Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate in the recent US election, is reported not to have known that Africa is not a country but a continent when she was being prepped by her advisors after her selection as a candidate for the second highest job in that country. The governor from Alaska is wildly popular with some right wing Americans, but the more the American people saw of her, the more they realised that she was really just an idiot who should be kept very far away from the White House.
I feel the same way about Jacob Zuma.
So I was not surprised this morning when the Cape Times reported that “ANC president Jacob Zuma has repeated that children who drop out of school should be educated by force, young girls who fell pregnant should be separated from their babies until they were educated, and that the law be changed so that criminals were denied bail”. The report quotes Zuma as saying:
We must go back to teaching. Go (tell everyone) it is going to be compulsory. We are going to make sure that no child is going to loiter around during school time. They are the citizens of tomorrow.
You don’t build a nation by talking, you build a nation by educating. If a child does not go to school, he must be taught by force until he gets a degree. We return him to his parents as a person who has been developed.
Where to begin? Clearly someone should tell Mr Zuma that education is already compulsory. While they are at it, his handlers might want to arrange some lessons for Mr Zuma on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Criminal Procedure Act and remind him that he should at least pretend to be consisistent when he talks about the rights of accused persons.
It is very worrying that Mr Zuma thinks that young woman who fall pregnant should be separated from their babies until they are educated. Whatever happened to their right to dignity, their right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender or marital status, their right to bodily integrity which includes their right to make choices about reproduction?
The fact that Mr Zuma says nothing about the young men who fathered these children is also deeply worrying. Surely, if one is going to address teenage pregnancy one must also address the fact that many young men do not seem to want to take responsibility for their actions and fail to support thei children that they have fathered? Do I detect more than a whiff of a sexists, patriarchal, attitude there? Will the strong women in the ANC stand up and repudiate these idiotic utterances of their leader? If not, why should we take them seriously ever again when they talk about the rights of women?
Just as troubling is the absurdly populist claptrap spouted by Mr Zuma about criminals having too many rights. The fact is, criminals in South Africa have very few rights (apart from the right to vote and the right to the basic minimum of protection while incarcerated). It is true that section 35 of the Constitution sets out in detail the rights of an accused person (which Mr Zuma himself has been in the past and might well be again in the future), but accused persons are not criminals.
As Mr Zuma and his supporters never tire of telling us, every accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is why most accused persons qualify for bail after their arrests and why they are given the right to legal representation. If we assumed that anyone arrested or charged with a crime was a criminal, then Mr Zuma himself would have already spent many months – even years – behind bars, despite never having been found guilty of any crime. Does this mean Mr Zuma thinks there should be one set of rules for people like him and another for accused persons who are mostly poor and black?
The so called “rights for criminals” are very important because they protect every single one of us – including Mr Zuma – from potential abuse by the criminal justice system. To say that criminals should not get bail is therefore an extremely dangerous and uninformed thing to say. In any case, bail legislation was tightened up several years ago to make it easier for courts to deny bail to some accused who are charged with serious crimes and might pose a danger to the community or be a flight risk.
Of course, it is a complete red-herring to talk about the rights of criminals when addressing the crime problem because, as we all know, the real problem with crime is not related to the rights afforded to accused persons but can be attributed to many other problems with our criminal justice system and our society.
Criminals commit crimes because they think (well, they know, really) that most of them will never be apprehended and will never be charged or convicted. This is because the police is understaffed and lacks basic skills and levels of professionalism. We also know that even an excellent police force will not bring an end to crime because crime is also the result of societal problems such as the huge gap between rich and poor, the breakdown in family life and in communities brought on by apartheid and a lack of respect for the law.
Mr Zuma’s utterances in this regard are therefore both dangerously disrespectful of the rights of all citizens and, well, idiotic. Like our own Sarah Palin, Mr Zuma seems to have a rather limited knowledge and understanding of the world and our society and keeps on embarrasing himself by pandering to the most incendiary, right wing attitudes of the public.
Stating this obvious fact does not mean that I hate Mr Zuma – as some of his supporters will be quick to argue – merely that I think his views and his behaviour should disqualify him from becoming our President. I do not even know Mr Zuma and, who knows, like Steve Hofmeyer and Leon Shuster I might find that Mr Zuma is a rather entertaining braaivleis guest.
But I do not want my country to be run by an entertaining braaivleis guest (that’s why I would also really, really not want Steve Hofmeyer or Leon Shuster or, god forbid, Sarah Palin, to run this country). It seems to me I am not alone in this, so as long as Jacob Zuma is the ANC Presidential candidate, opposition parties from COP to the DA will be smiling.
Hey, Pierre
What you got against me? I bet I look better than you or this Jacob fella in a bikini. And I definitely don’t like what he’s saying about us mothers and our babies. If I’d waited until I was fully educated before I saw all my kids, why I’d still be waiting.
Pierre, you hate Zuma so much so that I am tempted to conclude that you’re in love with him, may be you’re gay.
Anyway what makes you conclude that Zuma knows nothing about the world?And why do you label him a braaivleis guest?Your partisan bias is minsboggling, and anyway Zuma will be President of South Africa whether it pleases the minority or not!
Perhaps Julius Malema and others like him should take note – the emphasis has shifted from “revolution before education” to “‘education before revolution”; and, the President of the ANC now feels that that the former was a mistake, even though he himself has had no tertiary education. Or, is that not what Uncle Jacob meant? I mean, how qualified is he to speak about education?
Zuma is an embarrassment for South Africa. No one (except Zuma himself, Julius Malema & co) doubts that he is not fit to rule.
If South Africa has an actual working democracy he would not have been elected. The part I do not understand is why the ANC’s respected leaders (Tokyo Sexwale and Cyril Ramaphosa etc) is allowing this buffoon to speak at all.
I have a quick related or unrelated question…
Pierre you said:
“The fact is, criminals in South Africa have very few rights (apart from the right to vote and the right to the basic minimum of protection while incarcerated.)”
Constitution gives every citizen the right to vote, but why does this right not extend to citizens (like me) who lives outside of the Republic??
I am no legal expert but my reading of both the Constitution and the Electoral Act does not make this clear to me at all. In fact to me it seems my constitutional right is actually being infringed! Or am I wrong?
Prof I fully I agree with the above post , Zuma`s utterances leaves much to be desired.As a leader you can not open mouth without succinctly assessing the effect and consequences of the your words, lets assume it because he was addressing the masses (of which their vote is needed),but this man is not fit and proper for the position (president).
Another point Prof I `m waiting for Angie Motsega and co. to speak out …….
Unfortunately, JZ insists on pandering to whatever audience he may be addressing. Accordingly, I take everything he says with a pinch of salt because to me, he is nothing more than a political whoremonger. Zuma manages to find the key issues that concern the electorate and then to make statements that will satisfy them.
His misogyny is also of terrible concern and yet the sycophants of the Women’s League continue to support him as the most viable candidate to assume the Presidency of this country.
I am still astounded that out of all the people within the ANC, they feel that he is the best possible candidate.
“anyway Zuma will be President of South Africa whether it pleases the minority or not!”
Mdu, I love your commitment to democracy and minority rights… Really, well done!
Mdu – Aag please go du-du man? have you checked the polls lately? And have you not heard Jacob Zuma say that there are many ANC members in top positions that support the COP, but that they are not resigning and are only supporting COP on a covert basis so that the ANC cannot approach them and say, ‘We suspect you are a COP supporter, wont you please resign?’; and, that the ANC’s hands are tied?
Mouse, I do not, with due respect, get your point? Are you saying the COP, or whatever it is, will defeat the ANC in the forthcoming elections, you must be joking practically?
Hi Prof
Can you please give us the whole. Article in order to make up our own minds.
What is your solution to the crime problem that has engulfed our country?
i get the feeling that most of you basically on this topic have been cojesized to the extent that you end up lumbasting PRESIDENT OF THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS.one must bear in mind that to be a good leader you not necassarily need education.infact education is a eurocentric way of thinking.but i guess we as africans have to use it for survivul purposes.
We need leaders who will be able to find solutions to our crime problem within the framework of our constitution. Jacob Zuma is clearly not able to do that and I cannot take him seriously if he make the utterances he has reportedly made.
What are these solutions to these crime problems? What is the solution to our crime problem? I know many poor countries where the disparity between rich and poor is more than the one we have in South Africa, they are less police per capita and still there is less crime.
sandile ngobese – “one must bear in mind that to be a good leader you not necassarily need education.infact education is a eurocentric way of thinking.but i guess we as africans have to use it for survivul purposes.”
Duh!? Did you at all read what Jacob Zuma said in the first place, for which he is now being criticized? For your convenience, I will quote it again:
“We must go back to teaching. Go (tell everyone) it is going to be compulsory. We are going to make sure that no child is going to loiter around during school time. They are the citizens of tomorrow.
You don’t build a nation by talking, you build a nation by educating. If a child does not go to school, he must be taught by force until he gets a degree. We return him to his parents as a person who has been developed.”
Now, even if education is a eurocentric way of thinking, and Africans have to use it for survival purposes, who can say that education and educated leaders are not important?
Mdu – I’ll leave it to you to do the math.
The whole article is unfortunately only for subscribers so I cannot link to it. In any event, I think one should be careful to criticise Zuma because he lacks formal education. I don’t think his lack of formal education disqualifies him from being President. His lack of ethical probity, his misogyny, his tendency to pander to different groups and his apparent disregard for the values of the Constitution does.
I wish I had the answer to the crime problem but my honest opinion is that there is no (quick) answer to it. This is because training the police will take a long time and because it will take a very long time to restore the fabric of our society. In other countries where there is also a large gap between rich and poor, crime might be less of a problem because families and communities have not been destroyed in the same manner as in South Africa. Strong families and community cohesion is a very potent weapon against crime because families and communities work as a kind of self-policing mechanism. Due to the migrant labour system, the rapid urbanisation of the population and the manner in which minority rule destroyed respect for the law and for authority, these self-policing factors are absent or weakened and crime much higher. Reducing crime is a long term project and there are no quick fixes – something politicians do not want to hear.
Pierre and others
Tip for finding articles which are subscription only:
Copy a section of the text (say ten words or so), copy it into the google search text box and surround it with quotes eg:
“We must go back to teaching. Go (tell everyone) it is going to be”
Often other sites have the article, here is one:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20081110050228435C439483
“Often other sites have the article”
or different article with the same quote.
Well prof you just don’t seize to amaze me. How long should we endure the pain of you continously insulting our leader. Your hate for Zuma has gone beyond a mere divergent of views, but to personal attacks and hatred. JZ was in Cape town for the past four days speaking to his constituency. You could have invited him over and settle what ever issues you have with him or else we will do it for you come elections next year. By the way his rallies in the cape where highly successfull and his presidential campaign so far are satistactry. You will realy have to hide your self come election day. Zuma 4 president.
Hello Prof
I tend to concur with your view in many respects . Cde JZ’s statement is rather vague to me if not unclear .
Tx
Tshawe
There will be no liberation without hard work and education!
@T
Isn’t that what Helen Zille did? And he refused to talk with her?
T, I am not insulting your leader, I am criticising him on the basis of what he has said and done. You are welcome to disagree with me and to argue with me and to point out to me how and why I am wrong. I can then engage with you and discuss the matter based on reason and logic, and based on the facts. This is how political leaders in a democracy are treated – in a democracy no one is above criticism and supporters of a leader who are so quick to get upset about motivated and reasoned criticism of their leader are doing their leader a disservice and are not enhancing the public discourse. You should try to embrace democracy and stop hiding behind fake protestations of hurt pride, as you might create the impression that you are not aware how democracy works or, worse, that you do not embrace democracy.
Libdem, the same, I am afraid, applies to you. Are you saying Helen Zille invited me over the settle our differences and I refused to talk to her? If this is indeed what you are suggesting, you are wrong. I never refuse to talk to anyone, including your Dear Leader. Goodness, who am I in any case to refuse to talk to anyone. I am just a lowly professor.
hahaha I think Pierre has had this article on his mind for a while and just needed to write it whilst we all remember who Sarah Palin is/was!
With regard to the no loitering part, I remember when I was in Nairobi some years ago I kept asking where all the children were. The Kenyans looked at me blankly and said “in school”. But where are the ones who don’t go to school? I’d ask. The local’s ‘they’re sick at home?’ reply wasn’t cutting it for me. Eventually the penny dropped and they explained about the School Inspectors who rounded up children and the means of keeping parents responsible. It really seemed to be working as the children, when eventually released, were incredibly polite and well mannered. Of course all Kenyans are intelligent so that is difficult to gauge the overall effect. But I’d be happy if we found ways to incorporate some of their ideas into our system.
Let’s face it, it is taking far more employment specific qualifications to get black workseekers into positions (by that I mean that black workseekers generally need a degree whereas formerly the posts were given to holders of Matric), so black people stating that it is unAfrican to focus on education is an extremely dangerous premise.
The stuff about the pregnant teenagers, oh my oh my. And again he merely illustrates his hypocrisy, Isn’t his latest wife and baby mother not an extremely young (about 21 or so) girl?
And SANCO in the Western Cape have just come out in support of the new party. So division runs deep here, there is no point denying it.
Pierre, I think Helen Zille, posturising again, asked Zuma to debate with her. He didn’t take her up on the offer. I think.
Or perhaps JZ misunderstood, and thought Helen Zille was inviting him round for a braaivlies. Only he’d already heard from Steve Hofmeyer et al that she really is as dull and boring company as she looks and so he said thanks, but no thanks…
Actually that all sounds quite plausible, all things considering.
Question:
Is JZ still relevant in the new political landscape?
Sandile: maybe you should try a spell checker or more education…?
” You do not have to be educated to be a good leader”….
Like Malema? JZ? Sarah Palin?….LOL
Oh Plato where art thou? You are so needed in SA……
Prof, the same way I think your articles are correctly provocative to initiate discussions and debate, it is the same way I believe Jacob Zuma as a full citizen has a right to provoke the society to debate challenges facing the society. Truth is untill one has a close relative who was murdered and saw the murderer on the street the next day-one will never understand how painful violent crime is. Jacob Zuma is correct to bring some assurance that violent crime will be dealt with radically. Can we please play the ball not the man!
Pierre
We like your postings.
Continue writing whether it pleases the minority or not. Thanks Mdu.
JZ is actually less Sarah Palin than George Dubbya. He makes broad generalised statements which are then negated a few days later by other statements he makes. Or repeats inaccurate statements regularly in the hope that if he says them often enough, they might become true.
An example is his constant refrain that the DA has no policies. Each time Helen Zille requests him to meet with her to publicly discuss the policies of the DA, he ignores her. My guess is that he knows that Helen would chew him up and spit him out and he cannot risk the public humiliation. Cowardly, methinks!!
One must be very careful of assuming that education equates with intelligence. George Dubbya is well-educated, having attended Yale (and done the whole Secret Society bit there too) and the man is an idiot. I know many people who have little formal education that are extremely wise and intelligent. For me, JZ’s lack of formal education does not detract from his obvious street smarts. What is of real concern is that he thinks the people of this country are stupid.
there are lots of stupid people in this country
The way education (OBE) has gone in this country since the late nineties … We shall be seeing plenty Sarah Palins or perhaps even worse….ehh…indeed…
I agree wholeheartedly on your sentiments about Zuma.His lack of wisdom beggars belief! However he has said some things like increasing the salaries of the police drastically to fight crime which make some sense. Pierre you are right about the root causes of crime,however I think a fair amount of crime is also commited by foreigners like Zimbabweans fleeing the economic meltdown there,which is also as a result (partly )of Mbeki’s failed quiet diplomacy.
The single biggest root cause of poverty /crime to my mind is the complete breakdown of the family unit in African households.Boys grow up w/out the discipline of a father figure and are easily influenced into a life of crime. My clients are mostly african and almost w/out exception children are illigitimate,and the father has absconded.
One of the reasons for this, is,I believe, the lobola system which only the moderately wealthy can afford.
Lobola should be made illegal and subject to criminal sanction,surely it amounts to treating a woman as chattel and is not constitutional in any event?
However it would take a brave politician to take on such a cultural icon.
@Pierre
Sorry – the implication of my comment to T was that Zille has repeatedly asked Zuma to debate matters with her, and he consistently ducks out.
There was no intention to drag you into the mix….
In 2000 the Parliament of Singapore passed the Compulsory Education Act,[2] which codified compulsory education for children of primary school age, and made it a criminal offence if parents fail to enrol their children in school and ensure their regular attendance.[3] Exemptions are allowed for homeschooling or full-time religious institutions, but parents must apply for exemption from the Ministry of Education and meet a minimum benchmark.[4]. Special needs children are automatically exempted from compulsory education.
Mdu – To assist you in dealing with the matter (support of the COP and other parties vis-a-vis the ANC) mathematically read the following intyerview
http://www.news24.com/News24/QA/0,,2-2377_2424361,00.html
Well at last Prof has made it clear what he thinks of Zuma,which explains why an judge who pronounces in favour of zuma gets grilled in this blog. It’s a pity then that you will have to contend with the IDIOT for the next 5years. The beauty of apartheid is that it made some of us idiotblind, we will keep on voting for the idiot as long as he is our idiot. U gotta love democracy!
We do not need Zuma(Zumacracy), to lead this country.
No we dont, at all.
Stevii, the issue becomes who is ‘WE’ that u are referring to
Stalin,
….me and my grandma, who for the very first time in her life after voting for the ANC since 94′, i have convinced her to vote against Zuma.
Stalin, thank you for your answer to Stevii, Tony in Virginia, Mouse et al non compos mentis!
To reiterate, thereby rubbing in my point, Stevii you and your grandma, aka pitiful minority, will be ruled by our idiot JZ, how about that not-so-intelligent-or-wise Prof!
U and your grandma can do whatever u like with your vote. U have rand we have masses!
hmmm… should I claim some credit for spotting the parallels? Or is it a case of great minds thinking alike / fools never differing?
Libdem, no problem. I just was not sure what you meant.
Stalin, you raise an interesting issue, namely, is one’s analysis of the law clouded by ethical and political commitments and if so, to what extent. My personal view is that is is very difficult to keep the law and ethics of a situation completely separate, but as a lawyer one must try to be honest, fair and open to other arguments. That is what I try to do on this Blog, sometimes probably better than other times. I happen to think that Zuma will probably not be a great disaster as President as there are many good people in the ANC and maybe – unlike Mbeki – he will take advice from these men and women, but I really do not like his populist posturing and his many statements that seem to disrespect the values enshrined in the Constitution. If these impulses are not tempered my beloved Constitution is in for a rough time and that really, really worries me…..
Mdu, why don’t you engage in the substance of my argument? Can you defend the utterances by Mr Zuma quoted above? Do you agree with them? Why? What do you make of my argument that these utterances do not comport with the rights in our Bill of Rights? Or do you think the Bill of Rights should be scrapped?
Prof.,
I agree that the Honourable Msholozi may have been off the mark, but what I detest in you is that you are always on his case, that is ad hominem onslaught, and I decipher from your analysis that you were just waiting for a slip on his part to deliver your attack!
Mdu & Stalin.
…we are part of the so-called majority and a millions miles from what you call the pitiful minority, in fact we are part of the rand-less masses!
Now we don’t need Zuma=he is crazy(Zumacracy).
Mdu, as far as I am aware criticising a politician for saying something really scary or stupid is not an ad hominem attack. Politicians of any party are our servants and they should be able to take criticism and learn from it. Those who think the criticism is unfair have every right to argue and put another view forward. It is when we try and shield a politician from criticism that we begin to slide into non-democratic views. Or do you disagree? As a friend of mine sometimes say: “If you are a banana, you must be prepared to be eaten.”
Mdu
I feel you. It seems anywhere you read these days there is nothing good about Zuma. There are a number of reasons for this.
• Reporters tell us what he says. And what he says ain’t good.
• Even reports from these USA (including TV excerpts) show a clueless Zuma who fails to answer a single question. Maybe they should blackout Zuma’s addresses and speeches.
• Even on the Friends of JZ website where people are supposed to be posting messages of support, there is nothing good about Zuma except insults hurled at Mbeki, Shikota, and just about anyone who questions Zuma’s vision.
What a pity.
As for some of us, we will be reading about the bumbling of Zuma while we are basking in the glory of Obama.
Mdu and Stalin
I think it is still too early to assume that JZ has the support of the majority of our country (“the masses”). Yes, we know that he is popular within the ANC, i.e. the ones that have not left for or are not about to leave the ANC for Shikota. But his popularity with the masses will only be tested next year at the polls. Then we will truely see whether the “pitiful minority” will have to accept JZ as our president. If he is chosen as our President we will have to accept the democratic outcome of the election, but until then, we, the “pitiful minority” can still hope for change.
Pierre,
I have been following this conversation since yesterday. All parties have been arguing just fine, until you thought you should pacify the Zuma followers by saying he will be better than Mbeki.
No matter what hatred you have for the man, one unmistakable fact is that Thabo Mbeki is the chief architect of this country as we currently know it and I see him being remembered our main founding father. Yes the country has it problems, but it is a country that is functioning and is far from a ‘disaster’. I do not see how you can selectively allocate all the problems to him without allocating all the successes as well.
Let the man have his retirement and enjoy the blanket of liberty that he has provided for the past 15 years. The blanket might have a tick or two, but it shelters you from the cold and the rain and it a comfortable warm blanket.
What I am saying to you, is that Thabo Mbeki has walked his legacy. You, Zackie Achmat, Harvard or whoever, do not have the power to define it. History will.
Tony in Virginia: Interesting that you say anything that Zuma says he says ain’t good. I tend to be afraid when people get in the mode of actually believing that even a fool cannot in his utterances have something worth listening to. This never happens in nature. To imply that anything Zuma says is not worth listening to is ridiculous to say the least. The mere fact that the Prof writes about what Zuma says shows that he is saying and raising important and relevant issues (whether you think they are stupid or not, by the way you are still debating them in this blog). The first thing which Zuma talks about is the issue of the rights in our Bill of Rights. Many people I have spoken to believe we have gone too far with these rights. Criminals have been set free because of the constitution and these rights and witnesses murdered. Many people have been killed in order for criminals to get away with their crimes. The same bill of rights and the constitution protects these criminals. Tony; is American not regarded as a police state. Please read this site: http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm
Must we now not educate our children because Zuma says we must? Are we that clever that we will let our children rot and starve because we want to prove to everyone that Zuma is stupid and he does not say anything worthwhile? I might be stupid but if I feel that the bill of right lets my kids be irresponsible then I don’t like them (bill of rights). MY kids are MY kids and in my house they will be forced to attend school; there are no bill of rights in my house. If Zuma is wrong to say we must make sure that our kids do not get pregnant and therefore lose the opportunity to better their lives through education then I don’t support these rights. As much as we want these right we must be careful to use them responsible and be careful of making them be hiding grounds for criminals.
Prof, you are correct that the debate must rage. I do think that the bill of rights is not beyond debate and sharp criticims for the excesses that ooze from the positive aspects of the bill. All what Zuma might be suggesting is that the bill of rights asserts rights of criminals zealously.
He certainly does not suggest its obliteration. We as constitutional experts must be prepared to have our most crucial tools of trade taken on for the negative aspects associated with them.We should take what the media says with pinch of salt (if not cupful) as distortions are about as the media seeks to project their own unpronounced candidates for the coming elections.
Whe Zuma states that we will win Western Cape he is not telling the truth but articulates his conviction and he is entitled to do that. As to who will win the forthcoming elections remains to be seen by all of us. no amount of howling and reciprocal accusals will dent the results. We must busk in the fact that we are entitled to vote and the winner will rule all of us without exception.
Those who do not want zuma to lead must simply vote in numbers or hope for verdict of quilt before elections next year.
Thomas,
I’ll be the first to admit that America’s foreign policies leave much to be desired; that is why we are hoping that President-elect Barack Obama will do something about it when he is in office. Having said that though, I believe the link you supplied is a bit disingenuous. It is making a hill out of a molehill. There are some sites such as these that portray the ANC and Black people in a despicable and unspeakable way. I would not rely on that information.
I think the Prof eloquently analyzed the issues you are raising regarding Zuma’s utterances and I won’t go in those details; but suffice to say that Zuma’s methods of implementing those ideas border on arrogance.
If this is how our South African system of government worked, Zuma would be in prison for rape. Remember that Zuma admitted to having sex with that young lady. In his defence he mentioned that he could not leave a lady in that state because according to his culture he would be guilty of some crime. This does not mean therefore that sex was consensual. Zuma got off, not because he was innocent, but because he was ‘not guilty’. In other words, the accuser failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape did in fact take place.
The principle here is that absence of proof is proof of absence since the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the defendant.
Zuma advocates for the opposite of this principle. In other words one should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. In the rape case, Zuma was not proven innocent; because the young girl never said ‘Yes’. So according to his proposals, he should have been prison.
You will agree with me that that would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.
What I get from most Zuma supporters is that regardless of Zuma’s suitability or non-suitability for the highest office in the African continent; they will put Zuma as the President of South Africa just to spite his detractors. Way to go!
Quo Vadis South Africa?
Prof, i find it very hard to read your commentary especially with regards to Mr. Zuma. You seem to have dedicated quite a lot of time and energy oppossing whatever he states. For a change prof. give us alternatives to whatever you oppose. If he says this is how the ANC plans to fight crime rather you say maybe this is what you think should be done than saying that wont work and offering nothing.
This blog is called CONSTITUTIONALL SPEAKING but very few of your comments are grounding what’s out there with what the constitution says. We come here to look for constitutional insight not general comment, we find that in news-sites and papers.
Jacob Zuma comes across as a has-been, a throw-back to a by-gone age when men where men and women knew their place. He smiles nicely and is charming but I wonder how much he can transcend his own gender and culture biases to become the president for everyone. He’s seems so stuck in his 19th century patriarchal world with his hopelessly outmoded opinions and attitudes that he appears comical to me. Next he’ll be telling us that women shouldn’t work after they have children because they need to keep house for their men. What an embarrasment to liberated South Africans who care about moving forward and making this country a home for **everyone**. How can this man lead the nation when he doesn’t even know the basics about human rights, dignity, respect?
@ Mbusi,
Maybe you should read the by-line of this blog again. It says: “This blog deals with political and social issues in South Africa, MOSTLY from the perspective of constitutional issues”.
At the end of the day, this blog belongs to the Prof, and I don’t really feel that you are in a position to dictate the terms of it. It’s a discussion forum, not a policy-making site and you have the choice as to whether or not you wish to participate.
I think that people do not understand what a constiutional democracy entails. The constiution is the meta of all laws and everything must be consistent with it, including all branches of government.
So the issue here is not about whether Prof does not personally like Zuma, his ideas and proposed policies, its about asking, are these ideas consistent with the Constitution? If the answer is no, then there is definitely a problem. It is irrelevant to pose questions such as ‘well what would you do then?’
The standards in the Constitution are same standards that Mbeki and Mandela were bound by, Prof is not arbitrarily using the Constitution against Zuma just to make him look bad. ANYONE that is not in line with the principles of the Constiution should be subject to scrutiny.
Please can eveyone note that school IS already compulsory up until grade 9.
Friend of the Constitution – well said. Note however school is compulsory up until Gr 9 / or 16 years of age, whichever coomes first.
Someone should tell Mr Zuma that there are kids who literally swim to school. I can go and introduce him to quite a few kids who get up at 3 or 4 in the morning and have to walk several kilometres before they get to the nearest taxi stop because his ANC has been focusing on redistributing the wealth at the top instead of building much needed infrastructure at the bottom.
It’s not that kids are unwilling to be educated. It’s because his friends in COSATU and other unions are striking, letting kids down, that we don’t have educated people.
Besides, the best leaders lead by example. So is Jacob Zuma going to include himself in this wonderful compulsory education plan? I believe the man spent a decade or so on Robben Island twiddling his thumbs (was he exploring the shower to build up his resistance against AIDS?) while some of his comrades spent the time very well improving their minds.