It is troubling that Kgalema Motlanthe, Deputy President of the ANC thinks (or at least claim that he thinks) that by criticising Mr Jacob Zuma, Barney Pityana wants to deny the “masses the right to choose their own leader.” Although he claims that he welcomes open debate, he seems to suggest that if one criticises the leader of the ANC one is somehow anti-democratic.
This is a monumentally stupid argument and I can only hope that Motlanthe did not really believe it when he wrote it because if he did, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Of course in a democracy there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone criticising any politician – whether they were elected by 4000 ANC delegates at Polokwane or by 15 million South African voters at the polling booth.
To suggest otherwise is to suggest that once those 4000 people at Polokwane made their decision to elect Mr Jacob Zuma as President of the ANC, the other 40 million South Africans have no right to take part in a debate about his suitability to become President of the country. This would be deeply anti-democratic and quite unacceptable in a constitutional state like ours.
Motlanthe then goes on to criticise Prof Pityana for heaping scorn on Mr Zuma while the latter has not been convicted in a court of law.
If, like other citizens, Zuma is to be presumed innocent, then it is not correct to assign to him characteristics of corruptness, dishonesty and flawed moral conduct. There is no such thing as a partial presumption of innocence. A person is either presumed innocent, or not.
I respectfully think that Mr Motlanthe (like many pro-Zuma supporters) is misusing the constitutional principle that in a court of law an individual must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by the state to protect a flawed man. This right enshrined in the constitution is part of the fair trial rights of any accused and is based on the principle that no presiding officer must assume anyone guilty before the state has proven that guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
But the principle that in a court of law a person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty surely cannot and should not be used to shut up any debate in society about the moral character of anyone. Otherwise it would mean that we have no right to make any judgment about any public official’s suitability for office or about his or her morals unless that person has been found guilty of a crime.
That would set such a preposterously high bar for any criticism of a politician that it would undermine the very nature of our democracy. The absurd and dangerous logic of all this would be that we would not be able to say anything bad about Wouter Basson, PW Botha, Magnus Malan and all the other apartheid politicians who have never been found guilty of any crime in any court in the world because they are, after all, also “innocent until proven guilty”.
What Mr Motlanthe and other apologists for Jacob Zuma does not understand or does not want to admit is that there is a difference between being found guilty of a crime (for which one can be sent to jail for 15 years) and being found guilty in the court of public opinion for being stupid, or morally tainted. The former carries heavy penalties and therefore we can not lightly assume anyone guilty of a crime. The latter is a far more elastic concept and we do not need to cede our power to judges to tell us whether a person is morally dubious or not. We are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves whether we think leaders are morally tainted or not.
What Mr. Motlanthe wants to do is to take away our power as citizens to debate and criticise contenders for the Presidency and to cede that power to judges who will only be able to make a pronouncement on the matter if they find that a person is guilty of a crime. This attitude is deeply disrespectful of our human dignity, which as the Constitutional Court has stated on numerous occasions, presupposes that we have moral agency and that we must be allowed to make up our own minds about who we are, how we want to live and what we think about issues of the day.
The fact remains, a convicted fraudster (Schabir Shaik) has admitted that he gave more than a million Rand to Mr Jacob Zuma. The fact remains that the highest court in the land has confirmed that Mr Zuma did favours for this fraudster after the money was paid. The fact remains, the highest court in the land has confirmed that Mr Shaik had solicited a bribe on behalf of Mr Zuma from an arms company. The fact remains, Mr Zuma has never specifically addressed these issues or given any explanation for why he took the money and why he did the favours. In fact, suspiciously like a real crook he has only darkly muttered about conspiracies, not knowing that for most reasonable people that sounds very dubious and tantamount to an admission of guilt.
None of these incontrovertible facts make Mr Zuma a criminal. But it does make him unfit for public office. Quite frankly, in my opinion it makes him unfit to staff the Home Affairs counter in Barracks Street. Nothing Mr Motlanthe or anyone else say can take away these facts. That is why they have to make arguments about “innocent until proven guilty” and mutter darkly about people not respecting the will of the 4000 delegates at Polokwane.
It suggests the moral bankruptcy on the part of Mr Zuma’s supporters and raise questions about their own morality and fitness to hold public office. If people like Mr Motlanthe really think the only standard for judging the moral character of a person is guilt in a criminal court, we are surely in very, very deep trouble.
I guess he does not really believe that though. He is just parroting these idiotic lines because that is the only way to try and defend the indefensible. Mr Zuma is a deeply flawed and tainted character – no matter what a criminal court may found about his guilt. To suggest that Mr Zuma is beyond criticism is to suggest that us ordinary people have no right to think for ourselves and to question our leaders.
Despite findings by the highest court seriously impugning the integrity of Mr Zuma, he has never once addressed the issues raised by the Shaik case and has never explained why he has taken money from Mr Shaik and then did favours for him. In the absence of any credible explanation we would be irresponsible not to question his integrity. The fact that he and his handlers in the ANC think that he can get away with this without giving any explanation to the public suggests a disregard for us ordinary people of the most profound kind.
The Zuma forces always talk about the infringement of his dignity but it is our dignity that is being affronted because we are being treated as people without any agency and without the right to think for ourselves.
Pityana deserves his right to speak, although he himself is a racist ideologue.
Does anybody still remember his attack on Dennis Davies?
Dennis Davis is one of the leading intellectuals of South Africa, an academic lawyer, occasional journalist and facilitator of televised debates with an impeccable record of opposition to apartheid. Early this year, he criticised the appointment to the government’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) of individuals with political backgrounds at variance with the concept of civil liberty. His statement was a well-motivated expression of opinion which would have passed unremarked in any robust democracy.
The reaction in the brave new South Africa was to brand him a racist, a trendy term of abuse hurled at any white who effectively challenges the new establishment. What made it worse was the fact that the first stone was cast by Barney Pityana, chairperson of the HRC. He was apparently incensed that Davis should have criticised a committee set up by Nelson Mandela and stoutly defended appointees with dubious backgrounds on the ground that they needed ‘educating’.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Merrett_96isc.html
Pierre, once again, bravo for showing how feeble-minded our leaders are, especially-increasingly-our black leaders. Just this morning Xolela Mangcu was interviewed on SABC morning live show on his new book: To the Brink: The State of Democracy in South Africa. One of the issues he says he tackles in the book is the tendency by our black leaders to suppress criticism of their leadership labelling those who dare criticise their leadership style-including their characters and morality- as coconuts or sellouts.
I was disappointed by Fikile Mbalula’s comments attacking Prof Pityana for his criticism of Zuma’s flawed character. What disappointed me is that Mbalula was not debunking Prof Pityana’s low opinion of Zuma but accusing of everything under the sun like,”who do you think you era [Pityana]“? “What constituency do you represent”? And I swear if Prof Pityana was sitting in front of him while he was speaking he would have thrown a can at Prof Pityana. If this is how these people come across to us -the public- as severely unable to deal with criticism by critically engaging it, debunking it, without appearing belligerent, then we are really in trouble I agree, Pierre.
It certainly cannot be that Pierre Devos is racist and Barney Pityana or Xolela Mangcu or Siyambonga Heleba (me) is a sellout for criticising black leaders or black government. Don’t black leaders screw up and invite criticism like white leader screwed up and attracted criticism in the past? This is absurd.
I also agree with you Pierre that the 4000 delegates in Polokwane did not speak on behalf of millions of South African. The 4000 delegates clearly like their leaders corrupt, and even worse, dumb. They cannot expect the rest of us to have the same taste. But this is perhaps where I have to disagree with you Pierre. I do not think Motlanthe is stupid. I think Motlanthe and few others realise how popular Zuma is in the eyes of the masses. They see him as their ticket to power, and when they get there Zuma will be the ceremonial dumb President while Motlanthe and others will be effectively running the State. So they are not going to allow anything or anyone- except if Zuma is convicted of fraud, as he will be- to taint their man. Even if this means playing dumb. Either way, people who are so power-hungry that they are prepared to reason like 4 year-old children, are very sinister. If it was not for our properly functioning and independent judiciary, where we can always run for protection from these mafia, I would despondently say, we are screwed.
Pierre,
There is a delicate balance that we need to achieve here. I firmly believe that if someone is criticized, for whatever reason, that someone has the right to reply. At times the supporters of that someone reply on his/her behalf.
When that reply is dispensed, it cannot automatically mean intolarance for criticism. I think that reply, when within the context of the original critic, is an essential part of democratic free speech.
I think you should grace us with an article on the ‘right to reply’, and its mechanics. Because, unlike Siya, I do not understand how the original critic, itself, can be void of belligerence.
Khosi you have no idea how happy I am to see more of us – black people (assuming that you are black, of course) – taking part in these debates. One does not always feel like taking part, but I think it’s crucial that we do, as socio-political apathy is one the biggest threats to our democracy.
However I do not agree with you. The gist of your argument is that the likes of Motlanthe and Mbalula are exercising their democratic right to reply to critics on behalf of Mr. Zuma. And that the likes of Pierre and Siya (me) are questioning this right. Certainly they have the right to reply to their critics and even have the right to reply on behalf of their man, Zuma – when Zuma is unable to – and in the process exhibit either intelligence or idiocy. What the likes of Pierre and Siya are doing is merely pointing out that Motlanthe and Mbalula have displayed idiocy in their defence of Zuma. This is the real issue and not the right to reply to their critics.
I would like to know from you Khosi if you thought there was something even remotely intelligent about this statement by Zuma supporters and public defenders “Zuma for President , rape or no rape” on T-shirts during Zuma’s rape trial. And then there was the Shaik corruption conviction which implicated Zuma up to his neck. Zuma insisted that he was innocent and wanted “his day in court”. And when the NPA was preparing to grant him his wish – “his day in court”- then Zuma started talking of conspiracies. Now he is blocking NPA attempts to obtain diaries implicating Zuma in briberies in the arms deal. Does he really still want “his day in court”? With the strong evidence against him, of course he does not. Neither do his “handlers”, as Pierre calls them: remember this statement from certain Cosatu and ANCYL elements: “there will be bloodshed in this country if Zuma is prosecuted by the NPA.”
And Zuma now wants a referendum on death penalty. This man never stops. This idiotic stance was not only at odds with our Constitution and our constitutional jurisprudence on this issue (see S v Makwanyane 1995), but also with the ANC policy, an organisation of which he is a president. What sensible South Africans were hoping to hear from him was that the conditions which obtained in the country in 1995 have changed since. What has changed? There was crime then and there is crime now. For example, there was no empirical evidence then, showing a link between the reduction in crime rates and death penalty. Is this empirical evidence available now? This is what we were hoping to hear from him. All he said is that people want a referendum and people should get it.
Now do you understand Khosi what Prof Pityana means when he says Zuma does not command confidence, let alone respect, of sensible South Africans? Now how do people who are trying to defend the indefensible sound? Idiotic.
Siya,
Whether I agree with Pityana, or not, does not come to my entry. What I am actually saying is that we cannot shut down the right to reply just because we do not agree with what is said in the reply.
You see, no matter how idiotic (you may think) the reply is, it deserves to be heard. Is that not part of democracy?
So, critic the reply but do not ask for it to be shut down.
Khosi
I agree with you. In a democracy we all have the right to make any arguments we want about any topic as long as it does not constitute hate speech and as long as those arguments do not attempt to shut down debate and criticism. Nowhere in my post do I suggest Mr Motlanthe or anyone else does not have the right to put an argument in front of us to defend Mr Zuma or Mr Pityana for that matter. We are all free to make fools of ourselves. I was arguing that his arguments misses the point and tries to shut down debate by suggesting unless a court of law finds a person guilty of an offense no one may make any comment about that person’s character and that such a move is anti-democratic and insulting of our dignity. Anyone can argue with this point and I will be happy to debate it. But of course far more pertinent would be an argument about whether Mr Zuma is morally tainted or not. Such an argument will have to address the facts that I mention. Those who defend Mr Zuma never address these facts because they cannot. Instead they say we are not allowed to judge or criticise the President of the ANC because that would mean we are disrespecting their right to be presumed innocent in a court of law. A reply per se is not intolerant of criticism but THIS reply is. Why not try to explain the reasons for Mr Zuma taking so much money from a crook or why taking so much money from a crook and then doing favours for him does not mean that Mr Zuma is unfit? That would be a great development and very legitimate and I would be happy to engage with such a debate.
Pierre,
When people deviate from the debate using whatever means, its up to anyone who cares to redirect that debate to its original context. Smart people will never defend the indefendable, so to limit the strength of you argument they will start parallel debates. I suspect that you have fallen in the trap of participating in the parallel debate created in response to Barney Pityana’s point. Suddenly, instead of arguing pro or against Pityana point, you are now busy disputing Mothlante argument.
That what I would have wanted if I were Mothlante. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL.
Khosi,
You disappoint me. No where in my replies do I suggest that Zuma’s “handlers” should not reply to their critics in the public space. It is their democratic right to do so. It is for example Mr Mbalula’s democratic right to reply to Prof. Barney Pityana’s critcism of Zuma by asking him “what constitutuency does he represent”?, which implies that Mr. Zuma is a sacred cow to the public even though he operates in the public domain. All I am saying in my replies is how they sound when they say such ridiculous things. Does this amount to shutting them down? I get the distinct feeling that you are intolerant of those who have an opinion on Zuma and his “handlers”. If anyone is trying to censor peoples’ opinions, its you. What do you think?
I hope the Faceless rat is watching this conversation. I really hope he takes note that I am now labelled a Zuma defender.
I am here
Noted
Khosi, this is not about who you support (whether as a result of likeness of the colour of the skin, or race, or whatever), but whether one is big enough to admit that someone, whom one has always supported (for whatever reason), has a tainted character. It is also about whether other leaders of the same structure are correct in supporting its leader despite obvious indications that they are at a loss to explain his obviously tainted character and the reason why the structure (not the majority of the entire popluace, mind you) has chosen him as leader regardless. I have great respect for the Zulu culture and people, but JZ, he is a disgrace to that culture (even though he is very popular). Dingaan was also of that caliber, while Shaka, to my mind, was a true King. So where does it leave the supporters of JZ, including the NEC of the ANC and Mothlanthe. You be the judge!