recall. Instead he chose to be silent and allowed all of us to speculate. He has not even resigned from the same party that humiliated him. The same man who had the guts to stand up for Tutu when the president of Cosas demanded the sexual history of his elder. The one voice in high echelons of power who challenged the insensitive violations of Manto Msimango’s dignity when her private medical records were published for the amusements and gratification of her detractors. When Zuma says the ANC takes decisions as a collective I think we should believe him. This makes sense since he has not come up with any policy positions which contradicts the ANC’s except for the death penalty comment that there is nothing wrong to subject that policy position to a referundum. Again Zuma was with Mbeki for 30 years, together they steered the ANC in exile and after liberation. Both have chosen not to explain exactly what devided them although Mbeki still insists that this question still needs to be pursued. Vuyo has given some probable answers to the question. Now the current period of purging has infact left the ANC open to abuse because it has slowly eroded this wonderful thing of collective decision making in the party. The very things you accused Thabo Mbeki about will be worser if this ANC strength is abandoned for “cliques”. I hope that never happens because we will definately all rue the day we allowed the hounding out of office of a sitting President without a whimper. Suggesting that it is a sign of a maturing democracy we need not worry about anything. I now realise that we still need to debate more about the Mbeki era and ensure we separate fact from fiction!
And in other news the traffic on my blog goes through the roof. All fro the UK.
The reason, the buzz caused by TV reports of the rape of lesbians in our country and the police’s failure to arrest anybody.
Lesbian rape in SA is THE hot topic in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/13/south-africa-corrective-rape
Just curioulsly…are these submissions not mere implications of an overwhelming ANC victory in the elections? I am, after all…just curious.