President Thabo Mbeki struck me as a lonely and forlorn figure this week in Parliament as he delivered his budget vote speech. I attended the proceedings in Parliament on Wednesday with a group of American students and it was striking how desultory and isolated the President appeared. Even when Sandra Botha, leader of the opposition in Parliament, tore into the President for his lack of leadership the ANC benches remained eerily quiet, listening almost respectfully as Botha lambasted the President for his actions or inactions on Pikoli, Selebi, the electricity crisis, the xenophobic attacks and of course Zimbabwe.
It therefore fell on our President to defend himself against the vigorous attacks by opposition parties who mostly argued that the President has failed in providing decisive leadership on many of the important issues of the day. Sadly, I do not share the view of some readers of this Blog that the President’s response was inspiring or that it rose to the occassion.
Instead of being Presidential, he came across as churlish and sarcastic. Instead of bold and inspiring he displayed the kind of petty, thin-skinned defensiveness for which he he has become so famous – or should I say imfamous.
The heart of his speech centred around criticism regarding his handling of the situation in Zimbabwe. Said our President:
Neither Hon. De Lille and Botha spoke of their own responsibilities as such leaders, content to perform on the public stage as militant critics and vigilant watchdogs. As I sat and listened attentively to what they had to say, I asked myself the question – when will they accept their responsibility to lead not partisan factions, but the nation!
If I may betray a confidence, at the close of the Debate yesterday evening, I had a short discussion with the Deputy President of the ANC, the Hon Kgalema Motlanthe, and expressed this concern.
In response, he said – there will always be some people who call themselves leaders but are content to curse the darkness, while making absolutely no effort to light the candle!
Take the matter of the role of our country with regard to our important neighbour, the Republic of Zimbabwe.
It seems to me perfectly obvious that one of our principal tasks in this regard is to assist the people of Zimbabwe to find one another with regard to the resolution of the immense problems they face.
There are some farther afield from us who choose to describe us as a so-called Rogue Democracy, to the absolute delight of the Hon Rev K.R.J. Meshoe, because we refuse to serve as their subservient klipgooiers against especially President Robert Mugabe.
Given all this, the Government I am honoured to lead will continue to engage the Zimbabweans to convey to them our views and feelings about any matter we believe is fundamentally or otherwise at variance with processes that must respect the will of the people.
We will continue to insist that the people of Zimbabwe must have the possibility freely to choose their leaders and Government and refuse to participate in projects based on the notion that we have a right to bring about “regime change” in Zimbabwe.
We will also continue to argue that the people of Zimbabwe will have to unite to extricate their country from the economic crisis in which it is immersed, and that we will contribute everything we can to support the realisation of this objective.
Maybe I am wrong, but this passage seem to suggest that President Mbeki has a rather undemocratic view of democracy. Some might say President Mbeki’s view of democracy is based on African principles of ubuntu or perhaps a pragmatic understanding that in countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe the ordinary competitive style of democracy will not work.
But I worry that his vision of democracy is based on the idea that what is needed in both countries are not real democracy in which different parties put forward alternative visions about what kind of society we want and how we want to be governed. Instead, he seems to suggest that all people in our respective societies should unite behind one vision and should act as praise singers for the revolution. Even when that revolution had been high-jacked and perverted by a person like Mugabe or even if that vision had been soiled by petty squabbles and the need to protect dodgy or even corrupt friends like Jackie Selebi and Tony Yengeni and even when the leader of that vision had time and again lied to the nation.
In his vision I see very little place for and understanding that democracy thrives with robust debate and criticism – along with responsible leadership of opposition parties who should be willing to praise good deeds and work together with the government of the day.
Is it really realistic or morally defensible to argue that what is needed in Zimbabwe is for the long suffering and oppressed people of Zimbabwe to unite with the tyrannical regime of Robert Mugabe to solve the problems of that country? How does one unite with a group of murderous kleptokrats? Why should one – as a matter of morality – be required to unite and therefore by implication why should one be stopped from competing with or criticising those very people who have run the country into the ground?
I agree that a delicate balance should be struck in a heterogeneous society like South Africa between criticising that which is wrong and to help build a new society. I do not think opposition parties always get that balance right. But what I heard from the President is that criticism is illegitimate and that, in the name of unity, we should all become praise singers of the leadership of our country – no matter how they act or fail to act to protect our interest and to build a better life for all.
But acting as praise singers for the government of the day would often be irresponsible and opposition parties would fail in their constitutional duty if they did not point out mistakes of the government and did not vigorously criticise the President if the President fails the nations.
One of the worst things about being an African is the need for white people to give a nod of approval in whatever we do. Case in point, Pierre mentions the Americans that he attended the gallery with. This is the done to imply the disappointment that the president was not just to Pierre but the Americans as well. Unless TM played to the gallery that is Pierre and some, from a nation that has no problem in voting George Bush twice into power, the president was going to be acting naturally like an African despot. Whether mischievious or just racist, its not a correct way of starting a debate.
That speech was not at all sacarstic or narrow, it was about leadership. TM once jokingly, so it seemed, told Madiba that he would never be seen in Madibas shoes because they were ‘too ugly’. Thing is, TM was saying ‘I will play the man I am’. To me he was saying, ‘I am not a messiah who will seem to fix all and be given all the credit’. This is important because it explains why TM allows his Cabinet ministers to drive issues and that makes people to look for the closest thing to a messiah. If he did not do this, he would be exactly the dictator that people unjustly say he is. Leadership is not one man, leadership is all who do something to right a wrong.
Pierre you are lying to us. There is nowhere that TM says people should stop criticising and praise-sing. What was said is if you curse the darkness, what stops you from lighting the candle? Why the continued michief or is racism? As YOU curse the darkness, do you ever light a candle?
He even tells us that the people who act will always do something incorrectly. The ones who do not err are are the ones who do nothing. The most common thing about football is that even the guy who cant run further than 10 metres, is very clear on what the striker should have done to avoid missing a goal.
The point that was being illustrated is that all of us are leaders. But you cannot lead by just cursing the darkeness while not giving people light. So when you deplore the so called ‘leadership vaccum’, you in whatever small way, should give light.
But vintage Westernized point of view, you choose to focus on Zimbabwe. Please respect your bloggers and give us a thought through analysis.
It’s not clear from this what Thabo is saying.
Is he suggesting the South African opposition parties should start mediating between the MDC and ZANU PF? Or should they mobilise suport and provide food aid? Perhaps they should man the border posts?
Khosi, maybe you would know. What kind of leadership does he expect do you think?
The second part is clear. He is saying the quiet diplomacy is the only game in town.
Wessel,
Please read the speech. Pierre’s blog is narrow and misleading. That speech was not about Zimbabwe. I do not blame you, it is Pierre who is dealing in mischief.
Khosi, you obviously do not know me very well. I could not care less what American students think – they do not have to live in South Africa and they have a lot to account for themselves, having – as you pointed out – voted for George W Bush. I do care about South Africa and I do care about the kind of leadership provided in South Africa. Any leadership really. President Mbeki speech seems more intent – according to my reading at least – in political point scoring than in showing the way. He has always been rather good in demonising others – a South African past time of note.
Prof – thanks for a balanced and insightful post. I agree with you in every respect. Khosi, if the speech was not about Zimbabwe (or about opposition parties’ criticism of TM and his government’s failure to react against Robert Mugabe by at least publicly condemning the humanitarian crisis he and his military/police/youth militia/war veterans have created), why make such extensive reference thereto in a budget vote? By his very reference to the government’s refusal to act as their [the opposition parties "farther afield from us"] “subservient klipgooiers”, he has come over as very sarcastic and synical. In the process he actually (or rather impliedly – lest you quickly react again with a question where he said it) says that the situation in Zim is not that serious so that the government should do any ‘klipgooiing’ against Robert Mugabe; that every perception of Robert Mugabe being a tyrant, committing crimes agaist humanity, is far fetched and unfounded; and, that the SA government will never do anything against its erstwhile compatriots in the liberation struggle, no matter how corrupt and wrong their view of democracy they have struggled for has become. The only reaction that the people of Zim, SADC, Africa and the rest of the international community would get from him, the President, is his ‘quiet [lack of] diplomacy’, the silence of which has become absolutely deafening. Moreover, by his cynical an sarcastic use of the word ‘klipgooiers’ in this context, he has actually (or impliedly) said that the uprising in Soweto in 1976 (and the sporadic uprisings against apartheid thereafter) was only ‘subservient klipgooiing’, in the process reducing the struggle to a lowly kind of political action that can be mocked. What a shameful show by someone who was once regarded as a dynamic statesman one could respect!
Khosi’s warning that we cannot allow George-Bush supporting American students to exercise a veto from the public galleries in Parliament makes me hope that these young meddlers were present in the House when ANC MP Mtikeni Sibande said that “our security institutions” must watch out for NGOs that have been helping victims of xenophobia that are “operated by unknown whites,” because “we don’t need people who are instruments of imperialism.”
Mr Sibande’s words would have taught our presumptuous Yankee visitors that South Africans will indeed not relax their vigilance in the face of imperialists, most especially American ones.
Rat,
The term ‘klipgooi’ was used as a metaphor. Are you really so basic in your analysis that you cannot see this?
Pierre,
Please tell me what the relevance of the Americans was, then.
At this stage of his presidency, knowing that TM never plays to the gallery, what value is political point scoring to him? Is telling all of us to light candles in all our lives not showing the way?
Please reflect before you respond.
I suppose the Americans that attended the gallery are the least affected by the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe( TM might see it different). So is the fact that evidence clearly indicate that TM and his orchestra wanted to protect Selebi. Moreover, that Pikoli was suspended without good reason by the president nogal, i think i should stop here. This on closer inspection is in short TM’s recent portofolio of evidence. My piont is that i cannot help to agree with Pierre on this one. Ntate Kgalema is talking about cursing the darkness and not making a positive contribution. In my book he is nothing better than Hlope, in that he is one of the five people that benefitted from the most lucrative BBBEE deals. I do not see why his views should be considered as holy. This is the reality about TM and not about playing to the gallery or Americans.
k
Khosi, this is a Blog and I try to write in an entertaining and interesting style, sometimes adding some colourful details that signals that this is about my opinion and that I am not pretending to be an “objective” observer (I do not think there is such a thing as an objective observer). Hence the reference to the American students. Besides, you might have accused me of never having attended the speech if I did not add the detail.
You and President Mbeki remind me very much of an ex lover of mine, transferring your own fears and obsessions and paranoias onto me. When my ex-lover was busy deceiving me he accused me of deceiving him; when he was acting in a selfish and stubborn way he accused me of being selfish and stubborn; when he was inattentive he accused me of being inattentive. Now both President Mbeki in his speech and you seem to suggest that those of us who criticise him are paying too much attention about what the Western powers might think while, it seems to me, it is you guys who worry too much about this. So just because America and the UK point out that Mugabe is a thug President Mbeki cannot do the same. This makes him the prisoner of Western though instead of a free agent doing what is right or at least doing what is in the interest of South Africa. It would be so much better if us Africans stop obsessing so about the colonisers, if we stop giving them the power to really dictate – in a negative way – what we should do, and if we took responsibility for our own actions (or failure to act) and the consequences of those acts or omissions.
And as I read it, his speech was not inspiring us to take real leadership and to really do the right thing, but was a rather sad attempt at saying we should not criticise him. But criticism can also be a kind of leadership. If our leaders fail to take a stand, lighting a candle can mean speaking out against their criminal neglect. But somehow I do not think this is what the President meant. He meant we should shut up and agree with him.
Well, there it is. You said it. You criticism of anyone bears no objectivity. I have always suspected that to be the case. Maybe you should apply to replace David Bullard at the Sunday Times.
No amount of reasoning can persuade you to apply objectivity. And if you cannot be objective, whats the point of debating. Carry on cursing the darkness. Good Bye and Good Luck.
Pierre, have you read City Press or Rapport? Has the Constitutional Court got a battle on its hands or what….
Pierre
When you said you attended with American students, does that mean you accompanied them?
The speech has three distinct themes.
1. The question of transformation, away from racism, colonialism and the legacy of apartheid.
2. Criticism leveled at him by opposition parties. Some of it relating to Zimbabwe.
3. The question of what true leadership we need in the country.
2 set the stage for 3, because leadership was part of that criticism. But 2 is a distinct theme, because he spent enough time in the details of persons who criticised him.
I do like a lot of what he said in regards to 2 and aspects of 3.
I have to say that ALL of those who called for Mbeki to step down, upset me. It was a frenzy and reminiscent of group think. There is nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion regarding how to handle crisis situations. But I would hope that, that is not criminal. We would have a truly unstable country if those calls were to be heeded.
If our president had the same court case as Zuma looming over him, I might have called for him to step down.
I like the idea of leadership as opposed to leaders, but it also need to acknowledge that not all in leadership positions have the same amount of resources, authority or responsibility.
My criticism comes in with the fact that he makes it seem that it is ok to criticise the old regime, or highlight the faults in the French, but when it comes to our government, criticism isn’t treated with the same respect.
He is willing to mention force-feeding for someone’s own good as a possible option for handling opposition parties, but derides any similar thoughts towards Zim. Yes there is a vast difference between oppositions parties and sovereign states, but the can he apply the principle in other scenarios as well? Would it be ok for the opposition to state the same feeling? I found it rather condescending.
My other criticism is that he SEEMS to imply that those who are cursing the darkness do not light candles. I find the metaphor interesting as a starting point, but it can’t be applied fully. Lighting a candle chases away darkness, but the picture has no inherent support for shades of meaning it is absolute.
Where the metaphor fails is that many of the people who cursed the darkness are indeed lighting candles. To imply that they are doing nothing to help change this country is very condescending. The problem is in the absoluteness of the picture there is no room for acknowledging that the president of the country has IMMENSE power in comparison to the leader of the ID or ACDP.
It seems to me that it is OK to curse the darkness if that darkness is America or the infamous west (and believe me I love criticising the US). But not ok when it is Africans. (But we will accept their aid, even SA gets millions of dollars)
This is very sad to me. It seems that we in Africa are so much focused on the west that we don’t see the immense power we have to change things ourselves.
Correction:
“I do like a lot of what he said in regards to 2 and aspects of 3.”
SHOULD READ
“I do like a lot of what he said in regards to 1 and aspects of 3.”
I also agree with some of his criticisms in 2.
I was shocked – shocked, I tell you! – when I read Michael’s comment about ANC MP Mtikeni Sibande’s remark regarding “unknown whites”. Does one construe this as an indication that xenophobia is secretly a government-sponsored thing?
Khosi: I trust that your “good-bye” doesn’t mean what I think it means.
I don’t know if I can speak for the other commenters, but I certainly do enjoy, and value, your contributions.
Khosi, even I (in my little ‘mouse-brain’ – perhaps I should have chosen a pseudonymn that would imply I was a bird) understood ‘klipgooiers’ as a metaphor; but that it was a cynical and very sarcastic one (in bad taste and implying that everyone that criticises him is overreacting), cannot be denied.
Khosi
I concur with Clara regarding good bye.
Everyone
Here is an article regarding the comments Michael referred to:
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4449925
I think this MP should ask himself why he fights imperialism, yet our countries two largest aid donors are the EU and thereafter the US. Maybe I have a naive view, but we are willing to accept millions of dollars in aid, yet he worries about NGO’s? And NGO’s which had to fill the void created by slack response from government.
But when he says “unknown whites”, I am truly confused. Who is unknown? Surely they have ID’s, these whites?
But this is a whole other debate.
Z, you raise a good point. It does seem odd to accept hundreds of millions in EU (and, especially), U.S. aid, while at the same time lambasting these hyper-imperialists at every turn. Our Health Minister led by example when she courageously refused to accept so-called “donations” of western poisons!
Perhaps one should understand Mtikeni Sibande’s lack of understanding of the way NGO’s work in the light thereof that he is nothing but an ANC backbencher. NGO’s, especially those who provide food and shelter aid to those in need, whether staffed by whites or blacks are there for the common international good; and, to provide aid where governments cannot (or will not) provide the aid needed by the humans in their respective countries. Again there is a parralel to be drawn to the situation in Zim, where NGO’s have been forbidden to distribute food-aid among the hungry, the Zanu PF took control and is now providing food-aid only to those who can prove that they are Zanu PF members or supporters. Michael and Z, I totally agree with your take – that it is curious that the ANC government is not loathe to accept millions of EU and US$ in aid, and then (might I add) usually make a balls-up in spending or distributing it where needed or intended, but then go and lambast NGO’s when they do voluntary distribution of aid in the common good. Does the ‘gravy train’ paradigm have something to do with this? Or, is it simply that all past acts of imperialism/colonialism must be remembered until doomsday, and that everything done by ‘unknown whites’ (African, Western or both?) must be frowned upon and rejected because they will ‘always’ (in the eyes of those who struggled for their liberation) pose a threat of renewed imperialism/colonialism?
Z & Clara, I have a question for you both: When a contributor to a blog calls the host a liar (and implies that he is a also a racist), then storms out and slams the door behind him, would one normally run along after, begging him to return?
Michael
Maybe I am selfish, but one of the things that attracted me to this blog was the diversity of people like Khosi, Mouse, Siya, Pierre of course, Mqo, Wessel, Mpho, Clara and you. Most of us have disagreements, but many of these view points have made me think a lot. Khosi has made me think a lot about my own viewpoint and I have learned a lot by engaging with him.
I am not begging him to return, but I want him to return.
I think we sorely need debates around the same table in this country. Sometimes someone gets mad and that’s ok too, none of us are emotionally perfect and each has a different way of channeling and dealing with emotions. You might handle one scenario better than another, but we need room for each person. That does not mean I will allow myself to be manipulated if I sense it, but I will try not to hold such things against someone.
Thanks Z, you’ve said it for me. And Pierre, thank you too, for hosting all of us and our – er – diverse views.
Come back Khosi!
Yes Khosi, come back. I enjoyed lecturing you about Biko and Hertzog.
OK, OK, I’m outvoted. Having seen so many internet discussions break down thanks to personal attacks, attributions of bad faith, etc, has made me perhaps overly intolerant of them.
Michael, thanks for the gallant defense! But I have long since decided that if I am going to do this Blog properly I am not going to get upset about personal attacks, accusations of racism or people calling me a liar. All I can do is try to write as honestly and entertaining as I know how about the political and legal issues that interest me. In any case, more often than not ad hominem attacks say more about the insecurities and lack of reasoned and coherent arguments of the attacker than the person that is being attacked.
All,
I have been away from modern civilization since Saturday afternoon. I was at my holiday farmhouse in the wild coast, Eastern Cape. I had a lovely relaxing time with the humble but witty locals, including the bull, the sheep and the ever cocky cockerel. It was life the way the maker intended.
Alas, I come back to the so called modern civilization and I check what the chartering classes are brooding about and I discover that the business at hand is my seemingly sudden departure from my favorite blog. Departure? Where did this theory about the executed exodus find root? I mean in just two days, I have been asked to stay(some implied good riddance), compared to long-lost but not forgotten lovers, labeled as unable to handle my emotional imperfections, being told that I need more lecturing on Biko, etc. Oh, and for the coup de grâce;
“ad hominem attacks say more about the insecurities and lack of reasoned and coherent arguments of the attacker than the person that is being attacked”
Hawu, bantu baka Baba, what did I say? Turns out its all my fault. In my rush to get to the Eastern Cape on Saturday evening, I signed off with ‘Good Bye, Good Luck’ instead of the intended ‘Good night, Good Luck’. I want to assure fellow contributors that, so as long as I am not being censored, I will enthusiastically contribute and I will take the blows as competently as I give them. Yes, we hold different views, but I do not think we can have stout debates when we reserve the right ‘not to be objective’. We debate so that views of the person on the far opposite of our view, can delicately balance and polish our very own view and visa-versa. I am not too sure if that can be achieved by first discarding objectivity.
To illustrate this, I will quote the host of this blog when he says:-
“But I have long since decided that if I am going to do this Blog properly I am not going to get upset about personal attacks, accusations of racism or people calling me a liar”
TM can paraphrase:-
“But I have long since decided that if I am going to do this country properly I am not going to get upset about personal attacks, accusations of racism or people calling me a liar”
Michael. In a public conversation, I do not see how one can issue personal attacks about another without exposing him/herself to more of the same. The truth is, Pierre is not very diplomatic when it comes to personal attacks. TM, GodZille, Hlophe, JZ etc have all been subject of Pierre machete. If I housed an impetus of defaming faith against Pierre, I would not bother being part of his blog.
I apologise for the faux pas, but I am rather accepting that it happened because it helped us visit the question of objective contribution. The sum of this response is that I continue to be an inhabitant of this blog.
Well hope that’s sorted, and we are all one semi-happy (dysfunctional) family again.
Khosi, there is a big difference between me posting a message saying that (i) George Bush is a liar; and (ii) Pierre is a liar. An attack on a public figure is part and parcel of robust debate. An attack on a fellow blogger violates the netiquette that makes reasoned debate possible. I am sure you have witnessed the degeneration of blog discussion into absurd flaming contests. That starts with the first personal insult. Finally, I was certainly not suggesting that you should be “censored.” I just thought that it seemed a little odd that someone who had been hurling insults should be implored to contribute more postings.
Michael,
You know, in my house I have a lot of garden tools. When I need to dig a hole I do not think of a garden tool, I think of a spade. And I call it a spade.
Please quote for me, what I said that makes you think that I have hurled personal insults at anyone, especially Pierre. When you do quote me, please tell me why that particular statement is not a statement of truth( a.k.a. a spade) but a personal offence.
Sway me and I will, unreservedly, be contrite.
To help you I said this on Friday: – ‘Please respect your bloggers and give us a thought through analysis’.
The main reason I stay on this blog, is because the host has shown dexterity in scrutiny of subjects. Half the times I disagree, at times bicker, with him but I always get the sense of a properly constructed line of contention. On this post, I was properly disappointed with the petty analysis of the speech. Z with his ‘three distinct themes’, saw it the way I expected Pierre to look at the speech. Pierre would have then competently, in true form, argued his censure within those themes. Instead we were curbed to the Americans and Zimbabwe.
Secondly, it is lack of objectivity that breed the ‘degeneration of blog discussions’. Personal insults, if any, are a result of that lack of objectivity and are just a part of that degeneration.
I’ll have to agree with Khosi on this one. I’m not a fan of Mbeki, but I equally do not subscribe to some of the misguided mob activism against his person. The president was responding to the opposition, rightfully telling them to stop moaning and take responsibility. Unless they want to tell us that the only time they will take responsibility is when they are elected into high office. That is irresponsible!
Just to add, I don’t think he is in any way saying that they (the opposition or anyone for that matter) should not criticize.
On the Zim situation, he is again saying that the Zimbabweans must unite and take their fate into their own hands. I do not see anything wrong with this particular sentiment.
Michael, why do you say Pierre is a fellow blogger and not a public fugure? He sets the tone for the debate. He pens the article. I see that you are able to sidestep that, I think of the recent wander into Obama following a non-Obama article, but most of the rest of us will follow the general rule that Pierre puts it out there and we all discuss around that. That’s cool: it also means that Pierre is OUR public figure.
Khosi, please never scare us like that again! LOL!
Khosi, you challenged me to “quote . . . what I said that makes you think that I have hurled personal insults at anyone, especially Pierre.”
Very well:
You wrote: “Pierre you are lying to us. … Why the continued mischief or is racism?” (June 13.)
You also wrote: “Maybe [Pierre] should apply to replace David Bullard at the Sunday Times.” (June 14.)
But actually, my real complaint was not with you, but with our fellow bloggers. I considered that to implore you to return in the circumstances was insulting, even patronising of you, inasmuch as it held you to a lower standard than one might hold others to. But I may well be wrong on that score, so I will not press the point.
What was this about?
Michael Osborne // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:59 am
Khosi, you go there (either your holiday home or your holiday farmhouse in the Eastern Cape – do you have more than one? – you were not so clear about the location in the past when you escaped there) so often, you need to install internet access there. Because, you see, other bloggers miss you each time you are gone. What Michael’s post was all about, well, to take a wild guess, I think it was about your challenge: “Please quote for me, what I said that makes you think that I have hurled personal insults at anyone, especially Pierre. When you do quote me, please tell me why that particular statement is not a statement of truth( a.k.a. a spade) but a personal offence.” And, obviously, he does not share your view on when it is appropriate (both called for and true) to call a spade a spade.
Well, I do have more than one secondary residences. I am kind of priviledged in that way. On both occassions, however, I was referring to the one in the EC, its a lovely drive away. And its the most humbling as it reminds me of my most innocent years. No prizes for guessing whose policies I credit for these priviledges! but go on and try your luck.
Has someone finally talked sense into Thabo Mbeki’s head and is he going to tell Mugabe to his face that what is happening in Zim is wrong – or is this going to be another tax-wasting joyride, a hand-holding reasuring visit by Thabo Mbeki informing Mugabe that the RSA is totally behind him, no matter what he does
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2342501,00.html
Is Thabo going to dicuss this with Robert Mugabe?
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2342565,00.html
Let me send him a SMS, maybe he is still within reception.
I thought you were on the plane with him!
Khosi, have you read the Mail & Guardian’s article on Zim today?
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=342179&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/
Is the climate we observe from this article still conducive to a free and fair election in Zim, where the people of Zim are in a position to decide for themselves whether they want a regime change and which does not require any ‘klipgooiing’ from neighbouring countries, SADC, AU, UN GA and UN SC?
I declined the invitation this time.
However, I can now reveal that a historical result will come from that meeting.
Golly good show old chap! Now we will have to wait and see I suppose?
It’s interesting that our current expropriation bill is similar to what Zim did in 1992. To amend the willing buyer/seller thing to “fair compensation”. (they still had legal recourse on the price though)
Note the number of years. 12 years since independence in 1980, 13 years after Lancaster house agreement. Ours comes 12 years after constitution and 14 years after free elections.
Not that it really means anything in itself, but it is still interesting.
Interesting? Curiouser and curiouser, I’d say. Thanks Z, perhaps TM’s flight to Zimbabwe is not meaningless after all.
Who’se doin’ all the talking?
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2342567,00.html
Mouse
“Who’se doin’ all the talking?”
I say it’s Malema, as they are now seeking legal advice on how to keep Zuma out of court. Poor Zuma can’t fight the courts, ANCYL to the rescue! Pampera pamperaaaaaahhhhh!
Oh wait I see a red dot on my