Mr Jacob Zuma will formally be elected President by the National Assembly on 6 May after being sworn in as an member of Parliament. Luckily for him, section 87 of the Constitution states that once elected President he will cease to be a member of the National Assembly. This means that he will only be a member of the National Assembly for a few hours.
And a good thing for him too.
As Deputy President Mr Zuma was a member of the National Assembly and because of the evidence tendered in the Schabir Shaik case, Parliament’s ethics committee was asked to investigate him. He had received millions of Rands from Schabir Shaik but had not declared this to Parliament as he was legally obliged to do. He claimed that the money – which on his salary he would never have been able to pay back – was a loan.
At the time the ethics committee kicked for touch and said it would wait for the outcome of the Shaik case before considering the complaint that Mr Zuma had breached the ethics rules of Parliament (and – like Tony Yengeni – had broken the law by defrauding Parliament).
When President Thabo Mbeki fired Mr Zuma as Deputy President (but not as a member of Parliament) Mr Zuma actually voluntarily resigned from the National Assembly. Many people were surprised by this as Mr Zuma had refused to resign as Deputy President, arguing that it would have amounted to an admission of guilt on his part if he had resigned. Why then resign as a MP? Would that not also constitute an admission of guilt?
But Zuma had a very good reason to resign. In the Shaik judgment Judge Squires found that the money paid to Zuma by Shaik was not a loan and that the “loan agreement” provided to the court was a sham. On the basis of this finding it would have been very difficult for the ethics committee not to find that Mr Zuma had breached the parliamentary rules of ethics and that he had indeed defrauded Parliament. He therefore had no choice but to resign his seat. Otherwise he would have had to face an embarrasing and damning censure from Parliament.
It was not remarked upon at the time, but according to Mr Zuma’s own logic, this seemed like an admission of guilt on his part regarding the defrauding of Parliament. Why else resign his seat in the National Assembly?
Could members of Parliament raise this issue once Mr Zuma is sworn in and before he is elected? They could try to make a point and could raise this before the election of the new President, but the new Speaker will be able to ensure that Mr Zuma is elected President before this matter could be dealt with by Parliament.
Section 86 of the Constitution states that:
At its first sitting after its election, and whenever necessary to fill a vacancy, the National Assembly must elect a woman or a man from among its members to be the President.
The Speaker would be able to point to this section to justify a ruling that Mr Zuma must first be elected President before Parliament considers any other matter – including the alleged breaches of the Parliamentary code of conduct by Mr Zuma. And once elected, he will not be an MP anymore and Parliament will not be able to investigate him for breaching the code of ethics.
Mr Houdini would have survived once again.
Several court judgments have confirmed that the money given to Mr Zuma by Shaik was not a loan. We also know that Mr Zuma had not declared this money to Parliament. So, on the basis of these judgments, it is difficult not to conclude that Mr Zuma had defrauded Parliament. In the glow of post-election goodwill, it might be a bit awkward to point this out, but it would be nice if Mr Zuma could give a detailed explanation about this small little matter.
Who knows, in the spirit of forgiveness, some of us would even be persuaded by such an explanation that Mr Zuma did not defraud Parliament and that the Shaik judgement got it all wrong. But unless he explains himself, it would be difficult not to conclude that when Mr Zuma resigned his seat he was in effect admitting guilt in this matter.
Prof, have to say, I did not see this one coming… brilliant!
Ja, pretty sharp, but I can definitely say that Future President Zuma will not be explaining anything for the next five years …
Please leave the Zuma issue. The People of South Africa has determined the fate of Mr. Zuma. They want him to be the President. Fraud or no fraud. Let us respect the rule that says “innocent until proven guilty”.
and that the process must be fair.
According to me this case is closed.
I have to agree George, I am also taken by surprise.
In parliament you do not raise issues as in a shebeen where legal scholars sharpen their blunt intellect.
Such a motion will not arise on the 6th of May 2009. This is the day for the constitution of parliment, election of speaker and president. No other issue on that day.
The water in under the bridge.
IISHMAEL said:
“Such a motion will not arise on the 6th of May 2009. This is the day for the constitution of parliment, election of speaker and president. No other issue on that day.
The water in under the bridge.”
That you consider the defrauding of parliament and a clear ethical breach, based on evidence accepted in a court of law *AND* the logic of the person making said breach, easily acceptable as “water under the bridge”, says far more to me about your sense of ethics than it does about the subject matter at hand.
Or do you disagree?
Prof. come on now, for what reason are you making this point ? forgiveness what ? I would expect you to tell us what the new president needs to do in the next five years so that the constitution remains strong and potent weapon to protect all who live in South Africa.
Such backward looking remarks and points are exactly the things that may result in deepened mistrusts amongst our public figures.
Prof. and all embittered people leave our President alone, it’s becoming boring that now and again when you want to raise rubble you attack Our President-elect Zuma.
Incidentally, you should follow your own advice and should respect the office of the sitting de facto State president and stop referring to him as Houdini, we know it’s difficult for you people to respect the majority’s choice!
Mdu // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Is Zuma not human like us?
Free speech gives us the right to criticise and the fact that Zuma is just a normal human being just like 6 billion others does not give him the right to be above criticism. No matter what office/title he has!!
On a technicality, he is not president elect because he has not been elected. His party has been allocated the majority seats in the National Assembly, but himself will only be elected on the 6th of May. Only then will he have the title as president elect until he is inaugurated.
“Mr Jacob Zuma will formally be elected President by the National Assembly on 6 May after being sworn in as an member of Parliament. Luckily for him, section 87 of the Constitution states that once elected President he will cease to be a member of the National Assembly. This means that he will only be a member of the National Assembly for a few hours.”
not unless members of Parliament get a court interdict when Zuma is sworn in as a member of parliment to stop him temporarily from being elected president so a probe can be done in “defrauding of parliament”
after all law and esp the constitution and esp Section 86 of the Constitution is not just about protecting it, it also needs to be challenged.
Mdu – It may be boring for you to hear this, but, Jacob Zuma IS a crook and, having succeeded in evading his day in court, he can be described as Houdini. George’s remarks are spot-on.The majority’s choice is wrong. On your logic – if the majority says murder is ok, then it is; if the majority says the death penalty is ok, then it is. Do you have any sense or understanding of the rule of law? We know that it is difficult for the majority to know the difference between electing a crook or an honest politician (which may of course also be a contradiction in terms – especially if one refers to the Travelgate thugs and Winnie Mandela who have been re-elected by the majority). PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT REFERRING TO ‘YOU PEOPLE’ AS YOU DID, BEACAUSE THAT WILL BE REGARDED AS A RACIST REMARK BY THE LIKES OF YOU. INSTEAD, I REFER TO THE ‘MAJORITY’ AND ‘MINORITY’ TO MAKE MY POINT.
Mdu, your comments are deeply offensive and reveals some serious prejudice. You need a shrink brother.
First, you assume I am embittered and that I am part of a group you call “you people” who do not respect democracy. Who are these “you people” you are referring to? Are you making a race-based generalisation? How do you justify such prejudice? How do you know my state of mind? We do not share a bed, neither are we friends, so you cannot know whether I am embittered as I have not told you. Are assuming this because I am white or because I have argued in favour of respect for the Rule of Law?
Second, as a loyal and proud South African I will respect the office of the President. I have no duty to respect the person holding that office. In fact, as a loyal citizen I have a civic duty to criticise and even to ridicule any politician – including the President, who remains a politician – if I think they acted unethically, criminally or in any other stupid or obnoxious manner or if they breached the Constitution. This is how democracy works. No one – especially not a President – is above criticism in a democracy. Respect is earned through words and deeds. Mr Zuma has done and said many things that make it very difficult for a rational person to respect him. I fervently hope that once he is President he will talk and act in a more wise and responsible way to eventually earn my respect. For that to happen, he will really have to change for the better. But I am an optimist, so I hope he will.
George, I dont care whether Zuma has not yet been technically elected prez., he is in fact prez-elect, and I an proffering to you the same argument you use to give to Zuma supporters that the office of the sitting Prez. should be respected and Zuma is no ordinary person you know that, he has no formal education and has ascended to the highest office in the land and the so-called educated people have been buffled and obsfucated!
By “you people”, I mean people who hate and detest Zuma and in this category we have people like cope and the last time I saw lekota on national television he was not white!
Mdu // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:39 pm
oh so by “you people” you mean opposition? but isnt that what a democracy is all about? so would DA and ID also mean “you people”
so mdu what do we call you then? us people vs you people? you either with us or against us?
lol i swear ur not well in the head
Sipho, I am amused by your comment. You sound surprisingly like those racists who supported apartheid and then said in 1994 that we should stop looking back and should forget about the past. I am not one of those people who think we should always forget the past. I rather agree with Milan Kundera who said: “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”
Mdu // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:32 pm
There is a massive different in having respect for the office of the President of the Republic and the person occupying that office.
Like Prof said in his reply, respect is earned.
Also, it is “fact” that he is not president elect. See previous argument.
Mdu // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Also, we are not questioning his achievements. Whatever he has achieved still does not mean he is above criticism.
Mdu, I am at a loss. I do not understand on what basis you conclude that I hate Mr Zuma. Just because I have argued – on the basis of the law and the Constitution – that Mr Zuma should have his day in court, does not and cannot logically lead to a conclusion that I hate him. I have written before that some of the fear of Mr Zuma is just “common class snobbery” (See http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A653006). I suspect you NEED to believe that all of us who point out his glaring ethical lapses and his obvious problems with the law hate him. That way you never have to deal with the substance of the LEGAL arguments put forward by us. It is like an ostrich hiding his head in the sand under the impression that if he does not see the danger there is no danger. And let’s face it, the Ostrich is a rather peculiar bird…..
Reading these posts has inadvertently forced me to reflect upon Jacob Zuma and what similar positions we find ourselves.
I have been fighting a drunken driving charge for the past 5 years and last week the matter was struck off the roll (in accordance with the CPA …
342A Unreasonable delays in trials
3) If the court finds that the completion of the proceedings is being delayed unreasonably, the court may issue any such order as it deems fit in order to eliminate the delay and any prejudice arising from it or to prevent further delay or prejudice, including an order-
(c) where the accused has not yet pleaded to the charge, that the case be struck off the roll and the prosecution not be resumed or instituted de novo without the written instruction of the attorney-general;
Now this does not mean that i can never be tried for the matter but I have asked the question … what purpose would it serve when I have changed my life remarkably since the alleged offence occurred.
The same can be said about Jacob Zuma … 8 years is a lifetime and people change, he is definitely not the same down and out politician who needed friends to bail him out financially. Could it be that what has arose from this sordid era in South Africa’s history is a truly charismatic and righteous leader who is understood by the majority and be the man that Andrew Feinstein was in awe of.
Not only have I given the ANC my vote (ulterior motive being in pursuit of 2/3 majority) but I will respect and serve the office of the President as my Commander-in-Chief as i have done for every democratically elected president before …
What I fail to understand is the defensiveness of JZ’s supporters here. Why so thin skinned? Your guy just won big (well, not as big as he talked, but he still got pretty close to 2/3rds). What about magnanimous don’t you understand? Why be petty in victory?
Incidetally, H.F Verwoerd was only human too. Somehow, the argument that we should respect a person merely because of his democratically elected office doesn’t seem like such a bright idea to me.
George Bush was democratically elected. Well, once anyway. So was Obama. Look at the protests in America against Obama’s taxes. This is what democracy means – the government should respect the people and not the other way around.
Fact remains Zuma has a case to answer. Political conspiracy or not. If the presidential seat becomes a hot one he has only himself to blame.
The notion that a sitting president is above criticism is an extremely dangerous one – go to North Korea and see what happens when (if) they dare criticise. Remember communist Russia? And Romania? Anybody who thinks that a sitting president (or any politician for that matter) should not be subject to any criticism is asking for a very dangerous thing.
Then again, I notice the ANC brigade on here are remarkably quiet when Malema et al are leading furious rhetorical rants against opposition politicians. I suppose that only ANC politicians and presidents are above criticism?
I have news for all our loyal ANC fans here – Mr Zuma shits like the rest of us, and if he ever shot himself with his machine gun he’d bleed red blood, the same as the rest of us. The man is inherently human, inasmuch as you’d like to think he’s not.
The ANC has put the country in an untenable position by electing him (the ANC, not the “majority of the citizens of the country”) as president, and we’ll be reaping the rewards for the next 5 years. We’ll survive, because we’re Saffas, and we’re a resilient bunch, but it ain’t going to get any easier for a while.
Prof, while I respect your right to free speech, I find the timing of your argument unwise, destructive and totally not relevent. I should think that you are aware that as an intelectual/expert, you have a very important role to play in the deepening/inculcation of constitutional democracy. We expect intelectuals like yourself to teach and inculcate the culture of accepting the outcome of democratic processes e.g elections, hence I find the timing and relevence of your argument highly offensive if not extremely provocative, cos it suggests that you are a BAD LOOSER. Obviously you cant honestly claim to have voted for the ANC! You now have these other bunch of people on this blog who go to an extend of insulting (in a veiled manner) the majority of the electorades-almost insinuating that the majority are stupid, brainless bunch. You would have noticed that RACE still played a crucial part in these past elections, and to me that is a challenge which we still need to carefully confront. I believe you are not a racist Prof – I truly do! But in a society that is still trying to transcend race, we need to be carefull of our utterences, especially the TIMING thereof, cos you can easily be misunderstood as just a white racist who doesnt want to accept the democratically elected black guy cos you ve got issues with him. It is why you d get accusations like “you people” and so on, which of course are unacceptable. But the truth is THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN and everybody must accept the outcome without reservations or petty excuses and intelectuals like you Prof need to lead by example to deepen this democracy.
For the blind Zuma loyalists:
You can’t be critical of Thabo Mbeki’s tenure as President and disallow others the right to be critical of JZ as President, be it imminent or otherwise. This, I suggest, would be hypocrisy and does little to advance your argument in rational company.
That said, I am hopeful that Jacob Zuma will rise to the occassion. Not particularly expectant, but hopeful.
May he prove worthy of your faith in him – for the sake of all of us.
By the way Prof, I must also agree with Ishmael, the 6 May, is the constitution of Parliament, election of Speaker and President ONLY – no ‘motions on proceedings’ or ‘proceedings of motions’ or whatever the hell they call those parliamentary processess that day.
“But the truth is THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN and everybody must accept the outcome without reservations or petty excuses and intelectuals like you Prof need to lead by example to deepen this democracy.”
The big man is in thanks to the vote of a desperate and partially literate electorate and we should just shut up and take it because they have spoken? I can hardly believe this. So all criticism just stops becaus the ANC got 65 point something percent. The fact is that winning gives the ANC the mandate to govern, it does not put them or their figurehead above the law, or reproach. Deepen this democracy – how would you say this should be achieved. Blind subservience?
Spoiler, the point I making is that everybody, you included, must be seen accepting the outcome. I honestly find De Vos argument flawed, baseless, inaccurate and very misleading. First, he ventures into his own logic of why Mr Zuma resigned as MP in 2005 and comes to some untested conclusion, and secondly, in my view, completely mislead us on the parly process of 6 May. He is being Bad Looser finish and klaar!
I do accept the outcome but I reserve th right for all, you included, to deepen democracy by being critical of the government’s performance, including Mr Z’s.
Why do Zuma supporters keep on claiming that the people of SA have chosen Zuma as their leader?
They have done no such thing.
No one in SA put a tick next to Zuna’s name. They put it next to the ANC. It’s just unfortunate that in the SA political climate the ANC leader could be a plank of wood and they could still look forward to a +50% majority.
Zuma is stepping into a much larger stage now. The journalists of the world are waiting for him. They are not going to be lenient with him; so he had better be prepared to answer all those tough questions – some of which Pierre has already asked and gotten no answers.
There won’t be no Spuy or Ismael or anybody else to tell foreign journalists and other stakeholders about the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ nonsense.
The world stage awaits. The last time Zuma was in Washington, DC addressing a more receptive audience, he was politely asked that when he comes back, he should have answers to their questions. That is because, Zuma did not answer their lenient questions to their satisfaction.
Thabo Mbeki knows how unforgiving and cruel the questions of foreign journalists can be. Fortunately Thabo Mbeki could fight his own battles.
Of course when Zuma gets back home, Jessie Duarte and others will be calling those journalists racist.
Give me a break.
Interesting comment Tony. I’m also looking forward to his presidency. It is interesting that already his supporters as opposed to the supporters of the party want us to keep quiet, something they found virtually impossible during the tenure of the former president.
And now that the election and fight against the opposition is over, the ANC’s infighting can continue. The SACP is trying to lay claim on its portion of ANC votes. I wonder how the president will address the international media, pursue his legal battles (some as the prosecutor and some as the defendant) all over the globe, satisfy the SACP, satisfy COSATU, satisfy his 5 wives and 18 children. Did I leave out something….? O, I wonder how he will satisfy his country, the citizens and business with all of this extracurricular activities that occupies his holiness?
Lest be honest, pro-ANC’s; the ANC lost out twice this election. They lost a province and they lost 2/3 majority. Except for the now irrelevant political parties, the ANC is the worst performer (compared with previous elections) of all the major political parties. DA and Cope just chipping away at your arrogant 70 %, as preached by Zuma himself. The kicker – the ANC, this election, did not lose out because of the ‘good’ opposition, the opposition grew because of the ‘bad’ ANC.
Sne
Let me point this out, the supporters of Thabo Mbeki moved to cope when he was defeated, stop speaking as if you voted for Zuma’s ANC when you and me know well you voted cope, even some of you postings testify to this, you are no longer an ANC member or supporter so stop telling us that we, who voted for ANC, did not necessarily vote for Zuma, because his face was next to ANC brand and we knew we wanted him!
Tony – interesting comment. I agree in every respect.
Spuy – “You now have these other bunch of people on this blog who go to an extend of insulting (in a veiled manner) the majority of the electorades-almost insinuating that the majority are stupid, brainless bunch.” … As Forest Gump’s mother said – “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Mdu – “…because his face was next to ANC brand and we knew we wanted him!” … Ooh, and what about that woman who said she wanted to vote for Mandela, with the presiding officer making the mark next to DA? (It was you who mentioned that, wasn’t it?)
Real thing is – Jacob Zuma is a deeply flawed man, and if he was a real man (not being sexist or anti-gay here – ‘man’ used to describe a flesh and blood person of integrity), he would’ve faced his day in court and let the law take its course. Fact is, Spuy, Mdu and others, some pre-election opinion polls have shown that the majority of people who indicated that they would still vote ANC come election day, in the same polls indicated that they distrust Jacob Zuma as a person and that they trust the party to do what is good for the country. … Now what might that be?
Well, its all a challenge, that’s for certain. Is the proof in the pudding, will our newly elected leopards change their spots? Will their children calm down and attain wisdom and compassion? Will Lady Justice stand tall once again?
Exhausting, isn’t it?
CG:
That’s simply not true. The ANC would never put a plank of wood on the ballot papers. Especially because Julius Malema would have no idea what to do with it.
Pierre
You ask why Zuma would have resigned from Parliament if he was not guilty. Presumably you do this tongue in cheek. We all know that there was a good reason to resign, which was to preserve the dignity of that office, and that it brings no admission of guilt with it of any sort.
Prof de Vos, did you get tired of reading the comments? I searched for your response to Spuy, but found none.
In my own regard, Spuy’s advice is indeed timely. You would do well to heed them, especially if you read the comments to your articles in this blog, you have a number of fans, who generally seem to eat out of the veritable palm of your hand.
There are some points I want to register though.
Firstly, there of many of us who voted for the ANC, although we did not agree with their choices on leadership. However, on the overall balance of matters their policies and commitment to non-racialism, non-sexism, building a equal society, and tackling the issues of poverty in a focussed manner, far outweighed their leadership choices. To accuse us, and the majority of South Africans of voting for a crook, is insulting and demeaning. It fits snugly in the DA’s policy platform that the ANC is only a bunch of cronies taking care of each other. In other words there is no objectivity but you and your minions have appointed yourselves as the moral police of South Africa, a nasty middle-class habit!
Secondly, it is not a matter of people like Mdu calling for bygones to be bygones. In your defence Prof, you did state that you did not agree with the apartheid aparatchiks and leaders geting off the hook. But herein is where Spuy’s comments are apt. Would it have been prudent for the ANC to raise in 1994 that FW de Klerk should own up to the apartheid government’s responsibility for death squads and the fomenting low intensity warfare, irregardless of the Goldstone Commission’s finding, when he was being nominated as Deputy President? It may have been legally correct, but would it have been prudent? I suggest, not so. In the same light it is not prudent to raise this matter, when the country is trying to get over the most bruising electoral battles since independence.
Lastly, I agree with what I believe is your sentiment. It is revealed in your comment that apartheid leaders should reveal all they knew and take responsibility. Even if the matter is not raised itr would be arrogant and foolish for the ANC, its leadership, and the President-elect, to not recgnise and acknowledge that the South African public overwhelming voted for the ANC in spite of the weaknesses and mistakes of their leadership, not because of it. The voting public did this not because they were blind to these problems, and in spite of the ‘hero’-worshipping of ANC activists. A recognition of these mistakes would ensure that the burden of leadership would be understood and respected.
In other words Prof, retract some of these ‘points’ otherwise you lead your own sheep down an abysmal path of hero-worshipping?
Ismail, if you are correct, why did Mr Zuma refuse to resign as Deputy President? Did he then not want to “preserve the dignity of that office” of Deputy President as well? We know that in his own words he said that he refused to resign as Deputy President because that would have amounted to an admission of guilt.
Nice angle Harold. It is 8 years on and maybe Zuma has changed for the better.
However, still no inkling that he admits to any error of judgement at that time – just the same bullshit and bluster and attempt to paint the dropping of charges as an acquittal. Having won the election he would earn much respect from the “haters” if he simply said that he regrets some of what happened re his relationship with Shaik.
And please, no more Schaiks, he cannot retain Mo as an advisor.
Mdu – sorry I was a bit harsh on you linking you to that icident where the woman wanted to vote for Mandela – it was actually Ishmael Malale who made that comment a while ago. But the point I made remains.
ismael – “…We all know that there was a good reason to resign, which was to preserve the dignity of that office …” – Exactly the reason why he should not accept the nomination to presidency without he serious allegations against him having been tested in a court of law (rather than in the court of ‘public’ opinion). If he does not do that, he has no respect for the dignity of that office, unless, of course, the office of Deputy President is more dignified than that of President?
Donovan – “Firstly, there of many of us who voted for the ANC, although we did not agree with their choices on leadership. ” … This is exactly where you differ from people like Spuy and Mdu above. … But then again, voting for a party, knowing who that party’s presidential candidate will be, if elected, clearly makes one a supporter of that person, doesn’t it?
Mdu // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:40 am
………………………………………………..
Anonymouse has done a good job of taking you up on your misguided statements so I will only take issue with your unwarranted “knowledge” of which party I voted.
Regardless of the party I voted for, I still do have a constitutional right to criticise whichever party and/or political leader in South Africa which right is encapsulated in my right to freedom of expression – Prof. may obviously want to give you a lecture on this.
Secondly, you say that the supporters of Mbeki moved to Cope and you submit nothing in support of the bald allegation. Let me submit my own bald allegation to counter yours; the supporters of Mbeki would justifiably be accused to have moved to Cope had Mbeki himself publicly confirmed that he is a member of Cope. I said publicly confirmed not to admit that he is privately confirmed that he is a member of Cope but to avoid your superfluous argument in this regard.
Thirdly, for you to impute knowledge to yourself about the party I voted for is a naive strategy to get me to state here which party I voted for in the elections, something which you will not get for obvious reasons, one of which is that my vote is my secret unless or until I decide otherwise (note the use of “I” in the sentence).
Fourthly, you state that I am no longer an ANC member. Who told you that I was an ANC member or supporter before?
Lastly, the sad truth about the ANC is that it put itself in the position in which it finds itself today. The best thing that you can do is to do a little bit of introspection and diagnose the ANC internal problems before they consume the ANC in its entirety, something which is in not so distant future when you consider the calibre of the ANC leadership of today. The Madiba card which seems to procure magic each time it is put on the table will outlive its usefulness very soon and the educated youth which could not be emotionally blackmailed into voting for the ANC will vote with its head not heart.
people who think south africa is going down the same road a zimbabwe, they need to read Sne // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm
impressive argument, that deserves an applause sne
Sne (Chris): Hear, hear!
Anonymouse // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Mdu – It may be boring for you to hear this, but, Jacob Zuma IS a crook and, having succeeded in evading his day in court, he can be described as Houdini. George’s remarks are spot-on.The majority’s choice is wrong. On your logic – if the majority says murder is ok, then it is; if the majority says the death penalty is ok, then it is. Do you have any sense or understanding of the rule of law? We know that it is difficult for the majority to know the difference between electing a crook or an honest politician.”
I almost laughed when I read this comment. I stopped just close to that though, for it is shame I felt in retrospect. I have hears some politician say: people speak of the rule of law, but they respect not, the rule of law whn it produces things they personally go against. ZUMA IS A CROOK? WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM? THE SHAIK JUDGMENT WHERE HE WAS TRIED IN ABSENTIA? DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW HOW STUPID IT WAS, TO SPEAK OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THEN TELL US ZUMA IS A CROOK? Im suprised nobody picked thi up, you need to think before you write.
Please respond with something above level.
Anonymouse, I really do not have the passion to get involved in a tit-for-tat type discussion. Wrongly or rightly, one chose to distinguish between the leaders and the organisation. It maybe naive in your book but nevertheless a conscious choice. More importantly are the three point raised in the comment, namely; (i)to regard the choice made by the majority of South Africans as being based on ignorance is insulting and demeaning (please note that if you think that the majority were ignorant in their election choices, then your commitment to democracy can be questioned); (ii) it does not serve the greater good to raise the matter at the time of the election of the President in Parliament; and (iii) the real issue is the leadership if the ruling party recognising or acknowledging that the SA public voted for them in full knowledge of the mistakes made, and therefore being consciously cognizant of this will ensure that they govern much more responsibly.
These are the issues for me.
gedeza // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:13 pm
lol but then you got “you people” like this one
ZUMA IS A CROOK? WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM? THE SHAIK JUDGMENT WHERE HE WAS TRIED IN ABSENTIA? DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW HOW STUPID IT WAS, TO SPEAK OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THEN TELL US ZUMA IS A CROOK?
how is zuma not a crook? a SCA found a corrupt relation between the 2 gents.
so gedeza to talk about rule of law how is zuma not a crook?
please provide legal evidence after all this is a law blog
last time we all checked zuma isnt acquitted.
you need to think before you write and please respond with something above level or maybe try as in the words of Zuma try come close to smelling that level
gedeza // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Can you prove Zuma is not a crook?
Donovan // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:27 pm
this is your problem no one is insulting anyone esp “majority”, stop being a baby and maybe show abit of patriotism, the only person who was insulted was Sne, he stood up for himself and correctly put you in your place and so did mouse. maybe learn something what sne had to say cos that to me shows true patriotism towards south africa.
and you seem to forget this is a law blog where we talk and share about legal issues it is not meant to be taken seriously as this is a blog. For you to put a gagging motion into play well is simply just desperate
“SA public voted for them in full knowledge of the mistakes made, and therefore being consciously cognizant of this will ensure that they govern much more responsibly.”
well i hope so for your sake you cant turn back now so hold your leaders accountable or you will land up like zimbabwe were the ignorant kept voting mugabe
gedeza – We’ve been through this numerous times before. But let’s go through a few past postings and arguments:
JZ has to date never ever denied that he received millions of R (and $??) from Shaik and a few arms companies as was clearly proven in three courts, High Court, SCA and CC. The argument, also produced by Shaik during his trial, that these were not received in return of favours, but interest-free (and indefinite) loans to help a poor Comrade COPE (joke!!) with the cost of living and his many houses and wives, is so superficial and improbable, that even a fourth grader won’t believe it. His counter argument that surfaced from time to time, namely that he will not go down alone, but, if his prosecution continues, he will spill the beans on other top-officials, lends credence to the evidence thus far, albeit in other trials, that he did receive those amounts of money. Then there is also the fact that he did not declare same to Parliament, at a time where he was clearly expected to do so. Neither did he declare the ‘interest-free loans’ to the Tax Man. Surely, if ever he did not do any of the above, he would have publicly denied it all?! The fact that he, rather than deny guilt and face his day in court in the light of such clear, overwhelming, evidence that points in a different direction, decided to waste his, society’s and the courts’ time and resources on many applications (that were clearly without merit) to stop his prosecution, further enhances the perception that he is a crooked man that has something to hide. And then that blunder by Mpshe, who first decides to reinstate (or continue with the reinstatement by Pikoli) of JZ’s prosecution, and then uses tapes of phone calls between Ngcuka (no longer the NDPP) and Leonard McCarthy to INFER that there was something amiss with the decision (his own?) to continue with the prosecution also does not detract from any of that. Today I read in Legalbrief Today that Mpshe does not want to disclose the evidence that he had which swayed him to stop 9or rather stay) the prosecution, but that JZ has to decide whether that evidence should reach the public domain, which puts even a bigger question mark over the decision. No doubt, with time and someone who can properly place all the relevant evidence before a criminal court, and his attempts at evading his day in court without merit, a prosecutor will have no problem at all to convince the court that he received the monies, and failed to declare the receipt thereof to the relevant authorities, with a crooked motive, and that he is in fact guilty of corruption and fraud. So even though he has not been convicted in a court of law (which is the result of Mpshe’s wrong decision, nothing else), it can safely be asserted that he is a crook – unless, of course, he can come up with a viable defence, which is so improbable that it borders on the absurd given the history of the matter.
But this is not where it ends.
In the law on libel there is a defence ‘truth and in public interest’. With the above, I will have no difficulty in persuading a court (at least on a balance of probabilities) that my calling JZ a crook (even though he has not yet been convicted in a court of law, and even though he might or will become President of the RSA on 6 May 2009) is the truth and in the public interest. Couple with that my right of freedom to speech and expression, and the vulnarability of people in public office to ridicule and vigorouis criticism, I would not say that I disrespect the rule of law by calling him a crook -in fact, I am within my rights and the boundaries of the rule of law.
People, we do not know whether Mr Zuma is – legally speaking – a crook and we now never will because the NPA dropped the charges against Mr Zuma – probably illegally. We do know: (1) Mr Zuma took millions of Rand from a convicted crook which he could not possibly pay back; (2) He then did favours for that crook and for the arms company who paid him a bribe; (3) He lied to parliament about this; (4) His legal team used illegally obtained evidence procured by the Intelligence Services to have the charges against him dropped, thus abusing state institutions and probably committing a crime; (5) He launched a deeply regrettable personal attack on the Constitutional Court after charges were dropped.
What we do not know is whether Mr Zuma will be a good President or not. Only time will tell. While being mindful of the deeply problematic nature of Mr Zuma’s past actions, I for one, will give him a chance to prove himself as President and I really wish him well and hope that he will be a good President for all South Africans.
What anyone concerned about constitutionalism, the Rule of Law and the plight of the poor cannot and should not do, is to remain silent about the abuse of power and the undermining of the Rule of Law which led to the dropping of charges against Mr Zuma. My position is that as loyal and patriotic South Africans we can BOTH wish Mr Zuma well as President (after all, we are all in this together, and only a fool or a very bitter person would wish the President of the country to fail), AND, at the same time, fight for respect of the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the institutions set up by that Constitution to safeguard our rights and promote a better life for all. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Those who say they are, do not have an adequately nuanced appreciation of the nature of democracy.
@Pierre
I just want to also bring things back into focus.
What i want us to engage in is you pointed out brilliantly a flaw in your parlimentry system which directly has repocusions on any president elect
“Mr Jacob Zuma will formally be elected President by the National Assembly on 6 May after being sworn in as an member of Parliament.”
I find this problomatic, which you kindly pointed out the escape from a probe into parlimentry fraud it is ironic zuma is mentioned as infact he is a prime example for this.
If we look at developed nations there elected presidents are already members of parliment or in the US a senator before even campaigning for presidency the reason for this is clear – a screening process of credibilty not just of the person but of the upper house.
Why is this not done yet in south africa?
Surly a better screening process must be installed otherwise you get rule of law always being in conflict and bent for someone and a crime not being answered for ie defrauding parliment?
Chris Mcdaniel, you have repeatedly ‘scream’ in many of your comments that this is a law blog, it does come across as a means of censorship! There are many matters, points of argument that are raised (in this issue as well) that are not in the strict sense a matter of law. On Sne’s erudite response, as you have been promoting, please let it be known, that nothing I commented disagrees that we cannot criticise the President of the ANC, or the President of the country. Therefore what I have been raising (and I think some others) is not that nobody should criticise the President-elect, but would it be prudent to raise this matter at the time of the nomination and election in Parliament, I repeat in Parliament. It is not a simple matter of ‘letting bygones be bygones’. For many, yes raise the matter all you want, but let us not get stuck on the matter. Since it is far more important for the ruling party and its leaders to recognise their mistakes than for political grandstanding to occur, the example of De Klerk. And for you and others not to recognise that in the course of furthering your argument you had the (we hope unintended) consequence of regarding the vote of the majority as one based on ignorance. Raising this matter is not shouting anybody down. Neither does it posit that by virtue of this being the majority then it is necessarily the correct choice. In the same breath, you cannot say just because you do not agree with the majority it means that their choice was based on ignorance. On the contrary the view I express is that the majority made their choice in full knowledge of the issues at hand, and it was a balanced one which took into account all the fine and nuanced needs of the country.
Prof de Vos, it would prove useful if you would comment on whether it is prudent to raise the matter in the way you did? Especially since there are many on this blog who take your word as the last word on a matter.
Donovan – this is not a law journal, a newspaper or a political poster, neither is this Parliament or a court – this is a ‘BLOG’ (Afrikaans perhaps more appropriate – ‘spoeg-blok’), where points of interest (constitutional, legal, political or otherwise) are ‘spat’ into the public domain and vigorous debate invited and teased out. I respect para (i) of your response (Donovan // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:27 pm), but do not necessarily agree that my views of democracy are tainted (especially where I have moved in areas where coercement / intimidation of uninformed voters were the order of the day) when I question the majority’s judgment before or after the poll. As to the other two points you mentioned, I disagree completely. Things like these (and vigorous public debate on such issues) are necessary and serve to inform people of the nature and possible (even probable) negative consequences of theior choices.
Yes, there should be vigorous public debate (which includes this blog), Anonyrat! As Mao would say, ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’. But, as advised by Prof de Vos, should this be raised in Parliament at the time of electing the President of the country. For some of us, we are debating this point. We deem it inappropriate and indeed, irrelevant. It seeks to do more harm than good. I would be the first to protect any rat who is told not to remind anybody that FW was the last President of an illegitimate minority racist dictatorship. And therefore I would be the first in line to protect you, Anonyrat, whenever you remind all of the charges the President-(elect) was facing and that he was not proved innocent, even if you did that for the next five years and beyond. However, I think our political and social leaders should take the burden of leadership much more seriously, like Mandela, Mbeki, and Zuma did in 1994, and did not raise the popular perception of de Klerk. Although they did raise it thereafter in political debates in Parliament and when representing their party, even in submission to the TRC. And in my opinion, Prof de Vos, given his media profile and his sought-after expert opinion, also bears this burden of leadership, and although this is a blog, where ideas are spat, he needs to embrace this responsibility. If he continues to be silent on the matter of prudence, we could presume that he does not recognise this burden. Please re-look atr Spuy’s comment at 09h21pm, it raises the matter sharply.
Donovan // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:18 pm
you still missing the point my friend, im lawyer i like to deal with law this is a place where we share legal thoughts its just a blog dont care about politics. Me praising sne was the pure fact his argument was guided by the constitution to raise his point and execute it perfectly to reason his argument.
the point that ur missing please stay focused is the flaw in parliamentry rules which is a legal issue……Zuma however is being bashed as he is a perfect example of why this Section 86 of the Constitution needs to be challenged.
I see this problomatic because if someone wants to run a presidential race needs to be an MP first – which ive talked about it here – Chris Mcdaniel // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm
if you find us using Zuma’s name offensive then we can call such a person who is going to be president elect Mr potato head ( no reference to zuma its just a name for example).
Mr Potato Head is not a member of parliment but it has been found or alleged that this person defrauded parliment but yet has been the person elected to be elected as president and then president.
Are you still with me….stay focused my argument is surly if the developed nations can have a screening process when it comes to this why doesnt south africa do this………in other words if you want to run to become president you must be a member of parliment first -hence the screening process so if Mr Potato Head defrauded parliment then the probe can be done first before we have elections on a presidential candidate. does that not strengthen democracy and a countries institutes?
Pierre De Vos: I understand your feelings against Zuma. You expect Zuma to answer the questions you always ask in your blog but you also don’t answer questions from your bloggers about their reservations about your theories. I will repeat my questions to your theories.
You say;
(1) Mr Zuma took millions of Rand from a convicted crook which he could not possibly pay back;
Was Shaik a convicted crook when the monies were paid?
How do you know that Zuma could not possibly pay back the money?
Is it a crime to take money from someone?
(2) He then did favours for that crook and for the arms company who paid him a bribe;
When was this bribe paid to Zuma?
What favours did Zuma do for the arms company?
What favours did Zuma do for Shaik?
(3) He lied to parliament about this;
What did he lie about?
(4) His legal team used illegally obtained evidence procured by the Intelligence Services to have the charges against him dropped, thus abusing state institutions and probably committing a crime;
Has any illegally wrong doing been established yet?
(5) He launched a deeply regrettable personal attack on the Constitutional Court after charges were dropped.
Are we now to believe that the constitutional court cannot be criticised?
Prof: Constitutions are words on pieces of paper. In most oppressive states it’s the Rule of law and the constitution that are used to oppress citizens. If as a leader you have your people as constitutional judges you can abuse the law and they will approve everything you say. I will say this now so that in future you don’t contradict this post. In the next 5 to 10years or even sooner you will write a post attacking the constitutional court.
There are always two sides of a coin I think your problem at the moment is you don’t want to turn the coin over to see what’s on the other side. Maybe you are scared.
Thomas // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm
is this a joke?
please do your homework this answer your 1 – 3 http://www.npa.gov.za/UploadedFiles/shaik%20sca%20judgment.pdf
“Has any illegally wrong doing been established yet”
um in case you still living under a rock chargers have been brought against hulley and the NIA.
“Constitutions are words on pieces of paper”
oh no no no they are not just words on a piece of paper it is a living breathing entity that people have died for and fought for and what you and me live through. it is not just words on a piece of paper it is south africa.
and you have the nerve to say oppress people. what dimension or god forsaking level do you exist on?
The fact remains that the majority of people who voted for the anc(ZUMA) are poor black people that dont follow debate or the news, and hence couldnt be bothered with Zuma being corrupt or an accused rapist ( even though he was dismissed). These poor uninformed/wrongly informed people put their faith in a better tommorow in black, not in better.
In response Chris, there is a screening process, the President of the ANC could not have been on the party’s candidates’ list if he did not meet the criteria. Only MPs can be elected as President of SA, by Parliament. There was no objection to his name on the candidates’ list, so we are to presume that he met the criteria. If he did not wouldn’t it have been appropriate that the oppositions parties at the very least object to his name on the candidates’ list. If they object now, would that not be political grandstanding? As well as trying to look for some supposed loophole that actually does not exist, in other words, legal intellectual masturbation, nothing more, nothing less, which I presume you are not engaging in so as to hide your own disagreement with the outcome of not just the election but your own political and ideological stains.
Rome, now we know why the Roman empire so spectacularly crumble never to be seen again!
Dovoan now your confusing state and party, im talking about the state my friend, the clearly is no screening process.
“Rome, now we know why the Roman empire so spectacularly crumble never to be seen again!”
oh really whats the one thing the romans gave humanity and we all will forever be thankful for and through that the romans still live?
the answer is …..drums please!!!! LAW
by the way just a breif history the roman empire didnt crumble it become the byzantien empire
by the way donovan
“Only MPs can be elected as President of SA, by Parliament.”
you didnt understand what i said……..MPs should rather run for presidents in a presidential campaign – screening process im talking about.
Zuma is not an MP is he? hence why pierre has pointed out to a flaw because (please just stay focused here) zuma was an MP and is alleged to defraud parliament but resigned forcefully……….im afraid a probe into these allegations wont happen as he will be elected MP again for 3 – 4 hrs then to president…?????
is that your screening process then?
Chris,
Thank you for your compliment which seems to have resulted in strong waves from some people.
Thomas,
I will not traverse each and every submission that you make against the submissions of Prof. However, that should not be construed as an admission of same.
It is amazing how your questions, which specifically intend to discredit the submissions of Prof., have a propensity, probably intended, to neglect the fact that most, if not all, of his submissions above are based on findings of various courts of the Republic of South Africa and have remained so found unless an appeal against same is successfully lodged by the parties concerned.
It is amazing how people disregard the findings of these courts against Zuma when the Nicholson judgment which made findings of fact against Mbeki was praised and acted upon by the ANC. To me this is a lucid and unequivocal exhibit of double standards.
Our courts, which Zuma and his cadres, note the absence of “his cronies”, have vehemently discredited in inappropriate platforms and even threatened when they made findings which were adverse to him, are the same courts that found him not guilty of rape and made adverse findings against Mbeki. He needs, with the inclusion of his cadres, to learn to accept that the decisions of the courts will never follow his course all the time and will apply the law without fear, favour or prejudice even if that means going against the wishes of 100% of the South Africans; this is the Constitutional mandate of the courts and would be dismally failing therein if they were to follow a different course.
In conclusion, you need to accept the submissions of Prof. which he bases on court judgments which remain unrepealled unless he adds his own unfair opinions thereon. So far you have embarrassingly failed to come up with a convincing argument against these court findings against Zuma.
Thomas // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm
‘Constitutions are words on pieces of paper’
So is birth certificates, scientific journals, the government gazette, legal contracts, money, etc… the illiterate might not agree with this one but words on paper are actually important.
Chris,
Romans, I believe, gave us what I call civilisation. I know that it started in ancient Egypt 4000 years BC but the Romans, through their vast empire, spread it to the rest of the world.
Mcdaniel, please re-read your comment at 4.50pm, it reveals in a stark way how your ideological slip is showing, nothwithstanding all your pontifications about only being interested in the law.
The point being made is that there is a screening process. You are introducing a new point, namely shouldn’t the electorate directly elect the President? But that this new point does not negate that there is a screening process, which is not just dependent on party objections, but the IEC also screens candidates, and as you will recall the ID had to remove a person because the individual was convicted of a crime.
My personal preference is a party system with a proportional representation system and not a Presidential candidate. Noam Chomsky has written a lot about how the Presidential system in the US has become less about substance and issues but more about style and popularity. I also think though that political parties in SA can learn from the American counterparts, in how they arrive at their candidate with primaries and a final convention. This is a much more fairer system, and since we have a party system it would make sense that our parties adopt a more fairer system of electing their leadership than the current one. Such that it should not only be 4,000 delegates at Polokwane who elect the leadership which will form the majority of the party list, but the entire membership of the party within a primary system.
Oh and by the way, the Roman Empire did not become the Byzantine Empire, it split into the Western Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, commonly referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, with Constantinople as its capital. The Western Roman Empire crumbled, the Byzantine Empire became Turkey.
Sne // Apr 29, 2009 at 5:00 pm
very true and on the civilisation because during the byzantien era (still known as roman empire) was during the dark ages…funny enough this was the age of enlightenment…….it was under this era Justinian codified the laws, art spread education even christianity spread throughout the the known world so to say the roman empire crumbled is really a crock of crap they didnt crumple they flurished until the invasion of the ottomans
donavon
eastern empire and western empire is still roman empire, they spoke latin thel ived by latin laws and praised roman gods and by latin culture which is roman. its like taking america the civil war you got your south the rebals and the north unions still americans its the same with the eastern roman empire and western roman empire. it still says Roman empire.
“The point being made is that there is a screening process. You are introducing a new point, namely shouldn’t the electorate directly elect the President?”
no im not introducing a new point I did not say the electorate must directly elect the president.
i said….this is what i said//////// what did i sa said…..MPs should run for presidency in a presidency campaign please stay focused.
since we got on the subjuct on romans….USA we got senators they run for presidency, you have to be a senator first then you campaign to talk on the white house.
This is just pathetic.
Why can’t you admit that you all lost(Media, Tutu, Mbeki and oppositions).
If you have nothing constructive to say, just keep your nonsense to yourself.
This is the time to start rebuilding the country , instead of wasting time on thing that do not matter to the poor people of this country.
If you have any proofs that his is guilt, take them to the police or shut up.
I’m tired of all those wanna be who think they know everything.
At any rate Mcadaniel, at the end of the day, I enjoyed the cyber discussion. But gotta beat the traffic now. Just a parting shot, the Byzantine empire was not Christian that was the Western Empire, it was much more Islamic in culture. The Dark Ages ocurred primarily because of the oppression of the Christian Church, it was also spread through this oppression. It did as you point out manage to salvage and save much of the writings, art, and science of the Roman Empire. But I will stick to my original point that the Western Roman Empire is the basis for Western civilisation not the Byzantine one. As well as that it would not be prudent for a parliamentarian to object. Besides not agreeing with a directly elected President.
But let me once again thank you for the discussion, it was robust but honest.
Donovan // Apr 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm
At any rate Mcadaniel, at the end of the day, I enjoyed the cyber discussion. But gotta beat the traffic now.
lol me to actually enoyed i think im also gonna join you in beating the traffic drive safe.
ps constantine moved the capital from rome to what he called constantinople, ( i thought i would put a checky one in there for you)
donovan have an awesome evening look forward to another debate
Well, actually, its called the holy Roman Church, and still an empire.
@John Well – well done son, awesome exposition there. Let me guess – you voted ANC?
I for one didn’t know that Mbeki or Desmond Tutu were contesting the elections for any party – I’m quite suprised to hear that they lost.
There is proof of Zuma’s guilt – if you listen to what the NPA said when it dropped the charges, it still believed it had enough evidence (untainted) to win the case against Zuma. Unfortunately that was unacceptable to the ANC, and so we had to go and plaigarise irrelevant judgements from far-flung foreign courts (including Britain – the irony of using a “Western” court when it suits…) to make up some reason for dropping the charges, which wasn’t really accepted anyway. The evidence is there – did you perhaps just block out anything that indicated this over the years? It seems to be something ANC supporters are good at doing.
If corruption continues in our government like it is at the moment, it will impact the poor, as it does at present. The fact that you cannot see this link is again a classic ANC trait. I’m sure the thousands of poor black schoolchildren in the E Cape who aren’t getting fed because the dude who won the feeding scheme tender buggered off with the money (he was a connection of the people in government awarding the tender) aren’t at all affected by corruption and greed. Just one example.
I don’t understand how people can be so blind – but as it has been said – there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The ANC was not elected into office by the “vast majority” of this country’s citizens. We are told that 22 million people registered to vote, but the ANC only got 11 650 748 votes. That’s just over half (I don’t have a calculator handy), which hardly constitutes a vast majority. If we consider that there are around 28 million people of voting age in South Africa (my estimate), that brings the figure down to only just over 40%. Nothing to write home about.
The arms deal cost us (as in the tax payers) thirty billion Rand. That’s thirty with 9 zeroes behind it.
What can we as a country do with thirty billion Rand?
We could’ve hosted roughly two FIFA world cups for the price of one arms deal.
Imagine the kind of infrastructure you could build for South Africa with thirty billion Rand. The entire pebble bed nuclear reactor program is estimated to cost roughly ten billion Rand (or one billion Dollar). That program is expected to create about 57 000 jobs and give us a revenue of eight billion Rand per year, not to mention we won’t be sitting in the dark anymore.
Base assumptions aside, we can estimate that for the price of the arms deal, we could’ve embarked on three such programs and created 171 000 jobs. Expect the revenue (that’s profit) of nearly one arms deal per year (24 billion, but what’s a couple of zeroes among friends?). Not to mention nearly 200 000 people who are no longer destitute and nearly 50 million South Africans who wouldn’t have to worry about running out of power.
Couple this with the international investors who might return to South Africa if we can show that our industries won’t run out of power and the impact of Jake ‘the Take’ Zuma and Shaik’s dodgy deal is simply too great to ignore.
What have we gained from the arms deal’s thirty billion? The poor can’t drive those corvettes. In fact, nobody can. The only people who have gained from the arms deal are Jacob Zuma and his Shaiky friends.
Regardless of who you voted for, if you look at the figures, they testify that Jacob Zuma has betrayed every single South African.
Chris Mcdaniel // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm: ~If we look at developed nations there elected presidents are already members of parliment or in the US a senator before even campaigning for presidency the reason for this is clear – a screening process of credibilty not just of the person but of the upper house.~
I had to check to make sure, but Ross Perot’s run for President of the USA was rather memorable and I was pretty sure he was never elected to the hill, or even to any lower office for that matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
And it seems the situation hasn’t changed. Here is a page on the unheralded independant candidates for the 2008 Presidential race, many of whom who have no pedigree on the hill either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_third_party_presidential_candidates
John Well – “If you have any proofs that his is guilt, take them to the police or shut up.”
Fact = ‘they’ have been taken to the police, and a decision was made on ‘them’ to reinstate (continue with) the prosecution before ‘it’ was so specacularly dropped to help the ANC win this one. I believe it is you thaht should shut up.
John Well // Apr 29, 2009 at 5:24 pm
No John, you lost. You lost 2/3 majority and the western cape.
‘…This is the time to start rebuilding the country …’
After 15 years in power, dont you think this should have been about the time that our reconstructed country started to reap the benefits of a mulity racial, democratic state?
‘…This is just pathetic…’
I can’t think of a better way to introduce your comment.
Dave A // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:27 pm
true im not going to argue but he was a independent.
in the US you actualy have 4 parties contesting elections democrats, republicans, liberals and independent.
No independent which Ross Perot’s was or liberal has ever won the us elections, why?
if you did your homework you would know this Two-Party System in the United States would never allow it. i.e the republicans and democrates
because we have been taught that fringe candidates are not good for the American way of life.
hence why every US president has been a senator first or been a democrate or republican.
Chris, I think you need to take a step back for a moment.
The following parties contested the 2008 presidential election:
Republican
Democrat
Libertarian (NOT Liberal – there’s a huge difference!)
Constitution Party
Green Party and
America’s Independent Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
While I agree that it is a two party dominant system, it is hardly exclusionary – Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota on a Reform Party ticket, and Theodore Roosevelt polled more votes as independent candidate (“Bull Moose” Party) than did the Republicans in 1912, effectively handing the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
The screening process, however, is not in the candidate’s tenure on the Hill, but rather the critical approach of the media and civil society during the primary and campaign season.
Libdem // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm
the names you have mentioned there are liberals or independent none of them have ever won an election now have they?
i dont understand your point…….Roosevelt was a senator of NY 1911 then rose up to be the president and was a democrate he has always been involved in government he wasnt exactly a private citiazen now was he? that is a bad example to be honest. so im lost are you agreeing with me or you dont understand what im trying to get at?
I think you guys are missing my argument i am simply challenging your parlimentry rules if we looked at developed nations the screening process that they have had is people were members of parliment or congress or whatever they were in government by the time they ran for elections and became presidents. Period!!! proper!!!!
I am asking what if we apply that here?? making sure that a criteria for a presidential candidate is the person needs to be in government a member of parliment or a mayor or whatever but holds a public office that way you have a screening process just in case this person is found to be corrupt unethical or defrauded parliment at least we know this person has messed up on a small scale before taking the hot seat and messing up on a big scale.
does this not strenghten state institutes and help democracy? that is my challenege and my question.
keep all your parties but they must first elect a president of the party ( which i know is done) then run for MP’s of parliment, government, mayor or whatever but they are in a public office and then from there run for presidency instead of having a private citizen all of a sudden the next day be the president of south africa. to me its about going through the schooling process.
Thats why i agree there is a flaw in your parliamentry rules there seems to have been an ethical breach and umafraid it wont be punished that to me is a weakness i am just trying to address the problem
I assure my purpose here is not to rub salt in the wounds, but one last detail:
I understand Theodore Roosevelt was the last independant to actually make it to US President. So it’s been a while, but it does happen every now and again.
Recent history shows that SA legislature is not particularly swayed by the way things are done in Western countries anyway (except where particularly convenient, like grounds for dropping charges), so perhaps this is a storm in a teacup.
And how is this different for Zuma? He was a member of the provincial legislature and a member of parliament. He served his time in government. How is it any different that he IS NOW a private citizen?
I hold no candle for the man (on the contrary – I’m a firm DA supporter), but he HAS gone through the process you describe. And it makes no difference to the masses. The man has been elected, and will next week become President of the country.
Dave A // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm
rub salt in the wounds let me guess mine? nice try tho
and since the nice attempts lol what about britian since you guys seem to be on a roll?
but you have failed to answer my argument the fact is things need to be challenged and a screening process in your parlimentry rules when electing your president?
my only correction Theodore Roosevelt was a republican sorry davy boy
Libdem // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm
ok you on the right track….but not there yet.
how is it different?
well what im sugesting is that person should of remained a member of parliment.
see we have to use zuma as an example..now check it out he was forced to resign was he not?
ok why?
see screening process
Libdem // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm
‘…And how is this different for Zuma? He was a member of the provincial legislature and a member of parliament. He served his time in government. How is it any different that he IS NOW a private citizen?…’
The onus of that paragraph lies on ‘was’. So whatever his reasons for stepping down or being sacked from these positions, he is currently a private citizen.
From Chris’s comment; if JZ was set on the Presidency, he should’ve persisted in his then MP position in order to chase his presidential dream. By stepping down (for whatever reason) you relinquish your pursuit for the presidency.
By stepping down JZ sidestepped legal pursuit, which in turn paved the way to the presidency.
Note to self: Must keep up with the conversation…
~what about britian since you guys seem to be on a roll?~
As Britain has a queen and not an executive President, Britain would seem to be a bad example.
Perhaps try France?
Dave A // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm
lol dont be to hard on urself…….
all im promoting is an idea. Pierre spotted a flaw and im agreeing with that flaw and im giving a suggestion on how to strenghten a process of electing presidents. the thing about law is yes it must be protected but also must be challenged.
Dave A // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:57 pm
ok lets have a look at france and lets look at sarkosy infact as this further cements my argument.
2005 Sarkosy was elected minster and was a member of the national assembly until 2007 when became president.
you see what im trying to get at?
#
Harold Ferwood // Aug 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
When negotiations were going on between the ANC and the previous regime it was clear that the country needed new acquisitions. The Arms companies were already courting the ANC leadership long before the end of apartheid, using other african leaders as marketing tools in stroking the ANC leadership’s ego that they could serve as the major peace-keeping force in Africa.
Our country just needed to upgrade the already established infrastructure that built six of the strikecraft as well as the once pride of the SA Navy, the SAS DRAKENSBERG.
Thousands of skilled artisans in the Defence Force were retrenched with “golden handshakes” during the early 90’s.
But just like Hansie couldn’t resist the lure, so too have once noble icons submitted to the beast.
“Doesn’t this mean that we did not even have to buy the arms, and that the powers that be just saw a way in which to blow taxpayers’ money and to make an extra buck themselves?”
No we did need them, but we could of built them ourselves, and end up building Arms for the rest of Africa.
So much for “African Renaissance”!
Sorry, Chris. I don’t buy it.
Regardless of Zuma’s reasons for stepping down (and we will probably never know what they were), the issue is that without vigilant civil society and a free (unpressured) media, the scrutiny you desire will be lacking.
A society that is free (as described above) will have the room to examine the candidate’s character and form an opinion unfettered by the Machiavellian machinations of a party that seeks to retain power at all costs.
The USA, France, Britain, in fact any “developed” nation, permit the freedom described above. South Africa does not. And it has NOTHING to do with whether Zuma had served in elected office before or not.
Some of the best leaders of the modern world never served in public office before they became leader of their country. In the US alone: Zachary Taylor, U.S. Grant, William Howard Taft [although he was governor-general of the Philippines], Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower.
Oh, and Roosevelt ran as an independent in 1912, taking more votes than the Republican party – check it out if you don’t believe me – and effectively giving the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.
And what about Mandela? He never held elected office before becoming President? Are you seriously arguing that he should never have become leader of SA?
Libdem
what dont you buy? credibility?
Before i jump into this Mandela was a peace offering or civil war would of broken out completly different game my man.
look heres a little list for you
No Party — Washington
Federalist — John Adams
Democratic-Republicans — Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams
Democratic — Jackson, VanBuren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Cleveland, Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Whig — W. H. Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Filmore
Republican — Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan. George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush
Union — Andrew Johnson
The point that your will not agree on or dodging which you actually know im right but for some reason being completely stubborn is if look at all modern day presidents of developed worlds have held public offices right up to the date they are elected president.
stop avoiding the reality of credibility. There is a weakness in your parlimantry rules but for some reason this is over your head and your not addressing it saying the screening process should be left up to civil society and free media?
NOOOOO thats not good enough ever heard of trial by media?
just a tip bit of one of your examples Herbert Hoover was a republican and held the office secretry of commerce, i can go through all of them you got them all wrong.
sorry its your argument i dont buy! have a good weekend
Chris, Secretary of Commerce is hardly elected. The cabinet in the US is SELECTED by the President – and NOT from among the members of Congress/the Senate – and subsequently approved by Congress.
Party affiliation has nothing to do with whether or not they had held elected office. And how do South Africa’s parliamentary rules stack up to the US? Or the UK? In neither of those examples does one HAVE to have held previous public office before being elected leader of the country. In South Africa, at least, one has to be a member of parliament to be elected as President.
A free press and a vigourous and vigilant civil society are the only true protection against a tyranny of the majority.
Again, I don’t support Zuma, or the ANC. I am an elected representative of the DA. But I do believe we must debate on a factual basis, rather than untested suppositions or untrue assumptions.
Your argument is also getting rather personal: “[F]or some reason this is over your head”. This is uncalled for.
~lol dont be to hard on urself…….~Chris Mcdaniel.
OK. So we can have a beer afterwards – cool.
Chris – it’s you who raised the USA system as an example of an existing screening system to back up your proposal, so nice try to switch the pressure around
Ultimately the idea should stand on its own merits anyway, so let’s stick to that. My reservation with your idea is that it might seem a good idea now, but at other times it might be a hinderence to getting the best candidate in office.
My experience is over-regulation promotes mediocrity ahead of the exceptional. At times mediocre migt be preferable, but surely not when we’re talking about the office of President.
Donovan
You should really stick to debating the law – although your idiosyncratic take on ancient history makes hilarious reading. To be fair, Chris, you also got it wrong a bit – the Enlightenment came about 1000 years later: in the 18th C, after the Renaissance and Reformation.
By the way, Chris, thanks for your refreshing and entertaining inputs. Yours is one of the few sane voices in these discussions. I’d just like to add my voice to that of Wessels or Michael Osborne (a few blogs back) and say that your cavalier approach to punctuation and spelling does make it difficult to follow your argument at times. But it’s always worth the effort!
Dave A // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:00 pm
lol we can do…
look its an idea….what would you then look at to help out on the weakness of the parliamentry rule that if someone was a member of parliament and defrauded it and then finds himself back to being elected MP for a few hours and escapes the charges.
Im just calling for a better screening process, what would suggest then?