During the USA Presidential campaign, vice presidential candidate Sarah “Barracuda” Palin was rightly lambasted after giving a disastrous and laughable interview to Katie Couric. The most quoted section dealt with her lack of foreign policy experience and went like this:
Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land boundary that we have with Canada.
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I’m executive of.
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin rears his ugly head and comes into the air space of the United States, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
Last night while watching the ETV interview with President Jacob Zuma, it suddenly dawned on me: maybe President Jacob Zuma is our Sarah Palin! Like Palin, President Zuma has charisma, glamour and the common touch. Like Palin our President is much loved by his core supporters who believe that he is being victimized by snooty (or even racist) elites with no respect for traditional values. Like Palin, President Zuma can charm individuals when he meets them. Like Palin, Zuma has an interesting family life. And like Palin he looks completely and embarrassingly out of his depth when confronted by an intelligent and probing interviewer on TV.
Nikiwe Bikitsha did a brilliant job in the interview: she was respectful and courteous (as one should be when interviewing the country’s President to show respect for the office of the President) while asking probing and pointed questions and following up the many evasive and often misleading or plane wrong answers with pertinent follow up salvo’s – always humbly nodding along as the President basically admitted that he did not know much about what was going on in his government. Our President kept on saying that discussions were continuing on many pivotal issues for South Africa (nationalization, schooling, Julius Malema, the NPA) but that nothing has been decided yet and that he personally had no views on any of these issues.
When asked about whether he would pardon Shaik, he wisely decided to skirt the question because the issue is so politically sensitive and because his advisors must have told him that he should not say anything about it until they have found a way of managing the inevitable fall-out of a possible pardon. Unfortunately, the President skirted the issue in such a ham-handed way that he created more trouble for himself.
“Why should I pardon him when he has not applied?,” he said. “I have nothing in front of me. If there was an application before me, you should ask the question. Why should I respond if I do not have the application before me?” Unfortunately the Presidency issued a statement on 19 October 2009 that contradicts this statement:
The Presidency received an application for pardon from Mr Shabir Shaik last year, on 24 April 2008. The application will be processed like all other applications
The President has therefore indeed received a pardon application and he therefore does have an application in front of him. He might not have read the application himself, but he does have it on his desk and should know this as his office has confirmed this in an official press statement. Oops!
This is not a life and death issue and will not influence the legality of any pardon when it is eventually granted, but it was another embarrassing gaff on the part of the head of the South African executive which creates the impression that the President is either not aware of what is going on in his own office or that he is perfectly prepared to tell a whopper in order to avoid answering an awkward question.
But maybe there is a kinder explanation for the seeming Palinesque inability of President Zuma to answer any of the questions posed to him and his seeming lack on knowledge and grasp of the issues confronting South Africa. Maybe he avoided answering the questions because he is afraid.
In this regard the ghost of former President Thabo Mbeki seemed to hover over proceedings.
After all, Mbeki lost his job because he had opinions of his own and sometimes expressed them despite the fact that the ANC leadership had not “pronounced” on an issue. Watching President Zuma I got the palpable feeling that the power has shifted decisively from the union buildings to Luthuli House and that instead of constitutional government we now have a party political government.
Our Constitution is silent on the relationship between the executive and the political party in power. While it makes clear that the President is the head of the executive and that the executive governs the country (along with his cabinet members who are all accountable to Parliament), this power is a tenuous one – as Mbeki found out when he was fired.
Because the Constitution also allows the majority party in the National Assembly to “recall” the President by adopting a vote of no confidence against him, the President has no independent power base separate from the party who elected him. Given the fact that members of the National Assembly serve at the pleasure of the party and can be removed from their jobs at any time, the party leadership has a decisive say over members of Parliament, can therefore instruct them to take any action in Parliament and can thus also instruct them to fire the President. Through this threat of removal the party leadership can decide who serves as President and can also ensure that it tells the President how to serve.
President Zuma seems so scared of the party leadership – from Julius Malema down (or is it up?) – that he acts more like an automaton than like the leader of a modern constitutional democracy.
This latter explanation for the President’s embarrassing interview will mitigate against the view that President Zuma is no more than our own Sarah Palin. Let us hope the second explanation is true. Otherwise our President would not only be rather dim-witted (a bit like PW Botha who was definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed), he would also be out of his depth, ignorant and spineless. And if that is the case, we are all in big trouble – unless Kgalema Motlanthe or Gwede Mantashe is really governing the country from behind the scenes, in which case we might not be in as much trouble as it might have seemed from watching the interview.
Great post again Prof. I watched the interview as well, thanks to Maggs Naidu and Gwebecimele for recommending same and advising as to when it was gonna be broadcast.
I could not contain my laughter during the interview. However, after its conclusion, I was feeling shame for the President. There are three possibilities here;
One: We have an intellectual midget for a President; or
Two: We have the ANC National Executive for a President; or
Three: We have a pathological liar for a President.
There are dire consequences in respect of all three of these options. Was the President not given the questions he was going to answer way before the date of the interview, I found myself wondering afterwards. I would like to answer in the affirmative and say it was only the follow up questions which were dicey for the President but that would be being economical with the truth on my part as well.
I was left with the impression that our President is not up to speed on most of the matters raised by Nikiwe.
“Why do you ask me that question when …”, “If your read the document, then …”, “If you listened to what I said, then …” and so it went.
It would have been great if President Zuma had a clear position, informed of course in the main by the ANC policies, on all those issues.
He was unconvincing on Simelane, Malema and Shaik.
He was directionless on nationalisation and Zimbabwe.
That’s about as far as I could bear to watch.
“Instead of constitutional government we now have a party political government.”
but this isn’t unconstitutional, right? what makes this arrangement NOT “constitutional government”?
I do think that you are absolutely accurate in pointing to the power of the Party in South Africa–institutionalized by the Constitution. I am not certain that this is a good thing, but you are clearly correct–Zuma is a place holder. He is nothing more than a cipher. certainly Mandela was in control of the Party, because of his popularity. Mbeki was able to latch on to some of this authority (from Mandela) and be rather independent of the Party, but squandered this with his silly views on unpopular ideas. Mbeki cemented the dominance of the party by acceding to his own recall, and now Zuma has no power at all.
For power to return to the President (as opposed to the Party), it will only happen as the ability to raise cash (to fund the Party) is associated more with the President than the Party–which will only happen as fundraising becomes even more dependent on corporate $$$ as opposed to membership fees. So, basically the future is clear–corruption ($$$ from corporations) and Presidential power will grow hand in hand.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-12-people-should-stop-stressing-about-pardons
“‘The president is not obligated by any timelines nor by any process. He will apply his mind over the applications at a time of his choosing and he will make his decision based on the facts and the information.
“‘No one can dictate to him how and when to go about exercising his constitutional prerogative’”.
No one can dictate?
Excepting those who can dictate
“SCHABIR Shaik wants his ‘f***ing pardon’ and he wants it now”
http://www.citypress.co.za/Content/SouthAfrica/News/2168/46a6d726690c41f2af7edd90e5e4a256/20-12-2009-02-00/Shaik_spits_fire
“This man is a president, he ought to rise above. He cannot speak like me, but we know what he said.” – so said Mr Malema of our President
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-15-malema-zuma-will-never-surrender-to-communists
Sine says:
January 12, 2010 at 13:48 pm
Hey Sne – I got the impression that the President was afraid.
I dunno who or what makes him afraid, but it sure seemed that given the choice between appearing lacklustre/evasive/indecisive on the one hand and aggravating someone/group on the other, he chose the former.
@ Maggs
Clearly bro, South Africa appears to be in the hands of not a gangster, as initially stated by Prof, but gangsters who are so terrific that even our President appears defenceless and powerless against them. Very scary stuff indeed…
Are there any transcripts of this interview somewhere on the net where I can go and read it? Better yet, is there a video of this interview somewhere on the net?
I have not watched the interview and I hope to get it on youtube. The President has executive authority together with his/her Cabinet to develop and implement national policy (85.2.(b) of the Constitution). Failure to do so is failure to use the authority he has.
So any President can have different policies to a party. Unless those policies are so bad that they are against the party and benefit minorities, I do not see the President being recalled by Parliament through vote of no confidence. Perhaps our President has not dared to be independent, decisive and perhaps dare to dream big.
So whilst separation of state and party are not explicitly in the Constitution, the President’s executive authority allows for that for a President daring enough.
@ Maggs
“That’s about as far as I could bear to watch.”
Maggs, I bet you could not bear to watch even that far if the leader of the so-called opposition was President.
“Botox” Zille may think she is cleverer than Cd. Zuma. But she is still just a white liberal who would, if she was in power, swiftly bestow upon us the highest Gini-Coefficient on earth!
Hey Dworky,
Re “Maggs, I bet you could not bear to watch even that far if the leader of the so-called opposition was President.”
As the Palinism goes – you betcha.
I am hardly interested in the opposition, since I neither voted for nor supported them – so what may be bestowed on us in the (unlikely) event that it comes to material political power is irrelevant to me.
I am however concerned with contributing towards improvement of, in whatever way I can to the country, the ANC and the Zuma administration.
@ Maggs
I am like you in this regard.
I have had any interest at all in any political party that I have neither (a) voted for, nor (b) supported.
Perhaps Brett, that political taxonomist of note, could advise us as to what that says about our respective ideologies.
Maggs, you remind me of certain Roman Catholics I have known. They may think that the Vatican’ s dogmas are appalling. They may believe that its leadership is rotten to the core, and that the current Pope is beyond the pale. (They may even criticize him in public.) Yet they will always, always, retain their loyalty to the the church as an institution.
I mention this not necessarily as a matter of criticism. There is something admirable about dogged institutional loyalty.
I would worry, though, that it is not necessary good for the long-term health of any institution, be it church or party, if its follower’s love is utterly unconditional.
@ Dworky – I am not sure what you have just said, but I will assume that it is something wise (the “I have had any interest… ” that is).
Sine says:
January 12, 2010 at 13:48 pm
You put three alternatives, with “or” between them. Or can be replaced by “an”. I’m confident to say, without ruling out the other options, that we have the ANC National Executive for a President.
Michael Osborne says:
January 12, 2010 at 18:24 pm
Hey Michael – religion and politics don’t mix.
Do you think the English will stop supporting their cricketers because Stuart Broad stepped on the ball?
Damn – politics and sport don’t mix.
I am certainly not going to jump ship because it sprung a few leaks.
Eish – sailing and politics don’t mix either.
Unconditional is not appropriate – I neither campaigned nor voted in 1999 and 2004. I did both in 2009. And I probably will in 2011.
Supporting the ANC and the Zuma admin for me, does not imply keeping mum about things that I find off cue. Rather the opposite – if I add my voice, hopefully some things will change for the better, after all “working together we can do more”
.
Sorry for the typo: “an” should be “and”.
Maggs, with respect, I am going to join Michael inasmuch as I too think that (a) your loyalty to the ANC approaches the unconditional and (b), such loyalty can certainly be injurious to the country in the long run.
You say earlier in this discussion that you are ‘concerned with contributing towards improvement of, in whatever way I can to the country, the ANC and the Zuma administration’. With all respect Maggs, I think that this quoted statement is demonstrably untrue. That is, you know as well as Michael and I that there is at least one thing you will not do that might very well contribute to the betterment of our country: take a step towards persuading the ANC to get its ducks in a row by actually voting against it. I know you appreciate the point that unless the ANC fears an adverse result at the polls, it is most unlikely to make material – and desperately needed – changes. In other words, in your case, comprehension is not the true problem. The trouble is that voting against the ANC is perhaps the best remedy here and you will not consider it.
Leigh says:
January 12, 2010 at 19:28 pm
Hey Leigh,
I don’t like some of the things going on in the country and in the ANC – I am neither going to leave the country, nor stop supporting the ANC.
Of course I agree that such loyalty is injurious to the country in the long term – the solution is for the opposition parties to up their act; and who knows, maybe I, and others like me, will be tempted to listen to them.
Until then, rather the devil I know ….
I am a great fan of music:-
In my place, in my place
Were lines that I couldn’t change
I was lost, oh yeah
I was lost, I was lost
Crossed lines I shouldn’t have crossed
I was lost, oh yeah
Yeah, how long must you wait for him?
Yeah, how long must you pay for him?
Yeah, how long must you wait for him?
I was scared, I was scared
Tired and underprepared
But I wait for you
If you go, if you go
Leaving me here on my own
Well I wait for you
Yeah, how long must you wait for him?
Yeah, how long must you pay for him?
Yeah, how long must you wait for him?
Please, please, please
Come on and sing to me
To me, me
Come on and sing it out, out, out
Come on and sing it now, now, now
Come on and sing it
In my place, in my place
Were lines that I couldn’t change
I was lost, oh yeah
Oh yeah
I somehow find this song relevant. I wonder why!!!
Maggs, I am glad to hear that you could be persuaded to listen to the opposition parties. But I would like to ask: as far as you specifically are concerned, what would an opposition party have to do to up its act and thereby get you to listen?
I will also say respectfully that staying faithful to the devil you know (even in the meantime) is probably not a good idea. In order to test this proposition, let us look at another context in which an agent could decide to go for the known devil: a wife may suffer greatly at the hands of her husband. By staying faithful, she helps neither herself nor her partner. All her loyalty would achieve is the perpetuation of misery. But on your logic, she should stay with him rather than dare to believe that making every effort to (a) leave the jerk and (b) maybe explore other options could lead to a happier life.
Leigh, I have asked your question of Maggs several times now.
On the basis of his prior responses, I predict his answer to your challenge will be:
(a) He cannot support a party which is white-run (that takes care of the DA).
(b) He cannot support a party that does not have the capacity to identify with, organise and articulate the concerns of the majority of South Africans (that takes care of the DA and all of the small black-runs parties, ID, UDM, PAC etc.)
I can understand (a). But (b), it seems to me, is circular and self-fulfilling: Of course these smaller parties will never obtain any traction (or organisational ability), if intelligent, well-meaning people like Maggs who are disgusted with the ANC take the attitude “better the devil you know …”
This resonates with the attitudes of many disaffected Catholics – “better the devil you know,” therefore I will never desert the Church of Rome.
Khosi, I too love music. And it is comforting that we have at least this small thing in common for a love of good sense is clearly something we do not share.
In this discussion, even the ANC partisans take issue with Zuma and congratulate the Professor on a well-conceived piece. But you are plainly unwilling to explore the actual content of that piece. Now your intransigence is customary. And I have spared myself some frustration by expecting as much from you. But I have enough of an interest in the more inglorious features of human nature to put a question to you: for all your concern about being led astray, might the real problem be that you are already lost in your own uncritical bias?
Maggs, with all respect, I am going to join Michael again: your argument is hardly sustainable. And as Michael makes out, your untenable position can be articulated thus: you will remain loyal to the devil that you know. You will do so because you cannot support opposition parties that lack the capacity to govern. But as Michael rightly advances, it is precisely your excessive loyalty to the ANC that prevents the opposition from developing such capacity.
I will also add that I hope you know that both Michael and I have a fair bit invested in you. And the reason for that is simple: as far as swing-voters go, you are about as close to the genuine article as we have seen on this blog. That is to say, you clearly understand and also freely acknowledge the ANC’s broad assortment of shortcomings. These attributes suggest that you are reasonable and interested in positive changes. And contrary to wrongheaded popular belief, that does not make you a sell-out. It does mean that you have taken a meaningful (although insufficient) step towards adopting a sensible hierarchy of priorities: country first, party second.
A good post Pierre.
If somebody finds the clip or can put it onto Youtube please do.
@Mags. Question for you. If the SACP and ANC splits with Gwede / Blade / Cronin et al on the one side and Zuma/ Malema on the other. Who would you choose?
@ Kameraad, on the choice of splits – Cronin vs Nzimande, I would support Cronin, on Erwin vs Mantashe, I would support Mantashe, on Kasrils vs Mlambo-Ngcuka I would support Kasrils, on Carrim vs Pahad, I would support Carrim.
On Malema vs, eish forget it, I would abandon the ANC if Malema became its President in the near term.
I am not sure what I would do if the split is ANC and SACP – I am certainly inspired by the SACP, so that may present an interesting dilemma for me.
@ Leigh and Michael,
The impression that I am disgusted with the ANC is wrong.
Indeed I am disgusted at many things that are going on and have gone on. The Polokwane Conference, and by extension several of its resolutions and outcomes, was the consequence of a majority of the ANC members having been disgusted, many even more than I. Those resolutions as you are aware, informed the ANC election manifesto – and led to the massive 65.9% show of voter support despite the “breakaway”.
The pace of remedy is frustratingly slow, but in fairness, it’s only 9 months since this administration took office but that’s not going to stop me from strongly voicing my concerns.
Michael is also wrong that I support the ANC because of race – it’s about political ideology, as I have previously exchanged with him. If the ANC, to win the Western Cape, ran an entire election campaign on “Stop Zille”, it would lose my support immediately. The ANC did, in my view, deserve the trashing that it got in the WC and has hopefully learned some lessons.
We have the highest Gini coefficient in the entire world. The structural and systemic conditions, inherited by decades if not centuries if inequity and iniquity lies at the root. The Second Carnegie Commission of Enquiry captured, perhaps better than any other research, the impact. That is what we have to show for a country that has been so blessed with the rich resources that we have been endowed with.
It will not change unless there is the political will to make changes. Some political parties would much rather keep things the same. The ANC was established and is still founded on relevant principles with the Freedom Charter informing, directly and indirectly, much of its ideology, philosophy and strategies.
Yeah, I am a bit peeved of at President Zuma for dithering on a number of fronts where decisive leadership is required despite the overwhelming support that he had and still has and for making some terrible choices.
Be that as it may, he has a formidable and unenviable task on virtually every front. It is not made easier for him by having inherited an administration with some people who had rallied against him and probably still do. The anti Zuma campaign started in the late 90s and by 1998 it was clearly gathering momentum, aside from the criminal charges that is. So he faces a daunting task of having to deal with the multitude of crises and having to unravel those parts of the bureaucracy that are inconsistent with his person and his leadership. That aside, he chose to be President so he must deliver.
@ Leigh – me a potential swing voter? What are you smoking?
Leigh says:
January 12, 2010 at 19:28 pm
I am not sure how you conclude that voting against the ANC is better than contributing to ridding it of the ills and actually doing things that make a difference.
A friend who lives in one of the poorer suburbs in Cape Town told me that he now supported the DA as it is much better than the ANC. Their administration, he said, is much better than it was under the ANC. He conceded though, after some prodding by me, that his service charges had increased substantially. After much thought he was unable to come up with one single thing that had changed to improve the quality of his life or that of his neighbourhood.
I agreed with my friend that the ANC leadership of Cape Town and the Western Cape was a mess. So to teach the ANC a lesson he voted against it and now his wallet feels the pain. Or maybe he and people like him, find comfort in paying more for the same, the same with a bit of bling that is.
The only upside of the DA vs the ANC as I see it is that the DA is less tolerant of corruption (and therefore its corrupt cadres) where that corruption moves into the open public arena.
Well done, Maggs! That shows rare courage.
Emotionally committed to staying on the Titanic.
Maggs, how do states become failed states?
@ Brett
“how do states become failed states?”
It depends on which failed states you are referring to.
Somalia is perhaps the best example that comes to mind.
As far as I understood, that was a consequence of Ethopia, in the early 70s leaning towards communism under Haile Selassie. The West led by the US, it is alleged, set up a puppet leader, Mohammed Said Barre, in Somalia – which led to the complete social and political “restructuring” of that country. Barre was given money and military hardware and support to prop up his regime. The little kingdoms and social order that made up Somalia were no more.
The “communist threat” that was Ethopia collapsed under the long drought and famine (seven years or longer I think). With the retreating threat, the US and its allies abandoned Barre who then disappeared into exile somewhere, leaving behind leaderless armed troops and extensive military hardware.
And so the failed state began.
But you may have different ideas on what failed states are.
Apartheid South Africa?
Rhodesia?
Communist Russia?
Haiti?
Rwanda?
Maggs, I am going to touch on three things here: first, I will pick up on a point that came up during the course of our exchange; second, I will venture something that I would like you to consider. Finally, I am going to pick a bit of a fight
As regards the first of my objects in this post, you make out that you are unclear as to how I conclude that voting against the ANC is better than trying to rid it of its ills. Michael and I have both mentioned to you in the past that the ANC is, in our view, most unlikely to jettison its questionable status quo unless its members come to believe that the party could lose ground at the polls if it does not clean up its act.
Secondly, I am well aware of your sensitivity to the ANC. And as you will know, I did stopped short of calling you the epitome of a potential swing voter. What I did put forward is that in my opinion, you are as close to a possible swing voter as we have seen on a blog whivh is apparently replete with vehement political partisanship. I base my view on the fact that despite your affinity for the ANC, you (a) mention many of its failings and (b) voice at least some dissatisfaction with it.
Thirdly, at January 12 19:38, you say ‘(o)f course I agree that such loyalty is injurious to the country in the long term – the solution is for the opposition parties to up their act; and who knows, maybe I, and others like me, will be tempted to listen to them’. If you are seriously going to reject out of hand your dorment potential to become a swing voter, then given (a) the core thrust of the forgoing quote and (b) the general tone of a good portion of the exchange between you, Michael and me, I am going to accuse you of one the more prevalent and vexing relational transgressions: you are seriously communicating mixed signals. Let me break down to you a hypothetical scenario: person A is a young ladd who is absolutely smitten when it comes to the lovely lass who attends the same economics tutorial at Wits. He brings his best game to bear when courting her. On one day she hangs on his every word and even intimates quite clearly that she would be interested in a date. But the day thereafter, she shuns the poor boy – like a leper she treats him.
Maggs, please ignore the last post. I accidently clicked on submitt.
I am going to touch on three things here: first, I will pick up on a point that came up during the course of our exchange; second, I will venture something that I would like you to consider. Finally, I am going to pick a bit of a fight
As regards the first of my objects in this post, you make out that you are unclear as to how I conclude that voting against the ANC is better than trying to rid it of its ills. Michael and I have both mentioned to you in the past that the ANC is, in our view, most unlikely to jettison its questionable status quo unless its members come to believe that the party could lose ground at the polls if it does not clean up its act.
Secondly, I am well aware of your sensitivity to the ANC. And as you will know, I did stop short of calling you the epitome of a potential swing voter. What I did put forward is that in my opinion, you are as close to a possible swing voter as we have seen on a blog which is apparently replete with vehement political partisanship. I base my view on the fact that despite your affinity for the ANC, you (a) mention many of its failings and (b) voice at least some dissatisfaction with it.
Thirdly, at January 12 19:38, you say ‘(o)f course I agree that such loyalty is injurious to the country in the long term – the solution is for the opposition parties to up their act; and who knows, maybe I, and others like me, will be tempted to listen to them’. If you are seriously going to reject out of hand your dormant potential to become a swing voter, then given (a) the core thrust of the forgoing quote and (b) the general tone of a good portion of the exchange between you, Michael and me, I am going to accuse you of one the more prevalent and vexing relational transgressions: you are seriously communicating mixed signals. Let me break down to you a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my gripe: person A is a young lad who is absolutely smitten when it comes to the lovely lass who attends the same economics tutorial at Wits. And consequently, he brings his best game to bear when courting her. On one day she hangs on his every word and even intimates quite clearly that she would be interested in a date. But the day thereafter, she shuns the poor boy – like a leper she treats him. I think a reasonable analysis of this regrettable circumstance may well disclose some saddening results: for a start, the young woman may be in denial. Second, that young man may well have suffered an injustice. Third, a core insight into the factual complex in question could be that our girl (a) sees the sense in giving our hero a chance, (b) a fairly substantial part of her may well want to and (c), she does no favours for either herself or that good lad by denying the dictates of common sense.
An article on City Press, 10-01-2010
By Veli Mbele
Title: Gutless black leaders fail to promote black interests
“I recently attended an award ceremony organized by the state and had the rare privilege of sharing the main table with some fairly senior government officials, including a minister who was the keynote speaker on the night.
As we began to dig into the main course the honourable minister complained that he was getting tired of presiding over award ceremonies where black people were not among the recipients.
While I shared his concern I nevertheless wondered why the honourable minister elected to make this valid observation during supper but neglected to include it in his official address. I thought to myself that as a senior member of the ruling party he should not have been scared to highlight societal paradoxes at such occasions.
There are a number of factors that account for this cowardice among many of our black leaders.
First, many of them have sheepishly embraced a flawed nonracial reconciliation in an atmosphere in which blacks are the majority numerically, but continue to be minority in terms of economic ownership.
This thinking is not just unscientific it is also a formula for greater social and political upheaval.
Second, for a long time now our black leaders have been afraid to raise critical issues relating to land redistribution, wealth redistribution and rising inequality. And when some in the historically left parties raised these issues in the past they were branded as “anti-reconciliation” or anti-progress’.
But it should perhaps not be surprising that many in the ruling black elite have been reluctant to raise issues relating to economic reconciliation in our country. Many of them have business interest in the very corporate entities that have designed sophisticated schemes to undermine South Africa’s economic transformation. To expect them to make public pronouncements that could jeopardize their “investments” is perhaps a folly.
Interestingly, though, there has been frantic debate in the ruling alliance on issues relating to inequality in South African and this is perhaps because the gloss on our country’s rainbow countenance has long waned. In this connection an interesting view has also emerged that the youth wing of the ruling party has now assumed the role of champion of the black working class. And give their own ideological tendencies and social practice it is difficult to imagine how a youth wing – so hopelessly dependent on apparent party that is unapologetically non-socialist – can fulfill this task.
The fact that the leadership of the ANC youth league periodically hurls ideologically inept obscenities at capitalism doesn’t necessarily make them radicals or socialist.
Third our country’s constitution was not design (sic) to enable any ruling party to effect meaningful economic transformation. In addition to this our black leaders have become uncritical worshippers of the Constitution.
A constitution is nothing but a set of fundamental rules that govern society. However, in reality constitutions, just like the law, are not ideologically neutral and therefore serve the dominant economic and political discourse. To put it differently, in practice constitutions favour certain social classes above others. And to expect our constitution to benefit all social classes equally is both ahistorical and acontextual.
Fourth, the white liberal establishment has succeeded in intimidating our country’s black political leaders to the point that black leaders have voluntarily banned the word “black” when expressing their views on issues that confront black people. Instead they have opted for nebulous formulations like “previously disadvantaged individuals” or “the marginalized”. When they do mention the word “black” they make sure it is accompanied by “white” so as to avoid offending the white section of our population. Listening to some of our black leaders speak one gets the impression that after 1994 black people become (sic) extinct. To add to the intimidation of black leaders, with the help of the white liberal media, parties like the DA have also introduced a scare tactic called the “race card” into our political vocabulary. This has been highly effective in emasculating critical discourse on the radical and class character of South African society after 1994.
Five, without suggesting that the incessant report on scandals involving black public figures are a creation of the white media or that white leaders are untouched by scandal, it has, however, become patently clear that the white – owned media has deliberately elected to concentrate more on the personal idiosyncrasies of black public figures. In fact, some media organizations consciously go out of their way to dig up dirt on prominent black public figures and in some cases they succeed in damaging their reputations.
And in the majority of cases this twaddle is equated with critical national debate and tends to obscure the real day to day issues that the poor black working class is grappling with. Given the historical role of the media it would be dangerous to assume that all these scandals are revealed in the “public interest”. This doesn’t imply that black public figures shouldn’t be criticized. As a result of all this over the past 14years, critical policy discourse on the quality of black life has been almost non-existent, which partly explains why there has been a simultaneous growth in inequality and discontent in the black community. To illustrate this point the recent release of the official matric results shows that black learners are in the minority when our country’s top performing learners are honoured. And very few black leaders will make the point that in order to get a true reflection of the performance of our public education system we need to look beyond the systemic issues and examine the historical, racial and class factors that have an impact on the performance of learners.
Therefore, when we say the number of unemployed people has rises (sic) we are actually saying the number of unemployed black young people has risen. When we say the number of households headed by children is growing, we are actually saying the number households headed by black children is growing. Or when we say the country’s prison population is exploding we are actually saying the number of black people who are entering our jails is growing. This is the real character of our social ills and this is the case because in the South African context race continues to be a class determinant. The minority races do not just dominate us in education. They dominate us in science, economic ownership and many other critical sphere (sic) of human endeavour. This is not because the minority races have a monopoly over intelligence. It is mainly because they have a deeper sense of group identity and solidarity than blacks. Therefore, until blacks develop a much higher level of consciousness we will continue to be consumers of what others produce instead of producers. And while blacks have may have acquired some degree of freedom and manage the state in the economic and academic context, they remain consumers and underproductive people who continue to be servants of the minority races.
Whether we realize it or not blacks as a group are in trouble and no amount of seductive political claptrap can change this fact. Black issues have become an afterthought in our country and blacks urgently need a leadership that can genuinely champion their cause and ensure that their concerns and aspirations are placed at the centre of our national discourse without fear or compromise. Are the current political parties that purport to be black oriented capable of providing this kind of leadership?”
Mbele is president of the Azanian Youth Organisation
Disclaimer: This article was forwarded to me by email by a friend and I could not trace the original article on City Press official website. If any of you fellow bloggers can, please post the link here…
Maggs, how was Apartheid South Africa a failed state?
Failed states are the consequence of a long chain of bad decisions with all the decision-makers along the chain shouting down their critics.
Decisions can be obviously, objectively bad even before the dotted line is signed.
@Sine,
Thabo Mbeki clearly articulated this 12 years ago. He was factual then as he still is now.
But people labeled him a racist who was undoing Mandela’s so called ‘good’ work. When our leaders lead and we choose not to follow, it is incorrect to blanket our leaders as having failed us. We need to point out those who should have played a supporting role to what Mbeki was trying to achieve, but chose not to in preservation of their so called legacies.
The ‘Country of Two Nations’ speech was, still is, in many ways of more principality than Mandela’s 1994 inauguration speech and anything else Mandela ever said after his release, for that matter.
Here is the link, once more.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/1998/sp980529.html
Our constitution is deficient on the symbolic level: we should have a head of state, like the Queen, the Governor General or the President in some countries, a mainly symbolic function to unify the country at the top, and a Prime Minister who runs the day-to-day affairs of the country. I think JZ would be a meaningful Head of State while someone like Trevor Manuel, a real policy wonk, should lead the government’s daily affairs.
@ Khosi
I have read the speech bro thanks.
There seems to be a lot I do not know about our country and its leaders. It would be fair to myself and the future generations to educate myself so that I may make better formulated opinions and impart greater wealth of information to the future generations and immediately for my own decision-making.
The ANC, UDF and its alliance patners have contributed more than any other formations in the liberation of this country. In that process leading to the negotiations a lot of promises and compromises were made. It is clear today that we fell short in securing a proper transformation for our country. Leaders of the ANC including Mandela, Mbeki and others must accept failure to deliver a total liberation as was expected by the masses. The space for change is getting smaller by the day and all leaders to follow will suffer dearly because of the missed opportunities of the past. The battle inside and outside ANC is rendering the ANC ungovernable. The culture that has prevailed since 94 under the last 3 presidents must be condemned and thrown in the nearest dustbin. Zuma and Mbeki should have never been allowed to contest and split the organisation the way it happened in Polokwane. The ANC will pay dearly for allowing unhealthy , opportunistic and self-serving lobbying inside the organisation. The winners and loosers of Polokwane are still at play despite the outcome of that conference. Zuma will never be comfortable in his seat and neither will he be able to be in full control of the state and the party. Snr ANC members are buisy jostling for opportunities and aligning themselves with the relevant camps. Staying alive or elected is the least what the new leadership can achieve. Today is the first day of school after disastrous results and there is no new plan on the table. Interest groups and opposition parties pushed JZ to committ to little or no change of policies such that he has no room to manouvre. He is just piloting an aircraft that is going through turbelence without a campus.
It is not suprising that he has little to offer in these interviews because there is nothing to change. He is being held at ransom by his own members who are not pulling their weights at various positions. Just like Elvis fans who believe that he is still alive or Khoza’s fans that he will TAKE OVER safa again, there are those who still think the TM/cOPE/NATIONALIST will take over the ANC.
JZ is not making this easier on himself by not identifying quick wins and sort them out. He is falling into the same trap of hiding behind the collective.
Good Luck to him!!!!!!!!
Despite all of this I will still vote ANC and I believe these challenges can be fixed. I will not vote DA or split my vote to a an irrelevant sideshow that may bring coalitions via the back door. Zimbabwe is a case in point where the split of votes left Mugabe IN POWER.
I me
Leigh, what if that kid forgot to brush his teeth?
@ Khosi
What happens to a dream deferred? It EXPLODES.
Good quote from TM speech.
@Sine
Good artcle from Mbele. Yes it was in the City Press.
Another Sarah Ppalin interview that can be compared to that with JZ. http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/b99055c39b534eed9f357ebaea2a8757/13-01-2010-10-20/Palin_comes_out_swinging
However, comparison stops at the sheer stupidity of both interviewees. Jacob Zuma is not half as comely and sexy as is Sarah Palin. Or does his many wives think differently?
I meant to say: “Or does each of his many wives think differently?”
@Gwebecimele
Read Mbeki’s ‘two nations’ speech plus anything he said and did on transformation, and you will see that he is one person who must be absolved from transformation failures. He pointed the way, we did not follow. Why blame him?
@ Khosi
I may be a political infant but as far as I am aware, it was in Mbeki’s tenure as President that the economic inequality between blacks and whites exacerbated. If he did not overtly or covertly advocate for such, then he allowed it to mushroom under his watch as President. Who must those suffering currently blame if the man who was the Head of State during the times of difficulty is to be absolved?
@Sine,
Mbeki never had the political currency to enforce transformation. Jacob Zuma does not have the political currency to enforce transformation. Mandela moved the pendulum to much to the side that ensures that the status quo remains.
The matric result are the exact reflection of what our Gini coefficient is. When you see those white and indian kids with seven A’s being paraded, that is our transformation being paraded.
I say let us not blame him because, he showed us the way, he did. We did not follow. We refused to follow. The ‘privileged’ refused to follow. Them, armed with their newspapers and bbc’s trashed Mbeki to the point where even blacks were doubting the validity of the way he said we should follow.
@Khosi
TM speeches are great but his activities are questionable.
I was also impressed by his speech at the Nelson Mandela lecture and indeed he was brilliant man.
How did he miss that of the 1.5 million kids who started school 12 yrs ago only 0.5 mill will sit for matric exams? I see you accuse us of not following him but why did he continued going if he was on an aloof trip? Is a leader not expected to find his people and lead them to a shared destination?
Maggs, I did not say that your non-support of the DA was racially based, not directly, anyway. I said rather that I thought you could not support the DA because its leadership was white — entailing that it would never attract majority support.
But I am mystified by your claim that you support the ANC on “ideological” grounds.
You mention the Freedom Charter. But I have the impression that the ANC had more or less abandoned the broadly socialist aspirations thereof. (I think that one of the few respects in which Cmd Malema is quite right is in his suggestion that the Charter envisages, at minimum, the nationalisation of the mines. As far as I am aware, such nationalisation is not part of current ANC policy. Or am I wrong?)
That being so, I am curious as to what features there are of the ANC’s platform that make it ideologically more attractive than any of the opposition parties. On the most important issue – macroeconomics — it seems to me there is, as a matter of practice, little space between the DA and Manuel’s macroeconomic approaches.
True, the DA is more “conservative” in some other regards. Affirmative action is one obvious example. But my impression is that parties like the ID, UDM and PAC offer policies that are in some regards closer to the Freedom Charter’s ideals than the current ANC.
So, my question remains: on what precise ideological (as opposed to organisational, emotive, personality, or rhetorical basis), is the ANC the most attractive single party?
@Gwebecimele,
Take this scenario. If you are hired by a board to run a loss making company as CEO. You, the CEO, then tell the board that for this company to be profitable A, B, C needs to happen. Some board members use every power they have to ensure that D, E, F happens and indeed D, E, F happens. Some time down the line the company is still loss making, who is to blame?
As superficial as my example sounds, that is exactly what happened in this country and indeed in Zimbabwe.
The success of those matriculants was directly tied to the German example he made mention of.
To put it bluntly, white people have never attended the transformation party. The reconciliation party is too much of a rock concert for them.
@ Khosi
“When you see those white and indian kids with seven A’s being paraded, that is our transformation being paraded.”
We have to give Pres Mbeki credit where credit is due. He made brave efforts to get white teachers out of our schools, granting whites generous packages to pack their bags. But he did not finish the job. Tragically, the teaching corp remains untransformed. Many white teachers remain in the classrooms, subtly undermining blacks’ self confidence, imposing English, and filling their heads with insidious non-African values!
Surely Pres Zuma is not our Sarah Palin, but rather our own OJ Simpson? Look at the similarities, both charming and popular with the masses,both charged with a crime where support was split along racial lines. Both obviously guilty, yet one acquitted / charges withdrawn because of their popularity with the masses(OJ jury too afraid to convict!)
I would prefer Sarah Palin over JZ as a pres any day of the week! A true leader leads from the front,and people will instinctively follow a good leader.A true leader is not pushed into the front by those behind him/her.JZ probably knows deep down he is an intellectual dormouse, I think he is the Pres by default,because it was the only way to stay out of prison ,not because he really wanted the top job.
@ Khosi
I think TM was one of the most powerful and influential President in the world. You potray him as a weak leader so that you can blame people around him. Should we also spare JZ the criticism and blame the people around him?
TM was fully incharge of his cabinet, party and parliament.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/7ad6d7305a434a91bd558650ef631b41/13-01-2010-01-24/Zero_pass_rate_no_surprise
Clear example of systematic failure of our education system in the last 16 yrs.
@Gwebecimele,
The meaning of your name fascinates me. You see, as a young man I used to head my father cows during school holidays and some weekends. For some reason, I find your name inconceivable yet believable. I digress.
You are right, once more. Mbeki was powerful and to an extent he still has more power, around the world, than the many sitting presidents. You see, a young Mbeki under Tambo, is believed to have learned the skill of using power he does not possess. But, all of that power was not to the extent that he could wipe out the feeling of superiority that white people claim on black people.
@Gwebs
I quote
“Unlike the German people, we have not made the extra effort to generate the material resorces we have to invest to change the condition of the black poor more rapidly than is possible if we depend solely on severely limited public funds, whose volume is governed by the need to maintain certain macro-economic balances, and the impact of a growing economy.
What this throw up, inevitably, is the question – are the relatively rich, who, as a result of an apartheid definition, are white, prepared to help underwrite the upliftment of the poor, who as a result of an apartheid definition, are black “
So many words, round and round and round again.
Isn’t it really quite simple actually, a)what works, and benefits the people? b) what doesn’t?
@ Khosi on Gwebecimele
LOL! His name, which means “judging/convicting with eyes closed”, is indeed fascinating. I hope he does not follow it when he formulates opinions here.
On your discussion with Gwebs on the power wielded by Mbeki, I guess it all goes down to the “collective leadership of the ANC”. Maybe when the man decided, against all expectations and instructions, to develop his own brain and started doing things as he sees fit and to do away with all those who did not agree with his newly-found independence as a President, the collective decided it was time to drop him since he was beginning to “endanger their investments” by tackling the issues affecting black people more directly. However, until the man tells us what really happened and why he really gave in to the Polokwane outlaws who recalled him, we will never know nor will we ever truly absolved him from liability. His adversaries will continue to act with impunity whilst hiding behind “institutional failures” which have their roots in the Mbeki era. Why he does not trust the public enough with the truth is still beyond my comprehension, but then again, I did say that “I may be a political infant” who has a very long way to go.
@ Khosi
Ooh!! I luv my name and those who know the meaning will luv it too. I am also an ex-herdboy and I am glad to have been exposed to that kind of life and I also plan to send my kids through that journey. Although white people invented BEE to confuse black elite but I find it hard to accept that we could not come up with anything better to drive proper transformation. TM and his cabinet passed the BEE legislation without resistance and the worst part is that we failed to give it teeth such controlling procurement in govt and fast tracking AA. Instead black elites are the bouncers outside the Capitalist/Insesitive Club.
Yes I agree with TM speech we should have followed the German example or at least procure services from black firms to enable the creation of black wealth. Had we created a black entepreneur fund instead of Arms deal, World Cup and other wasteful expenditures we would be in a much better position.
Even today, if Blacks can just buy from other Blacks this country can be transformed in less than 10 yrs.
Khosi – “As superficial as my example sounds, that is exactly what happened in this country and indeed in Zimbabwe.”
By equating the leadership of Zim with the leadership of RSA under TM you say exactly what we feared all along – TM’s government did not act against the oppression of Bob Mugabe because they were ButiButi.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 13, 2010 at 10:19 am
Mikhail – This time around I see method in your ‘trashing’ (‘Critical Legal Studies’) approach.
khosi – “You see, as a young man I used to head my father cows during school holidays and some weekends.”
Eeough!?!
@ Sine
Thanks for volunteering the meaning of my name.
How I wish that each member of the TM cabinet and top six who would tell all and enlighten us on whether they fully supported all decisions and are willing and ready to accept responsibility for those decisions.
I guess the ANC needs a TRC.
@Sine,
I am afraid you put too much legalese in Gwebecimele’s name. Let me break it down for you.
As you have noticed the name has two parts. 1)Gweba 2) Ecimele. In isiZulu, when you concatenate two word, where the first word ends with a vowel and the second word begins with a vowel- you lose the ending vowel of the first word. So in this case the result would be Gweb’ecimele.
Let break do the mean of each word.
1) Gweba – it is an act, when one who is heading livestock, corrects livestock that are straying away from a chosen grazing spot.
2) ecimele – correct, that is with eyes closed.
Now you can imagine the oxymoron(almost) in that name, loosely translated to “correct straying livestock with ones eyes closed”!
@Anonymouse,
Do not twist things. That was said in relation to the lack of transformation and the unwillingness of the privileged to commit to transformation.
I, too, herded animals as a youth. My father kept a flock of ducks on a smallholding outside Ljubljana.
Hence my last name.
Mikhail – I see you also ‘herded’ animals as a youth – Khosi used to ‘head’ them.
Leigh says:
January 13, 2010 at 7:50 am
Eish Leigh. I side with the young lady. The excitable oke needs to sit on some ice. Tough for him if his hormone levels are above his IQ.
Re : “you are seriously communicating mixed signals” – interesting view but it’s really clutching at straws.
BTW I am happy to say publicly what I think is wrong in the ANC and to hope that fixing up will happen – I don’t hold the view that the the family’s dirty linen should not be hung in the open.
I am unconcerned with what happens with other political parties unless it’s to illustrate some or other relevant point in these exchanges.
Khosi, those “relatively rich” white people you talk about pay 60 cents out of every Rand they earn to the state in the form of tax to ensure a better life for all – and get nothing in return for it!
Whose fault is it that ‘nothing has changed’? People like my dad who supposedly retired, but now work again to supplement the pension they thought would be adequate for their old age? And, now pay tax on that income too?
Shameless, is what it is! Whose fault is it that ‘nothing has changed’? But the ANC, which has mismanaged and looted for 15 years? Now you want to put the same prodigals in charge of land and wealth redistribution.
Brilliant business plan.
@ Khosi
In Xhosa Gwebecimele’s name means exactly what I said. I cannot dispute its meaning in Zulu since I do not know. However, he seems to have counternanced the Xhosa meaning I have explained above…
Good post Prof.
While I find your analysis correct and interesting, I find the expectation contained therein a bit misplaced.
Prior to Polokwane, the pro-JZ group pronounced themselves very clearly that they did not like intellectuals. Accordingly, they recalled the intellectual one – from Mbewuleni and Sussex – and replaced him with the not-so intellectual one – from Nkandla and university of life – that is comrade JZ. By the way, one of his gripe with regards to how NEC meetings were conducted under Mbeki was that they were highly intellectualized wherein if you propose a particular position you had to justify why where he was found wanting. They did the same with the election of Julius Malema as the president of the youth league to put matters beyond doubt that the era of intellectuals was over and also as a proof that you do not need formal education to be a leader and a president of the country like South Africa. And they continue to do so by subliminally silencing the intellectuals and voices of reasons while promoting kindergartens.
Based on the above, it is clear that intellectual ability was not one of the attributes they required for one to be an ANC leader and ultimately the president of the country. Instead, it is the lack of intellectual ability they so dearly required which they found in abundance in JZ. And JZ, in the interview under review like in other interviews before, did not disappoint. He actually performed above expectation.
Otherwise why would one plant cabbages and expect to harvest apples?
As for possibility of him being recalled, once again, one would have to grasp the real intention of the post-Polokwane leadership group both in the ANC and in government is beyond the rhetoric we are daily being fed with. And if you ask me, as long as the man is delivering on, inter alia, job creation – not of the 500 000 jobs (or is it opportunities?) that have not been realized to date due to recession, but rather of the REAL jobs http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091213073916844C598603 for all who know and believe that he is neither corrupt nor criminal and are as a result prepared to die for him, which real jobs are immune from the impact of recession – forget about him being recalled for this embarrassment to the ANC, for it is the same ANC that shielded him from prosecution in relation to his corruption charges not so long ago.
Gwebecimele says:
January 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“Although white people invented BEE to confuse black elite ”
Im very interested in why you think that white capitalist invinted a racket designed to save the status quo??
When in truth much of Thabo Mbeki’s thinking on racial transfers was influenced by the Malaysian policy of ethnically based economic quotas.
But im also confused: “Yes I agree with TM speech we should have followed the German example” but then you say “Even today, if Blacks can just buy from other Blacks this country can be transformed in less than 10 yrs.”
why would u want to follow a white mans example to help blacks with blacks?
” Had we created a black entepreneur fund instead of Arms deal, World Cup and other wasteful expenditures we would be in a much better position.”
I really dont think the world cup is a wastefull expenditure…from this world cup South Africa’s infrastructure has been redesigned and revamped. as well as income coming in from over seas due to nations wanting to see their teams play, after that the rugby, im sure the cricket and soccer have new staduims to play in. The world cup is actually a great thing for south africa, its also highlighted security issues within the country, which are trying to be addressed. The world cup has shaking south africa to get with the programme and realise its part of a global village that wants to attract the europeans the austalians the americans the south americans, the arab world and the rest of africa to do business with. It is the best platform for business and to attract investment.
@ Anonymouse
What to you is a repulsive practice may be an important ritual in other cultures.
Khosi, here is a conspiracy theory you might look at:
Those White and Indian kids with 7 A’s worked their asses off to get them because they saw that Christelike Nasionale Opvoeding skilled their older brothers and sisters to the extent that they could walk into jobs right across the world?
Take some responsibility for a change. It is the world view that you subscribe to that caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater, that makes Bantu Education compare like a shining beacon next to ‘liberation-before-ecucation-education.
Michael Osborne says:
January 13, 2010 at 10:03 am
I am not sure what informs the Youth League’s determination to nationalise mines. The State and by extension the people already own “the mineral wealth beneath the soil”.
Did Mark Twain say “A mine is a hole in the ground with a liar at the top”?
I suspect that somewhere in these “debates” the interests of mine owners is being advanced ahead of the interests of the country – anyway, I reckon that it’s unlikely that nationalisation of mines will happen. A more important debate will be around beneficiation.
Good for the DA if they have a well thought through macro economic policy – all that’s left is for them to find someway to implement it
.
Again, I am not too interested in what other parties stand for – but Aunty Pat has to be credited for some of her sterling work in exposing corruption and reducing cellphone costs at the very least.
Not all in the Freedom Charter is achievable – for example “Rent and prices shall be lowered, food plentiful and no-one shall go hungry” is really no more than wishful thinking.
But it certainly sets a sound basis for the development of political ideology.
Brett Nortje says:
January 13, 2010 at 8:05 am
I understand better why Dworky wrote “Brett, that political taxonomist of note”!
@Maggs
I have a feeling you (and I) are going to be disappointed. I have a feeling that there has always been a tension between black nationalists and the left in the ANC. And each time it has come to the fore the Nationalist one.
At Polokwane, Cosatu and the SACP were useful allies to unseat Mbeki, but with him gone the left is expendable and so is its legacy, like then Freedom charter.
As the South African industrial base continues to decline so will Cosatu’s power.
We are heading for a situation where we have a typical predatory elite, which are kept in power by virtue of destitution and the fact that the middleclass and working class is powerless and becoming less so.
I meant to say: “And each time it has come to the fore the nationalists won”.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 13, 2010 at 14:50 pm
Yeah.
The declining industrial base, whether in absolute or relative terms is worrying.
The nationalisation debate taking precedence and the beneficiation debate being quashed, certainly indicates the existence already and strong influence of of the “typical predatory elite”.
@ Maggs
“Not all in the Freedom Charter is achievable – for example “Rent and prices shall be lowered, food plentiful and no-one shall go hungry” is really no more than wishful thinking”
Maggs, it is the despicable cynicism of those like you that makes progress impossible. Not only will rents and prices be lowered, but also: “There will be peace and friendship.”
Just wait and see!
Hey Dworky,
“There will be peace and friendship.”
I am a true believer after I witnesses the blossoming and enduring friendship between you and Brett.
You guys qualify to join the MAS!
Gwebecimele says:
January 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“I find it hard to accept that we could not come up with anything better to drive proper transformation”.
It seems that we did.
Er, sort of!
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5310550
Maggs, we have yet to come up with it. And in the future the proof in the pudding, whether negative or positive.
“Zuma’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the president did not mean to mislead the public during a television interview on eTV on Sunday when he said Shaik had not applied. Zuma had meant to say he could not comment as he has not yet seen the application”.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-13-presidency-confirms-shaik-pardon
Maggs: Spin, spin, spinning around… do we ever truly learn?
Maggs, did I mention that MAS and FOM are merging?
MASFOM’s inaugural meeting: Ferndale, 27 Jan.
Would you do the opening prayer?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 13, 2010 at 21:15 pm
I found just the person to do the opening prayer for you.
Especially the “There will be peace and friendship” part.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20100114042631178C167105
@ Chris McD
Please read Moeletsi Mbeki book then you will understand the origins of BEE.
Blacks buying from Blacks is not a German solution but my proposal. It is something that is already happenning amongst other races too just ask anyone who works in a sales environment.
Enjoy your World Cup Chris. Lets us host an international party in our shack just to prove to the world that we can. I am yet to see evidence that there are benefits to 3rd world country hosting a Soccer World Cup. Read Andrew Jennings articles.
Hope you will still be vocal after june 2010.
http://www.transparencyinsport.org/
Just for you Chris.
Gwebecimele says:
January 14, 2010 at 8:11 am
Horrifying!
The most disappointing thing about this whole debate is that there are still socialists around who believe in a zero sum total. You know, the old Fabian idea that the pie is finite, containing only so many slices…
Reconciliation: Nett black loss, white gain.
Land redistribution, wealth redistribution – got to take it from them whiteys!
How ridiculous.
@ Brett
Money is like energy, it can neither be created nor destroyed but just changes from one form to the other and changes hands unless you are Idi Amin (print more money). There is no money that will flow to the black hands without taking some from elsewhere or redirecting what is due to others.
Anything other than that is a false hope.
Nice justification of theft, looting and plunder there, Gwebecimele!
It is also fundamentally wrong. That is not how growth works.
Your neighbour steals 30 head of cattle from you. A year later you find out where he lives now. How many cattle does he owe you?
@ Gwebecimele is right.
There is no such thing as economic growth.
It is all a zero-sum game.
Take the huge rise in income of the American middle class in the period 1945-60.
That all came out of the pockets of the American economic elite!
(That’s why the American elite became so much poorer in that period.)
What about the 50% of the African American community who have made a decisive break with poverty, Dworky? Whose pockets did they dive into?
@ Brett
How sad that an accomplished political taxonomist, like you, should remain the prisoner of neo-classical economics!
@ Brett
Where do you get your figures from, Brett?
Everyone knows that Black income in the U.S. has fallen 425% since 1960.
Any benefit for one group is always at the expense of another.
Friedman, Keynes, Marshall, Samuelson — all wrong.
Viva Fabianism, Engels, viva!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 14, 2010 at 14:25 pm
“Friedman, Keynes, Marshall, Samuelson — all wrong”.
Hey Dworky – you left out Greenspan – “a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets”.
Ah now I get it, he was talking about the mortgage market in the US, not racial imbalances in South Africa.
Thanks for the lesson!
@ Leigh and Michael Osborne.
Praise the Lord, I have seen the light.
I am now inspired by COPE, who seem to have solutions to the Eskom crisis.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-14-cope-public-sentiment-against-eskom-price-hike
And the DA too is not too bad.
“‘It has become increasingly clear that the president is considering granting pardons in violation of the non-binding guidelines set by the Ministry of Justice in 2004,’ Selfe said.”
Hey Dworky – I have not got my hearing aid on yet – any idea what “non-binding” means especially in the context of “in violation of the non-binding guidelines”?
Dworky, you collectivists are a tax on my nerves!
Maggs, you really should not go there! The liberalisation of the US mortgage market is the consequence of pressure by the Clintonistas. The credit balloon, largely thanks to Robert Rubin.
Kurt Richeburg predicted a collapse ages ago. He said the antidote was spending on infrastructure, the real engine of growth. Meanwhile, back in South Africa, we had Trevor Manuel, who watches over state finances like it comes out his own pocket, and we have massive infrastructure spending thanks to the World Cup. The ANC enacts the NCA, which at the time I told anyone who would listen was crazy, a massive inhibitor of growth.
The Lord has been good to this country.
Brett Nortje says:
January 14, 2010 at 18:58 pm
“Kurt Richeburg predicted a collapse ages ago”.
Michel de Nostredame also did.
Oh well, people just don’t listen.
‘The Lord has been good to this country.’
When the government supposedly makes bad decisions, it is the ANC’s fault.
But when the government makes inspired decisions, all credit goes to the All Mighty!
Give me a break.
@ Maggs
Nope, sorry. I do not know what “non-binding” could mean in this context.
What I do know is this: There is probably an element of RACIST HLOPHEPHOBIA implicit in Selfe’s little semantic game.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 14, 2010 at 21:17 pm
“Nope, sorry. I do not know what ‘non-binding’ could mean in this context”.
Could it be that it means “binding”?
p.s. thanks for suggesting the hearing aid – I can see much better now.
@ Maggs
With our ex-Minister of Energy at the helm of Cope, I would keep Eskom away from that party.
@ Brett
Judging by the amount of corruption and wasteful expenditure, it either Trevor had holes in his pocket or he left some for the BMW.
It seems as if World Cup BABALAAAS is on our shores earlier than expected. Domestic flights are ridiculously priced, slow sales of tickets, British fans might out number Bafana fans and fans prefer staying in GAUTENG ( leaving all the the accomodation in small towns unbooked).
The big promise is unfolding and manna is about to fall from heaven.
Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=91342
Thanks Trevor where have you been. I do not think Comrade Joel would like these comments after being at the helm of Strategy and Policy Co-ordination Unit.
This unit has reported to TM since his days as Deputy Prez and he moved it to the Presidency when he became the President.
It looks like they were doing everything else other than what they expected to do.
Gwebecimele says:
January 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Either he’s had an epiphany or is a real life Rip van Winkel.
Just like his past sleeping partner in the reparations matter.
Eish!
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/tinyikosammaluleke/2010/01/18/issues-that-arouse/
Very good article from a smart analyst
Hey Dworky – are you related to Travis Copeland?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3095&art_id=iol1263892696702S313
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=91633
It seems as if even the “best” President in the world is facing some rejection. The polls are indicating that support for Obama is dwindling and I hope this a wake up call for our own locals.
Does anyone know if President Zuma really said this during the rape trial?
“it was against Zulu culture for a man to leave a sexually aroused woman unsatisfied”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906000,00.html
Gwebecimele says:
January 19, 2010 at 13:37 pm
On “issues that arouse” it sure seems like our President is captive.
The Sowetan comment says it most effectively.
“There is certainly nothing illegal that Zuma is guilty of. We would however be failing in our civic duty if we did not ask if this is the kind of behaviour that is commensurate with our expectations of our head of state.”
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1109904
Eish!
Prof T MALULEKE says:
Terre’Blanche must be smiling contentedly au fond de la terre blanche. What with the AWB faithful, all in uniform, solemnly saluting his coffin, children waving the old flag and the crowd singing the anthem of Terre’Blanche’s lost and still hoped for country? All of this in the presence of the country’s top cop and other senior government official! All of this in a week when no less than President Jacob Zuma, in a hastily arranged recorded TV address to the nation, read out a statement calling Terre’Blanche a “leader of (his) standing” — did I hear that correctly? Since then Malema has become more belligerent and more outrageous — if that is at all possible. In this short period, the ANC has moved from metaphorical struggle songs, to circumspective singing of the same (whatever that means), to the widely reported presidential reprimand of Malema and more recently, Malema’s own return reprimand of the president.
Throughout all these, I have seen signs of a nation in desperation and in what psychiatrist Frantz Fanon would have called a “nervous condition”. There has been hype, hysteria, phobia, frantic action, reaction, over-reaction and waves of successive national panic attacks. Such has been the nation’s desperation for reason from leadership, we have lapped up every sign of wisdom emanating from the side of our leaders. Steve Hofmeyr’s vicious closed letter not just to Malema but to all of us numbed us into deafening silence.
When Gwede called for circumspection we applauded enthusiastically, even though by the end of his press briefing we were not too sure what exactly he was asking us and the ANCYL to do. When the AWB threatened revenged for the killing of Terre’Blance, we cringed with fear or disgust, you take your pick. When they withdrew their earlier threats we applauded loudly. And when they sang their songs and waved their flags we cringed again. When Zuma reprimanded Malema we outdid ourselves in praise of the leader who has finally spoken. When Malema retorted we gasped. We have become a desperate nation in search for the slightest signs of reason and courage from the people we have elected to lead us and from those who have elected themselves to lead us. We remain hopeful. We remain ready at once to applaud or to gasp — whichever may come next. Ready to applaud. Ready to gasp for air from time to time. Still, we sink, deeper and deeper, into the abyss of leaderlessness.