It is clear that President Jacob Zuma made a mistake when he announced his “nomination” of Justice Sandile Ngcobo as new Chief Justice before asking opposition parties for their opinion on the matter. He made things worse during the news conference following the announcement when he said – in response to a question – that he had “appointed” Ngcobo.
Section 174(3) clearly states that:
The President as head of the national executive, after consulting the Judicial Service Commission and the leader of parties represented in the National Assembly, appoints the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice and, after consulting the Judicial Service Commission, appoints the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
If this had happened when that other guy (what is his name again?) had still been President, the mistake would probably have been denied and a vigorous ad hominem attack would have been launched (either personally in his weekly internet letter or through henchmen like Essop’s Fables) against the opposition for complaining about the matter.
President Zuma did the right thing, admitting that he had made a mistake and writing a letter to the leaders of opposition parties and explaining that he used the word “appoint” in response to a question from the media. This, he wrote:
was inadvertent and does not change the fact that I had decided merely to nominate Justice Ngcobo to this position. It is common cause that you first nominate, and then open the consultative process. Our reading of the Constitutional provisions regarding the appointment process does not preclude the President from proposing a name. In fact, the practice as followed in the past has generally been for the President to ask the parties to state their views on a particular name.
Please rest assured that I have not appointed a new Chief Justice, nor have I taken a final decision on whom to appoint as the new Chief Justice, but reiterate my confidence in Justice Ngcobo as my preferred candidate. In making my final decision, I will of course take into account any views the leaders of political parties may express about him.
The President does not have to follow the advice of the opposition parties after consulting them on the Chief Justice, but he must (as his letter makes clear) keep an open mind and listen to the opposition parties before going right ahead and appointing anyone he pleases. The provision that he must appoint a Chief Justice “after consultation with” opposition parties is thus a fomalistic one and it would be surprising indeed if any president (from whatever party) ever changed his or her mind after consulting the opposition about such an appointment.
I am therefore surprised that the opposition parties have refused to accept President Zuma’s apology and admission that he made a mistake. It is not as if it will change the outcome of the process, and by harping on about this even after an apology and admission that a mistake was made, seem churlish and petty in the extreme.
There are far more important constitutional issues they should be concerned about and which they could rightly complain about: the probable unlawful dropping of charges against Zuma, the probable unlawful release of Schabir Shaik and the Constitutional 17th and 18th Amendment Bills which will erode the testing right of the courts are all important constitutional issues opposition parties could rightly get upset about.
Now they natter on like little children who received a slightly smaller piece of the birthday cake. They run the risk of being perceived as the boy who cried wolf once too often so that when they complain about something really important people will just say: well, there they go again complaining about everything.
They claim Zuma’s apology and admission is just an artificial move with no substance and that he should withdraw Ngcobo’s nomination. But style and substance often overlap and I, for one, would like to applaud our President for facing up to his mistake and taking steps to rectify it. The fact that opposition parties seem to find it impossible to display the same kind of magnanimity and humility as the President, says much about what is wrong with opposition politics in our country.
If one cannot distinguish between the important issues worth fighting about and the trivialities, one loses one’s credibility. This has clearly happened in this case and in the end Zuma, despite the mistake, emerges as the winner of this spat.
I agree, but Zuma was wrong to go public with his “nomination” before consulting. As I understand it there is no “nomination” process prescribed – he must just consult and then appoint. Asking him to withdraw his “nomination” is meaningless.
And if you keep mentioning the unlawful dodging of his fraud charges you risk unleashing the attack dogs who now sprout openly that he has was actually aquitted with costs, and the whole thing was just a malicious racist media rumour to begin with!
Prof De Vos, the other guy (whats his name again?) would not have made such a stupid mistake…He is very smart for mistakes such as this one.
Cuzin, sadly you are mistaken. Mbeki often deliberately or through ignorance of himself and his advisors breached the constitution (see Masetla case, Medicines case, Ginwala inquiry and others).
Indeed, the opposition parties are making an issue out of nothing to hide their preferences over what is purely a legal technicality. A stark contrast of this is that these parties would have said nothing had President Jacob Zuma nominate the deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke.
The assertion by the ACDP that “We believe what could have led to Moseneke not being appointed was his criticism of the African National Congress (ANC),” is neither here nor there – let alone being taken as a gospel. Parties must begin to play a meaningful role in the general interests of society, or go fly a kite. To blame the president for his decision to nominate Justice Sandile Ngcobo as the new Chief Justice is like blaming the diagnosis and the prescription for the illness.
Actually, the whole brouhaha created a fertile ground for those with ulterior motives to jump on the bandwagon. There may have been a precedent to invite parties to express an interest on a particular name, however that did not extend into a constitutional requirement. President Zuma correctly pointed out that “it is common cause that you first nominate, and then open the consultative process.” It does follow that the whole process was done in reverse in the past. Either way, it achieves the same thing.
The truth is, parties are not willing to come to terms with the new order. Actually, they all share one thing in common – using Moseneke for political expediency in order to spread the personality cult for the intensification of the class interests. We reject with contempt the move to challenge the president to withdraw Ngcobo’s nomination.
Never again shall we open up flood gates for patronage and allow state institutions to be populated with a particular set of class interests to re-ignite the 1996 class project. – Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni
Prof,
I opined somewhere else that it seems to me that the opposition parties are not exactly aware of the saying that you should choose your battles careful.
I would have been suprised if they had kept quite when the President clearly erred. However, having voiced their concerns in this regard, I felt that was sufficient and the electorate would have seen that the opposition parties will not keep quite when the Constitution was being flaunted. Point made.
To go on and on about the issue really does seem “churlish and petty in the extreme”.
Finally, can everyone please let the former President enjoy his retirement. If it’s not Prof always blaming the guy it’s Tokyo Sexwale….damn people, he was our Pres for almost 10 years, made his blunders, but also did a great deal for SA – can we now please move on.
Mzo, well some South Africans (about 300 000) have moved on. They moved on to the hereafter and are now dead and burried because of his questioning of the link between HIV and Aids.
Prof,
Well said. I have always maintained that the opposition in South Africa thinks people like them to be aggressive and confrontational in typical Westminster style, but in the end they end up looking like the idiot.
I think President Zuma showed more than once a degree of humanity and humility as opposed to Botox injected Ms Zille just making noise and complaining about EVERYTHING. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
During the elections I asked who one votes for?
The ANC is quite inept at governing, not to mention arrogant. But can the DA really be an alternative? I have my doubts.
@Pierre,
Had it been the former president making that appointment, such a screw up would not have happened. That ‘other guy’ understood his role and the constitution and that is why he never jumped into conclusion on anything. He was never President OOOPS!!
So suck up (no pun intended) your silly remark and focus on what is at hand. Stop bitching about on unproven theories when Mzo, put you yo order.
Pierre De Vos // Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33 am
You obviously think the the current president breached the constitution. I say he did NO such thing.
He simple did not apply the constitution on this matter. I think that was an honest, but gravely indicative, mistake.
Msholozi admitted he made a mistake. He’s big enough to admit it. Thereby he as a person rose in my estimation.
From my culture { boere } its plain simple “ongeskik” to keep harping on something when a person admitted a mistake. It’s just not done.
Pierre De Vos // Aug 24, 2009 at 11:04 am
Prof,
All I’m saying is that let’s rather debate the current issues and not always drag other people’s names into debates they have nothing to do with.
I’m very much tempted to actually take you up on your assertions about the 300 000 people but I think there will be another day for that.
Today let’s limit our discussion to the stupid actions of the opposition who now seem to impose Moseneke DCJ, not because they think Ngcobo is not suitable (at least they are not saying so openly) but because of Moseneke DCJ’s utterances at some birthday party.
I am now convinced that the idea of 1 big opposition party might not be such a good idea. At least now the SA public still has an opportunity to choose the better evil in case they do not want to vote for the ruling party. Can you imagine if you didn’t want to vote for the ruling party and the only other party to vote for was these clowns!!
Mzo, I tend to agree that the opposition parties have displayed quite a bit of pettiness here. Zuma apologised for an error which was (a) probably unintentional and (b) actually quite understandable. I mean, who hasn’t regretted his (or more rarely her) choice of words before? Not that many people I expect.
To george and the Professor: even though I will cleave to my misgivings about Zuma, I will concede that he dealt with the grievance of the opposition parties admirably well.
And while I think his public ‘nomination’ amounted to fairly poor judgment, it appears that there is nothing in the Constitution that precluded him from doing so.
On a slightly different note, I will add my voice to George’s in expressing concern about the way in which the DA appears to run its show. I actually like Helen Zille. But sometimes it seems to me that the DA might do well to opt for more nuanced and proactive approaches.
For sure, the DA ought to draw attention to ANC abuses of power or any species of unlawful activity which stems from or benefits the ANC. But sometimes it seems that the DA brands itself too much as the watchdog out to scrutinize the ANC. And whereas that is undoubtedly a very important function, it seems to me that the DA defines itself in relation to the ANC to too great an extent. I just wonder whether it ought to add another dimension.
In the face of all of this, no parties would have had any grievances about the manner of “nomination” or “appoint” had President Jacob Zuma choose Moseneke instead of Ngcobo. If you look deep into the whole thing, you will find that is not about the process but the person being preferred.
So, what exactly these parties are complaining about? Truly, they shot themselves in the foot. I mean, you can follow the past approach but in the end you achieve the same thing. The president as the leader of the ruling party has a final say on who becomes the Chief Justice.
Parties are simply at cross purpose with the constitution, period!
@ Leigh,
I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the DA. In fact, I was stating an identical objection last week in this regard.
Their continued attacks on President Zuma and the ANC are beginning to make them appear obsessive and churlish and I doubt that this is the image the DA wish to portray.
As you state, the watchdog function is critical in their role as official opposition and provides the necessary checks against abuse of power. However, the DA need to become more proactive in their actions and less reactive.
I certainly admired President Zuma for his apology and, from a PR perspective, he certainly gained the respect of many people in this country.
He “admitted” a lesser (and far more harmless) “mistake” to cover up the larger issue. There is no “nomination” and his final intention was made clear at the start.
When you consult, you ask for others’ opinions and suggestions – not only ask them for comment about your man.
Denials are fine, but there is no attempted explanation about why the most senior and qualified man for the job was not chosen.
However, whether it is worth pursuing this to the end is another question. That is not legal or logical matter, but one of judgment.
Your obsession with the former president, prof, is distasteful. whatever that man did to you, it clouds your judgment when he is concerned. you completely loose your impartiality on any matter to do with him.
I think you need professional help, you have inferiority complex when it comes to him, like a traumatised child.
@Samantha
How many times has this president apologized in public? Personally, I have lost count. There has to come a time when a persons apologies do not absolve them from sharp scrutiny. Especially, in his position of responsibility.
For me, it rattles me to know that we have a president who is clearly prone to making such obvious errors. What happens to the not so obvious errors. The ones we do not see immediately. How much damage do we, as society, suffer as a result? But still say the apology is a great PR exercise!
Comments from Chief Buthelezi:
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=140592&sn=Marketingweb+detail
“In common with other African democracies, SA lack a tradition of developing issue-based campaigns”
This is exactly my problem with the oppositions; they play the man, not the ball
@ Khosi,
You are absolutely right. However, I would far rather somebody apologised for an error so that everyone could just move on. It is when there is bluster, denials and blame over a patently obvious mistake or issue, that real mistrust steps in. Without wanting to sound arrogant, one should bear in mind that Mr Zuma has been educated to the level of Grade 3. This does not mean that he is not intelligent, but it certainly makes his suitability for this job questionable. A matriculant can barely get a repping job in this country because he lacks a tertiary qualification. How does somebody with less education than my 9-year old qualify?
I realise that this will open a can of worms and I will probably be lambasted, but it really does beg the question of our current government: How many of the decision-makers are adequately qualified to perform at government level? Perhaps if everyone was better qualified, we would have fewer mistakes. Just a thought.
@ George Gildenhuys
I am a DA supporter and I do take issue with their “personal” tactics. I believe it is counter-productive and will, ultimately, lose them support!
Samantha, thank you for your response. You and I are of one mind. I especially like the following formulation: the DA is too ‘reactive’ at present – very true.
I wish the DA could demonstrate some appreciation for the following approach: it could at once (a) endear itself to more people by supporting worthy endeavours which ANC affiliates undertake while still (b) maintaining its status as the official opposition.
For instance, it seems quite clear to me that Caster Semenya has suffered an injustice. And yet I do not recall the DA being especially vocal about it and its failure to do so could potentially be chalked up as an opportunity lost. And by opportunity, I mean the chance to put forward a united South African and thereby realise two ends being (a) to stand up for Caster and (b) to reach out to a broader South African audience.
So in a nutshell, I would certainly not advise the DA to betray its brand or shirk its functions as the official opposition. But it needs to look at other avenues with, I think, a view to reaching more people.
Look, to be perfectly honest, Zuma did not come out and apologise straight up. I heard his spokesperson on SAFM blatantly deny he had said “I decided to appoint Ngcobo” even after the podcast had been replayed where those words clearly came from his mouth.
Having said that, I think the whole matter could have been a great success story for a maturing democractic interaction: President screws up, united opposition on a clear constitutional point oppose this, (admitted after a bit of squirming) President acknowledges his error, (and here’s the bit that never happened) opposition parties issue joint statement that they appreciate his maturity and hope that this marks a watershed in all political parties taking up the mantle of promoting the word and spirit of the constitution.
Zuma managed to make the mistake and then still outclass the smart arses.
Prof, you have as usual penned a though-provoking post. But I share the same feeling as Mzo (Mzo // Aug 24, 2009 at 11:52 am) on your consistent reference to the 300 000 people assumed to have died as a result of allegedly the statement Mbeki made when responding to questions by the media in which he denied knowing of anyone who died of AIDS. While there is no denial at least from me that he made this statement, I do not remember a government policy change against distribution of ARVs. It is against this background that Gauteng went ahead and distributed ARVs without any punitive measures taken against it by the central government for acting against the government policy. The decision to conduct further research on the causes of HIV that often results in AIDS, which I supported then as I do today, has been there before this statement was uttered. Again in one of the TAC or HIV/AIDS related conferences held, either at the end of last year or early this year, if I am not mistaken, it was conclusively said that in Gauteng alone, even after the distribution of ARVs, the number of HIV/AIDS related deaths remained unashamedly high and is increasing steadily. Then, Prof, if this is correct, what linear relationship is there between Mbeki’s statement and the allegedly 300 000 people who have apparently died as a result? Why did the number of HIV/AIDS related deaths in Gauteng continued even after ARVs have been distributed then and now? Do we have proof of these ghosts 300 000 people whose deaths was as a DIRECT result of Mbeki’s statement? Is it possible for you Prof, with due respect, to provide facts and figures as to who their names are, their distribution per province and which hospitals did they visit where they could not be helped with ARVs as a result of Mbeki’s statement which has now been elevated to a policy? Over what period since the making of this statement did this 300 000 people die? Can we also have confirmation with statistical support to the effect that the number of HIV/AIDS related deaths have now gone down simple because Zuma and his allies are pro-poor and the sick and are now distributing ARVs that the evil-hearted Mbeki did not want to distribute? Whose statement could be responsible for the continued death of our people today, more than 10 months since the anti-poor and poisonous speaking Mbeki stepped down from power?
As you try to assist in this regards Prof, take this into cognizance that there are some of the hospitals today that are supposed to distribute ARVs but are unable to do so and not because Zuma and his allies do not want but because there is just not enough in the government coffers to afford it. There are also many people who die of HIV/AIDS related diseases, not because there are no ARVs in the hospitals but because they (a) do not want to disclose their status hence they cannot be given such, (b) due to firstly denial, they disclose their status very late and fail to bit the 10 days life-and-death period set for people who start taking ARVs late when their CD4 counts is very low, (c) due to lack of knowledge and access to professional assistance, only discover their positive status late when they are on the death row already, (d) those who do receive ARVs as outpatients due to lack of someone at home to help them follow the prescription as a procedure followed to outpatients who are required to attend classes with such a helper, they default and die as a result, (e) those who take ARVs as outpatients with a good assistance from a family member but only to die because of lack of food (not proper diet) due to poverty in the family, and (f) those who receive ARVs either from inside or outside the hospital but only to die from other opportunistic diseases other than the HIV/AIDS virus itself.
My little experience in this regard is that in May 2009 I buried my younger brother who died of HIV/AIDS. He was taking ARVs but because he believed a lot in mutis (traditional medicine) from inyangas (traditional healers) and NOT Mbeki’s statement, he defaulted on his prescription and died. Six weeks later, my elder brother succumbed to HIV/AIDS. He was receiving ARVs in the hospital but because he started off by denying his status and NOT Mbeki’s statement, he started taking them when his CD4 count was 11 and failed to bit the 10 days period and died six days after having started the treatment.
I think it will be a great lesson, not only for me, to discover how Mbeki’s statement could have been so powerful so as to offset all these contributory factors and murdered 300 000 precious South African lives.
let me wait for Prof`s response , good post Mayimele
Mayimele ….
Your post has in essence chosen to challenge a belief which, though stated by our ex-president, has not disappeared with his departure from office.
To illustrate how “300 000″ deaths can be attributed to him is to show a comparison between that statement (and belief) and the falsity that the death penalty cannot be an effective deterrent to violent crime.
Imagine the difficulty those who believe the false premise would face if on the one hand they felt strongly that the death penalty is “a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment” but also had to concede that it could serve as an effective deterrent to certain defined violent crimes!
They would certainly be at sixes and seven if they had to acknowledge this and hold to the implicit notion in the inhumanity of executions while indirectly being responsible as accessories to the killing of innocent victims that might have been avoided by its implementation. Yet ironically the same people who would hold the ex-president accountable for those 300 000 deaths would most likely be the sort of people I’m referring to above. I doubt they would attack themselves as venomously as they did the ex-president!
You will soon see that whenever anyone brings up the issue of deterrence, you are shot down with erroneous statistics which only takes into account a death penalty application system rooted on the basis of punishment (which it has been administered for almost the entirety of man”s history).
and not one specifically structured as a deterrent.
Therefore the ex-president’s statement (or belief for that matter) cannot be said to hold absolutely no merits but did hold back the unified front which was needed to fight the scourge destroying the country. It saddens me and many others that the other belief persists and results in the deaths of ordinary South Africans everyday – equaling a country that might as well be at war!!!
@mayimele,
I do not mean to sound inconsiderate, so please accept my apologies in advance.
You say:-
“He was taking ARVs but because he believed a lot in mutis (traditional medicine) from inyangas (traditional healers)… he defaulted..”
What I am trying to understand is, why your brother would default on something that was, I would assume, helping him. Why the need for muti if the ARV’s were working? Did he believe that muti would work better or that muti was going to bring relief to pain that may have been brought about by ARV’s.
I ask because that your brother story is not a unique one.
Secondly, I have also lost loved ones and friends to AIDS. I have also lost others who were HIV positive, on ARV but did not have AIDS. And to me, this seems a pattern. Of the ones I have lost to AIDS, they, without exception, had a highly active sexual life prior and even during their sickness. (Take note that I am yet to refer to the desease as HIV/AIDS)
In my commoner knowledge, HIV as an STI is not deadly(semantics? but remember HIV does not kill, AIDS does). But other STI’s such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis etc are capable of killing a person at speeds much higher than an HIV infection leads to ones demise. And if you look at the damage that these STI’s do to the body, its exactly what AIDS does. The difference is that these STI’s are much more manageable and treatable than AIDS when detected. But unattended to, the destruction to the body is identical.
Now we live in a society, medical fraternity included, where if a person presents with certain conditions, almost automatically AIDS is blamed and hence the response is ARV’s. But, HIV positive or not, other STI’s may be the real cause of the ailment and not AIDS. I say other STI’s, because a person who is highly sexually active is very likely to contract these infections and infect others as well. By saying that the issue is AIDS and not testing for the other STI’s, we may be giving ‘HIV/AIDS’ more recognition than it warrants. What is worse, we may very well miss the opportunity of treating these STI’s and saving a life. Syphilis is even called ‘the great imitator’ and this to me, may mean that our loved ones may be dying from sicknesses other than the ones we think are killing them.
And this is what I have always understood Mbeki’s view on the subject. But for some reason, ’science’ does not want to accept a different way of looking at a problem that is clearly killing us. This despite the indisputable fact that their set paradigm is taking us nowhere.
[...] Here is the original post: Constitutionally Speaking » Opposition parties shoot themselves in … [...]
Mayimele – here is an article with reference to the study.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?fta=y
I am sorry for your losses. Whilst they may not be directly attributable to Mbeki’s obvious denialism, I do think that a pro-active president loudly espousing the accepted scientific concensus that HIV causes AIDS, and that well managed ARV treatment saves lives, would have made a huge difference to the course of this epidemic.
Khosi – I think you are mistaken – speak to medical practitioners and you will find that your theory is a myth. Doctors treat all diseases presenting in HIV +ve cases with extra urgency and care.
With respect, I think you are a fine example of the damage that Mbeki has inflicted. Because of all his other fine attributes and keen intellect, you have accepted that his uninformed pseudoscientific views on a medical issue must hold water.
Mayimele, thanks for your thought provoking and moving post. Anyone who has read Johnny Steinberg’s “The Three Letter Plague” will know this issue is complex and difficult. To what extent did the government’s own ambivalence and foot dragging lead to deaths and to what extent was this based on other ingrained beliefs? One can argue about the exact number, but I am relying on a conservative Harvard study (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/11/26/harvard-universityreport.pdf) for my figures. What I do dispute is the claims by some who wish to rewrite history that Mbeki and his Minister of Health did not contribute greatly and criminally to the situation by (i) making statements which questioned the link between HIV and AIDS and the efficacy of ARV’s; (ii) deliberately preventing ARV’s from being rolled out comprehensively in the public health sector (two provinces, Gautent and the Western Cape defied the Minister of this) and (iii) promoting or at least abetting the use of “alternative”remedies which had no medical benefit.
khosi // Aug 25, 2009 at 1:41 am
Khosi, from what I have learned through the interaction and asking of a lot of questions to medical officers in trying to understand what was killing my brothers so as to contribute in saving their lives is, in respect to your question, that, my younger brother (just like my elder brother) had then developed what they call oral thrush in their mouths. Oral thrush, as I observed, looked to me like a thick layer of yellow matter covering either part or the entire visible part of the tongue sometimes with blood clotting spots. It is said to be one of the most painful development to HIV/AIDS patients which, although occurs in the mouth, affects the entire body and often results in the patient being in agony for most of the time. During this time, their CD4 count is often very low, the immune system is no longer fighting and ARVs become weakened and ineffective. The thrush results in the patient loosing appetite and not being able to swallow food and any liquid stuff like water. It also results in the development of ulcers which further prevent the patient from eating anything that has salt and/or sugar. This situation therefore result in the patient not eating well which further weakens whatever medication they receive, particularly ARVs that requires one to eat well in order for them to work.
For better explanation and pictures follow this links: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/phil/html/oral-thrush/6054.html & http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/phil/html/oral-thrush/1217.html
At this state of affairs what concerns the patient most is to ease the pain caused by this thrush and not to offset the ultimate end-result of that pain which is death. So what they need most is the medication that will immediately deal with the pain and unfortunately they do not get it from the ARVs, hence they default on taking ARVs in favour of something that will ease the pain immediately. The alternative therefore has often been garlic which is said to be a natural antibiotic that indeed happen to deal with this pain faster than the hospital medication. Unfortunately the hospital does not administer garlic to them. So the patients’ relatives are the ones who bring this and other traditional medicines to the hospital, take their patients out of the wards and administer these traditional medications to them. So it is not like the ARVs are not working, they are generally working but they do not immediately deal with the pain caused by oral thrush which is the patients’ primary concern, hence they default in favour of something that deal immediately with the pain, which happens to be garlic and other traditional medication coming from outside the hospital. So in my brother’s case, he generally believed a lot in traditional healing as opposed to hospitals. But when the hospital medications including ARVs failed to deal with the pain caused by thrush, he lost trust in hospital medication and pinned his hopes on traditional medicines and eventually passing away.
Peter // Aug 25, 2009 at 8:26 am
Firstly, I have referred to personal experience. Mbeki’s outlook on the matter is merely confirmed. Time and time again.
Secondly, many medical professionals who deal with AIDS day in day out, see things the way I do. Even salespeople of the very ARV’s doubt their efficacy, at times.
Thirdly, you are wrong. Over the past two years I have been volunteering for various AIDS hospices. Doctors do not order test for other STI’s. They test for HIV, if they find it they then test for the viral load so that they can administer ARV’s. You see, HIV/AIDS has become a cop-out for over-worked underpaid doctors. It is a simple as that, unfortunately. Also remember that test for the other STI’s are not as desktop(easy) as the HIV test. These tests are more expensive and more complex.
You say:-
“I do think that a pro-active president loudly espousing the accepted scientific concensus that HIV causes AIDS, and that well managed ARV treatment saves lives, would have made a huge difference to the course of this epidemic.”
Open you mind a bit. Botswana (and as Mayamela reminds us, Gauteng) did exactly that. Botswana’s per ca pita HIV prevalence is worse than ours and their mortality rate is no better to ours. We need to ask why that is the case, if they followed the ‘generally accepted’ scientific consensus?
To me, because of failures in science, we need a new way/approach to dealing with this issue.
Peter // Aug 25, 2009 at 8:26 am
Peter, thanks for the link. I have just gone through the report and it still does not answer the questions raised above. The methodology used does not appreciate the real abject poverty situations from which majority of our HIV/AIDS victims live and how this situation contributes to their ultimate death even when they take ARVs properly. It also does not appreciate the contribution of other opportunistic diseases that often overtake HIV/AIDS in killing our people as Khosi revealed above. It also does not apportion blame to (a) lack of knowledge among millions of our people about HIV/AIDS and how to deal with it (b) their own denial thereof as a result of lack of knowledge (c), their strong believe in other forms of treatment and finally, (d) the fact that no matter how much grant money and free ARVs the government can accept from multilateral corporations, when faced with these contributory factors, there is very little that ARVs can do. At the end you need to do more than just what is being done now. This includes but not limited to poverty eradication, educating the nation and change of mindset, provision of adequate housing and healthy living environment, change of sexual behaviour and practices which the more than 300 000 dead people could not have got just by swallowing ARVs in an empty stomach, living in a dingy falling shack, while continuing with the same sexual practices that brought them into this dying situation in the first place.
But in the whole I agree with you that healing begins with believing. You can only get assistance if you agree you are sick and advice if you agree you have a problem. So, yes Mbeki could have handled this issue in a better manner than he did. Although we should not forget the political environment in which he found himself in the last few years of his reign.
@ Khosi
A good ARV program will not decrease HIV prevalence. It is likely to increase it as more and more people are HIV positive and not dying.
What a good ARV program should do is improve the life expectancy in the country. Botswana’s life expectance has been increasing since 2002 while South Africa’s continues to plummet.
@Andy
Firstly, you are wrong about the life expectancy of Botswana. Totally wrong. Please read up.
Secondly, ‘mortality rate’ and ‘life expenctancy’ are not the same thing. Again, please read up.
Thirdly, an unintended -( big pharma
)- consequence of a ‘good’ ARV program would that it would contribute to increasing the number of new infections as more people with the virus would be circulating in society. So it is not exactly a win-win theory. But I do think that if people are helped by ARV’s they should be given ARV’s. I just contest that ARV’s are the solution, or even the first port of call, for AIDS.
Life Expectancy
2000
Botswana 50 years
South Africa 58 years
2006
Botswana 52 years
South Africa 51 years
ARV coverage 2006
Botswana 76%
South Africa 21%
World Health Organisation Statistics
http://www.who.int/whosis/en/
Andy, forgive me for interrupting the interesting and socially relevant exchange between you and Khosi.
But on the assumption that I enjoy your good grace, I would respectfully suggest that you have not established an especially close causal connection between Botswana’s ARV program on the one hand, and the increased life expectancy in that country on the other.
So I suppose my question is: are there not other factors that might have contributed thereto?
Khosi
See also
http://www.gapminder.org/
What other factors might have contributed Leigh?
Botswana
Reduction of deaths related to AIDS from 13,000 in 2001 to 6,600 at the end of 2007
http://www.unaidsrstesa.org/countries/botswana
Andy, my post here is geared towards setting out factors which might have contributed to increased life expectancy in Botswana.
But of course, if you are able to rule out those factors, or if your most recent post can be taken as conclusive proof that the principal causal factor for increased life expectancy in Botswana was the ARV program, then I would be far more comfortable with your intimation.
The factors which I would like to see ruled out are as follows: first, what if other diseases or afflictions that are unrelated to HIV have been more efficaciously treated?
Secondly, what if the problem of malnutrition has been dealt with more effectively?
Thirdly, what if contraceptives have been more widely used and if they have been, could that not have resulted in fewer child births and thus greater parental care?
And finally, what if the general standard of living had improved during the years to which you refer? If that happened, might that not have contributed to an increased life expectancy?
I would respectfully repeat that I am merely mentioning possibilities. Again, it may well be that we could rule these other factors out in some way or some other. So in short, I am not ruling out your apparent case. Rather, I am questioning whether you have explored other investigations which may be relevant.
It seems that we always stray from the topic…
I only have an opinion on the original topic. I do not believe that Zuma made an “innocent” mistake. The man has advisors for this sort of think. Has ha, and his mates, not been vindictive sods they could have asked Mbeki about the process. This was not done out of wilful disregard for the procedure to be followed. Such “innocent” mistakes don’t seem to happen that mich in the UK where they have a complex system of unwritten rules. Our failure to follow what has been laid down in our lifetimes is pathetic.
I also think that the public forgives Zuma too easily for all his screw-ups. Maybe Hitler got the same from his supporters…
I do not think that the opposition parties have done anything wrong either. Zuma’s “apology” is a hollow one. He said the right things to appease the electorate yet it means very little.
I’m starting to think that there was subliminal marketing on those “Mshini wami” tracks. Explains why people are starting to think more like him.
On the DA’s silence about Caster Semenya…
I do not think it was the place of any political party to “stand behind the athlete”. She is an athlete, studying sports science, I am sure she knows what the tests involve and knew of the chance that they may suspect she is a he. It was the duty of ASA to ensure that she was going to compete without any questions. It was extremely insensative of IAAF to deal with such a personal issue in the public arena.
The ANC, surprisingly enough, felt that this was a show of racism. Malema was even gotten to speak upon the athletes’ return (the irony). I think that the public are making this a bigger issue than it is. Its about science and not prejudice. Maybe this shows a prejudice we have against ourselves.
True, its prudent to be careful when analysing results. To look at all these factors would require an indepth study. The factors which you mention may have brought small positive or negative affects, it is difficult to tell.
The big change in Botswana was the ARV roll out from 2002.
They have been able to decrease HIV prevalence in young age groups too which is also an achievement. So there prevetion program is also very good by changing sex habits.
How much is due to prevetion and how much is due to ARV’s? I think they both play a major factor.
@Andy,
So should we assume that you are thumb-sucking and you have no evidence to support you original assertion that was questioned by Leigh?
@nkululeko,
Totally agree with you. I personally think that there is nothing innocent about ignorance.
Khosi, there seems to be strong evidence that HIV positive individuals on ARV’s whose viral load is undetectable poses a much lower risk of transmitting HIV to sexual partners. See http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1270646.aspx:
“Suppressive HIV therapy considerably reduces the infectiousness of the people taking it and may make them altogether uninfectious. HIV treatment is in itself a prevention intervention. A study in San Francisco (Porco 2004) calculated that on a population level the average viral load, and therefore infectiousness, of gay men in the city had been cut by two-thirds since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and on an individual level, by 2008, Swiss researchers felt able to release a (contentious) statement (Vernazza 2008) saying that “People with HIV who are not suffering from a sexually transmitted infection and who are on fully suppressive antiretroviral therapy do not transmit the virus through sexual contact.” (See Disclosure, serosorting and sexual harm reduction for more on this).
In a study of serodiscordant couples in Rwanda presented at the Toronto World AIDS Conference (Kayitenkore 2006), of the 1034 couples followed, in 248 the HIV-positive partner was taking antiretroviral therapy. In spite of counselling there were 42 seroconversions, but only 2 (5%) of the 42 seroconversions observed 2003-5 occurred in couples in which the positive partner was on antiretroviral therapy. HIV-negative individuals whose partners were on antiretroviral therapy were 80% less likely to seroconvert than those whose partners were not on antiretroviral therapy(odds ratio 0.19). After adjusting for the confounding effect of condom use, the result remained statistically significant with an OR of 0.21.”
@Khosi
Did you even look at the links and references I gave.
There is no thumbsucking involved. The data is becoming clearer and clearer. The facts speak for themselves.
I notice you don’t give references to you baseless assertions.
Pierre,
That depressed me a few weeks ago when I came across it. It seems clear to me that ARV’s are now being introduced as a vaccine for HIV. This is extremely dangerous.
That is, at least, suspicous for anyone with half a brain.
@Andy,
I will leave it to Leigh to massage-bitch-slap you.
Khosi, I am tempted to say that, yes, I can imagine it would be suspicious for anyone with half a brain, but luckily many people have a whole brain….. and some use it too.
Pity the ones with no brains at all, since they will find nothing dangerous about being told if you drink a pill, you should be able to play Russian roulette with other peoples lives.
khosi – “I just contest that ARV’s are the solution, or even the first port of call, for AIDS.” And your solution is? Denial? Let them maar die?
PS Andy has produced some interesting statistics after you rather high off-handidly told him to go do some reading.. Lets see yours Khosi?
Who amongst us was not delighted to see Winnie Mandela and Julius Malema at OR Tambo this morning to welcome our Golden Girl home from Berlin? Now the BBC and the British press are spreading racist lies: three times elevated testosterone. So, I renew my demand that Mr Malema take charge of the situation. He must issue firm press statements on Wednesday.
References to genetic sexual identity and so-called hormonal levels are an arbitrary imposition of so-called western “science.” Imperialists prefer to ignore the fact that we South Africans have a rich inheritance of intuitive wisdom – also a variety of indigenous healing herbs, fruits and vegetables. And, as JZ once noted, we know exactly what to do when we do encounter a person of dubious sexuality.
Mikhail, I’d hate to be you.
It may be fun if you’re a fiction writer though…
There seems to have been no need for the ANCYL or ANCWL to be there. it just made the situation even worse than what it is. Its a scientific issue to be dealt with by those who know about sports science (not the likes of Malema).
It is not surprising that a female athlete may have much higher testosterone levels than average women. It is where the hormone levels are much greater than fellow athlets’ that we should be concerned.
I don’t know if you’ll find this useful in all your rantings: http://www.inquisitr.com/34573/caster-semenya-testosterone-controversy-coach-a-doper-in-the-70s-80s/
@nkululeko
Bsaed on new information I don’t think the IAAF has a leg to stand on. They just need time to apologise and put the matter to rest.
Caster’s 3x testosterone levels still do not bring her testostrone levels into the normal range for men. If testosterone doping was an issue then the IAAF should have investigated that. Instead they investigated gender, effectivly clearing Caster of any doping allegation.
IAAF rules allows athletes who have had sex reassignment to compete. i.e men who has had surgery and hormone treatment to become female can compete so long as they have been on homones for at least 2 years.
If a man has a sex change, can he compete in the Olympics as a woman?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2782/switch-hitter
Andy – “If a man has a sex change, can he compete in the Olympics as a woman?”
Remember that old song that ends?
“… It’s a mixed up, muddled-up, shook-up world, a-la-la Lola.”
nkululeko et Andy – Hoorah for Dr Davis! http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/OtherSport/262/d7743aafa4de40c98ca98f63afdb88d0/26-08-2009-09-20/Caster_testosterone_natural
We are sooo off topic.
Prof is going to bitch slap all of us.
@whoever it was – since when has garlic been a traditional african medicine?
@ andy – if Caster was running against men her well-elevated testosterone level wouldn’t be an issue, but she isn’t, is she? (that said, I think she’s probably a girl with an unfortunate condition that makes her a fortunate athlete. If she’s not doping, her medal must stand)
@ Piere – Genuine mistake or not, is Pres Zuma’s little slip not indicative of the ANC’s attitude to this pesky consultation business? There really is very little desire in the ruling party to embrace participatory democracy, except when it involves bussing in party hacks to shout down the opposition.
Moss, I completely agree with you as regards your views about the ANC’s conception of participatory governance.
Initially I extended rather a kind view insofar as I chalked up Zuma’s election to make public his nomination as being a species of poor judgment. But on reflection I think yours is probably the stronger view.
So if dominance and participatory governance are competing interests – and it seems fair to say that they are – the ANC certainly appears to opt for the former.
[...] Africa 21%. World Health Organisation Statistics http://www.who.int/whosis/en/ … View post: Constitutionally Speaking » Opposition parties shoot themselves in … Share and [...]