Sometimes a politician says something that seems so out of sync with what people believe and think or is so hypocritical that one wonders whether he or she was not misquoted. Sometimes the politician says something that is both out of sync with public beliefs and spectacularly hypocritical and then one can only laugh derisively.
Helen Zille said just such a thing this weekend. Commenting on the sex scandal engulfing Lennit Max, who is alleged to have had an affair (or at least sex) with police station clerk Belinda Petersen and is further alleged to have used his position to get Petersen to have sex with him, Zille said:
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this matter has nothing to do with anyone except the Max and Petersen families, their consciences and their respective churches. This does not imply, in any way, that I or the DA condone marital infidelity. We merely believe that private matters that do not have deleterious public consequences are not matters that should be delath with by a political party. Private actions by politicians are a matter of public concern, for example, if a politician does not practice what he preaches.
So, allegations that Max sexually harassed someone who, in effect, works for him is a private matter because Max has never publicly made statements condemning sexual harassment. The DA is a moralistic party who hates marital infidelity but it has nothing to do with them if one of their leaders allegedly cheats on his wife. Come on!
As I said during the Zuma Babygate scandal, I am not a particularly moralistic person and personally I do not think that it is of much consequence when a politician has lots of sex with different men or women – as long as the politician does the job we pay him or her to do and as long as the private actions do not contradict the public utterances of the politician or the policy positions of the party he or she belongs to.
As with Zuma, we do not have all the facts yet. Maybe Max is an angel and “never had sexual relations with that woman” (to quote Bill Clinton). However, it is clear that the allegations that Max used his position as MEC for Community Safety to secure sex with Petersen, is not a private matter. Nor would it have been a private matter if there was indeed a relationship and it was all consensual.
If it is true that Max had sexually harassed Petersen, it would display a shocking lack of commitment to gender equality on his part. As far as I know the DA is against sexual harassment of women, so when allegations of such harassment are made against one of its leaders, the party cannot claim that this has nothing to do with it.
If Max merely had consensual sex with someone who was not his wife, while the DA believes this to be a terrible thing (as Zille claimed this weekend), it would also be a public matter as it would show that Max is a hypocrite. It would show that while endorsing the policies of a party which he wants to serve in a leadership position, he was doing things in private that the party really finds rather distasteful – in its prissy, moralistic way. Just like it would be a public matter if an ACDP leader has sex with a member of the same sex because it would show that the leader’s private actions completely contradicted the political party’s public stance on homosexuality, so Max’s alleged infidelity is a public matter.
If Zille had said the DA believed that marital infidelity was no big deal to the DA as it says nothing about the ability of the leader of the party to do his or her job, I would have agreed with her. Who cares about whether Max sleeps with someone who is not his wife? I don’t. But to try and have it both ways, being all moralistic about “marital infidelity” and then claiming – exactly like President Zuma did only two weeks ago! – that this was a private matter, seems so tone deaf and hypocritical that it takes my breath away.
If the DA claims to espouse certain values and one of its members (and someone aspiring to a leadership position in that party) allegedly fails to adhere to those values, it clearly is not a private matter. It goes to the heart of whether the party practices what it preaches.
Furthermore, the way in which men treat women in our society and the attitudes of men towards woman as sex objects in our society is almost always a public matter – even when one is not a politician of the DA, ANC or ACDP. Our Constitution guarantees gender equality and when any of us behave in a sexist manner – even in private – the media would have any right to report on it.
The DA, who says it supports gender equality (but whose track record has not been great on this, what with Zille appointing an all male cabinet and all), cannot now run away and hide behind the old chestnut that Max’s alleged relationship with a woman is a private matter which is of no consequence to the party. Just like President Zuma cannot pretend that having three wives and cheating on these wives with many other women is not a gender issue that should be up for public scrutiny and debate, so Zille or Max cannot pretend this is private.
A better line of reasoning would have been to hide behind the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra so beloved by politicians. It would have been nonsense, but at least it might have bought the DA some time to try and sort out this mess.
Would you buy a used car from a politician?
@ Pierre.
Lekota was more brazen – he made it plain on eNews last night that the “moral standards” apply only to our President
Pierre, did you ignore the words “unless there is evidence to the contrary,” used by Zille in the statement you quoted?
The obvious sense of the qualifier is surely that, to the extent there is evidence of abuse of power, an “affair” conducted by Mr Max would be a “private” matter.
Michael, first, the DA often (rightly in my opinion) lambasts the ANC for making this kind of statement. When the ANC says “but bring us the evidence, we cannot act on allegations”, the DA shouts and screams about how the affected person should be suspended. Now that Max is being accused they use EXACTLY the same line. Hypocrisy! Second, even if there was no abuse of power involved, the DA should not be able to say that this is a private matter, unless they make it clear that they have no view on infidelity and really do not think its anyone’s business with whom one sleeps. But Zille made it clear the DA really, really does not like infidelity, yet then claims the fact that one of its high profile members is alleged to have been involved in infidelity has nothing to do with the party. It would be like the DA saying, “well we really are against racism and hate it but if Mr X was racist to a helper this has nothing to do with us – its a private matter”. Nee wat. You cannot have ytour cake and eat it.
“would be a “private matter” = “would NOT be a “private matter.”
I was so flabbergasted by Zille’s statement that I’ve been over-analysing it. I think that she meant that the affair was private in the sense that, according to her, there was no evidence of sexual harassment (although that’s not what she said). I think that remains to be seen. In any event, I still wouldn’t agree with her. I was especially gobsmacked by her statement that it was between the parties “and their church”. The behaviour of an elected official is at least as much the business of the electorate as it is of the church! How much weight the electorate should attach to that behaviour is of course debatable.
DEAR Pierre:
1. Surely there must always be SOME evidence of any allegation? That does not mean there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just an uncontradicted statement, for example.
2. I disgaree with you racist analogy. Racism directed at a helper is ipso facto never “private.” But sex can, sometimes, be wholly private.
But we agree re your broader point. The DA must learn about living/dying by the sword.
@ Micheal
Zille said – “If it does not have negative public consequences, such an affair is a private matter that is the concern of the participants, their families, their God and their church.”
Sounds much like the oke who said “I did it for my God, my country and my people” or thereabouts.
Maybe Max will learn from history and proclaim “The devil made me do it”.
Maybe then he will have a heart rendering movie made about him too.
Professor, I’d like to sketch out a possibility here. I’m probably wrong about this but I’ll put it out there anyway. I wonder whether one can distinguish between core party beliefs on the one hand, and non-core party beliefs on the other. The practical relevance of that distinction is this: by virtue of mere membership, a party member can be taken to preach core party beliefs. But the same can’t be said of non-core beliefs. That is, all party members necessarily preach core party beliefs. But as regards non-core views, individual members can hold views that run counter to party subscriptions and still be taken to preach the party essentials as it were.
As regards the allegations about Max, the DA is a political party in a constitutional democracy that has very publicly and vehemently subscribed to constitutional values. The allegation of sexual harassment against Max is, in a sense, an allegation that contemplates the impairment of constitutional values. So in sum, we have reason to believe that Max acted unconstitutionally – thereby betraying a message that all DA members can be taken to preach. And that would, I suppose, make him a hypocrite on this score – if the allegations prove true.
But to turn now to non-core beliefs which, as my post will have thus far suggested, could potentially be defined as beliefs which members do not necessarily have to hold in order to be members: if my rough definitions make some sense, it could be that where a party member’s conduct contradicts a core party belief, he is necessarily guilty of hypocrisy. But where that conduct contradicts a non-core belief, in the absence of that member having supported that belief in his own name, it could well be that that party member would not be guilty of hypocrisy.
Zille has definitely made a horrific and damaging error. How can her response be read other than as hypocrisy? I was stunned when I read her statement in the Cape Times this morning. However, it’s not too late for her to do some damage control. In mature Democracies, even a hint of scandal results in resignations.
Obviously, Max has severely hurt the DA with this nonsense, and then Zille who probably spoke unthinkingly or else in shock, compounds it. It certainly doesn’t help those who wish to see upstanding, moral and ethical blacks advancing in the DA. Pity!
Politics and celebrity may be the ultimate aphrodisiac, however sex in politics is as dangerous as unexploded munitions.
I am a DA supporter but there are times when the party makes such serious gaffes it makes me want to pull my hair out! Three such episodes spring to mind:
1) the all male cabinet and then trying to defend it,
2) holding two celebratory parties for the matriculants who excelled and then trying to explain why the whites were at one and the non-whites at the other,
3) the lack of backbone when one of the party’s own gets accused of sexual infidelity after preaching about the very same thing just last week.
As I see it, the DA are in dire need of a Communications Director – someone who will take charge of the message. I believe the party is delivering in the Western Cape but this is never communicated properly. Instead bumbles like this one make the news instead.
Wake up, Democratic Alliance and start to lead properly.
I’m watching you…
Observer says:
February 15, 2010 at 14:53 pm
“As I see it, the DA are in dire need of a Communications Director – someone who will take charge of the message. I believe the party is delivering in the Western Cape but this is never communicated properly. Instead bumbles like this one make the news instead.”
Oops.
Now you gonna get it from Dworky and Leigh.
Ah – it’s the DA that you refer to, not the ANC.
You’re safe!
Observer is right.
I am utterly convinced that, if only the DA had better communication strategy, people like Maggs, who are loyal ANC supporters, but who nonetheless keep an open mind, and vote with their heads, not their hearts, would switch votes in the next election.
Lennit Max was also accused of harassing his then deputy in the SAPS, Zelda Holtzmann.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 15, 2010 at 16:06 pm
Hey Dworky, I am so inspired with the latest communication that I am gonna dump the ANC.
“The Western Cape provincial government is introducing steps to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace, premier Helen Zille announced on Monday.”
“Our new system will also have checks and balances built in to protect people’s rights against frivolous or vexatious claims in order to prevent abuse of the system,” she said.
http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=nw20100215162818584C401546
Viva the new system. Viva!
@ Dworky.
I love the DA plan.
“Zille praises Zuma speech” – http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article304901.ece
“DA lashes Zuma’s speech” – http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article307997.ece
Viva DA Plan. Viva!
@Maggs
From the very first comment of the “Zille praises Zuma speech” article:
First paragraph of Zille’s statement:
“We were disappointed. As expected, the speech was full of symbolism, but little detail.”
So the title “Zille praises Zuma speech” is a little disingenuous don’t you think?
There’s a difference between praising the speech, and commending certain elements of it while expressing a concern for its broader themes. I fear such subtleties are lost too often on our journalistic fraternity.
This country lacks civil servants as well as political parties. For GodZille to come out and speak such hogwash is not only bad for her party but will allow the ANC ammunition to tell her to stop having double standards when talking about issues that are of relevance. Max is a piblic representative and not a “private” representative. He just like the president is not accountable to his family and church but to the very people of the Western Cape irrespective of which party they voted for. If the D.A plans to be taken seriously by neutral people such as myself, it needs to practice what it preaches before it starts looking like our president and the ruling party. Such statements are the 1′s only kings and dictators will utter because they are not accountable to the people they serve. Just as D.A supporters expect ANC supporters to think with an open mind, could D.A supporters please practice what you preach. You starting to contradict yourself.
Libdem says:
February 15, 2010 at 19:42 pm
“don’t you think?”
Not really. Dworky will confirm.
Here’s more from that article:
“In particular, a great deal of the new policies he alluded to, were straight out of the DA’s election manifesto and various policy documents.
“They were part of a comprehensive DA policy package that I delivered to President Zuma when I met with him in September last year.”
I gather she, in a round about way, praised herself more than she praised Zuma.
And Trollip is thus attacked himself more than he attacked Zuma.
Dworky is right – the DA are brilliant.
Viva brilliance. Viva!
@ Maggs
Well, the ANC, in its occasional right-ward lurches, does often seem to vacuum up DA policies and adopt them as its own, leaving the latter is a position of needing to take credit for some ANC proposals.
The problem is that many of these brilliant ideas cannot be implemented by the ANC, any more than they could have been implemented by the DA, in the unlikely event it ever took the reins of power …
“Is the ANC fit to govern? That is a big question that is hard to answer right now. As far as the basic services of municipal government are concerned, the answer is, however, pretty clear: Municipal services are a mess and the ANC knows it.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article308738.ece
0800 sex addicts annon
Michael Osborne says:
February 16, 2010 at 4:05 am
“The problem is that many of these brilliant ideas cannot be implemented by the ANC, any more than they could have been implemented by the DA, in the unlikely event it ever took the reins of power …”.
So it seems.
The DA regularly speaks to both sides of the coin – and that’s contagious.
The ANC seems to have caught it too!
It’s hugely problematic for the DA, because ultimately in order to break out of the Western Cape they have to provide evidence that they are better than the ANC. Unfortunately, they cannot, because they are not. So they depend upon spin, hogwash and suppression of evidence in the media. But you can’t suppress things forever.
The trick would be for the DA to actually become a better party than the ANC, by adopting better policies and better practices. So long as they instead depend, ultimately, on not being a black party, their support-base remains limited.
And, of course, it would appear that Zille does not have the authority to change anything other than cosmetics; the DA remains the same kind of party it was under Tony Leon, with the same failings. It’s success relies entirely on the deterioration in competence and image of the ANC. But that won’t ultimately prove enough to gain the DA national power — and especially not if, behind the scenes, the DA is being corrupted just as much as the ANC is.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/1054efabacdc442cb9949fd091bda239/16-02-2010-09-09/Max_has_medical_alibi
[...] he was phoning from the Democratic Alliance (DA) offices. Oh dear. He was very, very cross. How could I have written that his boss, Helen Zille, was a hypocrite for claiming the allegations of sexual infidelity and [...]
Libdem says:
February 15, 2010 at 19:42 pm
I read a headline last week “huge support for polygamy”. Upon reading the article I discovered the survey had shown 23% of the respondents were ok with polygamy!
Pierre, I’m a little confused. I thought that the accusations came from someone who had employed Max to defend her in a disciplinary matter and they had come to an arrangement on the fees, potentially a coercive situation but clearly not him abusing his post as MEC. Am I confusing the current allegation with the previous ones? I can’t seem to keep pace with the love lives of politicians these days.
Helen Zille was asked why she has not apologised to JZ as a consequence of these allegations against Leonard Max. Lets assume Max is guilty, the question Mr De Vos is, do two wrongs make a right.
Clearly they dont however you seem to have forgotten the interview at Davos where JZ was interviewed in front of very influential people on his pologamy.
The president is the shop display window of our country, not Leonard Max and what is being displayed is not very attractive.
Due to the potentially fatal consequences of cheating on your sexual partner, marital infidelity or any infidelity is not just a moral issue , but potentially a life and death issue . Therefore infidelity cannot be a private matter between two consenting adults . Cheating on your spouse/partner should be a criminal offence, unless you have disclosed the fact to you partner. Cervical cancer kills more women than any other form of cancer . As in the case of AIDS , cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus. Therefore if you are a sexual cheat everyone has a right to know !
@ MFB
There are, unfortunately, narrow minded people who would mantain that the DA has, in fact, better policies than the ANC. They would point to a whole range of items, policies on labour brokers, BEE, education, etc.
But that would be just silly.
We all understand that it is more importrant to focus on Max, and how his infractions do or do not resemble those of JZ.