When EP Thompson, the Marxist historian considered by many to be the greatest British historian of his time, wrote that the Rule of Law was “an unqualified human good”, he created quite a stir. It was an article of faith among Marxists that the law was always used by the ruling class to legitimise its oppression of the working class.Thompson was heavily criticised by fellow Marxists who argued that the Rule of Law was a deeply oppressive concept as it masked the inherent violence deployed by the ruling class to protect their own interests.
But Thompson, it seems to me, was on to something. Although the law is often used to promote and legitimise the interests of the ruling elite and although the law is thus often unjust, the law can also be used as a mechanism to restrain the unbridled and unprincipled exercise of power by the ruling elite.
In South Africa, the Rule of Law is often mentioned by members of the chattering classes who bemoan the fact that some members of the ANC government and some ANC “deployees” to constitutional institutions (such as the NPA and the JSC) show an utter disregard for the law. Yet, the erosion of the Rule of Law affects all of us who do not form part of the ruling elite, a ruling elite which is composed of apartheid era big business, ANC leaders, BEE and other tender millionaires, the Black Lawyers Association and Black Management Forum and other elite institutions with close, mutually beneficial, ties to the government.
In a deeply divided society, in which economic injustice is deeply embedded and a few elites benefit from a parasitic capitalist system to the detriment of the majority of citizens, a semblance of social stability often seems to depend on the ability of the ANC government to paper over the “class contradictions” by deploying a kind of race-nationalism in which the same white big business and its beneficiaries who shared in the spoils of apartheid are held up as the villains against whom all black South Africans had to unite.
In this context, poor, marginalised black citizens do not always buy into the idea that an erosion of the Rule of Law represents a fundamental threat to their potential well-being. However, recent events have reminded us that the Rule of Law is not only to the benefit of the rich. Without it, it will be difficult for real democracy (as opposed to the watered-down Parliamentary version enacted for our benefit by the ANC and the DA) to flourish.
It seems to me real democracy will flourish only if social movements and grassroots activism (in opposition to policies and practices of the ruling elite) can flourish. No wonder some ANC leaders are fearful of social movements and have taken unlawful and dictatorial action to try and blunt the power of such movements. A prime example of such undemocratic, anti-Rule of Law action, is the recent harassment of leaders of Abahlali baseMjondolo in KwaZulu-Natal.
I was reminded of this when I received a press release from the inestimable Prof Stephen Friedman of the Centre for the Study of Democracy who recently hosted a discussion on this topic. The Centre had called the meeting out of a concern that the violence, directed at leaders and members of the Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) shackdwellers’ movement, was politically motivated and designed to drive the movement out of the informal settlement because it was seen as a rival to the African National Congress (ANC) in the area, and because it had launched a Constitutional Court challenge to provincial legislation which gives the provincial government wide powers to force landowners and municipalities to evict informal occupiers.
Part of this statement reads as follows:
The Centre is particularly concerned that the attacks on an independent and peaceful citizens’ organisation have been effectively endorsed by the KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Community Safety, Mr Willies Mchunu, and by senior officials of the provincial government. This reinforces the impression that a provincial government is attempting to silence a critical voice in violation of core democratic values.
Discussion at the meeting heightened this concern. The president of AbM, Mr Sbu Zikode, and other leaders of the movement, described how they had been driven into hiding and were now forced to conduct their entirely lawful activities in Kennedy Road in secrecy. AbM leaders told the meeting that they were now forced to operate much as underground anti-apartheid activists had been forced to do before South Africa became a democracy. While our Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and association and the right to use the courts, AbM appears to have been denied the first and to have been punished for exercising the second. Further, AbM argued that those who have been arrested for their alleged involvement in the attacks and denied bail, are actually victims and are, in effect, political prisoners.
Academic analysts who delivered presentations pointed out that democracy is meant for all citizens, not simply for those who are well-heeled and well-connected. If basic democratic rights are denied to shackdwellers, they warned, South African democracy is in great danger. If citizens in the suburbs are allowed to speak their mind and criticise government actions and policies but those in the shack settlements are not, our country will, they suggested, lapse back into what it was pre-1994, a state in which some enjoy the right to speak but others do not. The allegations raised about the Kennedy Road violence are therefore extremely serious because they suggest that the democracy which so many fought so hard to achieve is now in danger because some political power-holders are not prepared to tolerate peaceful and legal citizen action if they feel threatened by it.
Participants were obviously aware that the allegations about events at Kennedy Roadremain untested. But all agreed that, given their seriousness, they need urgently to be tested. They added that that the best way to ensure that this happened would be support AbM’s call for an independent and neutral inquiry into the events. At present, a Task Team comprising those who are alleged to be complicit in the attacks has been given the official mandate to investigate. This is obviously unacceptable. The inquiry must be entirely independent and its impartiality should be beyond reproach.
We therefore urge the State President to demonstrate his and government’s commitment to democracy and concern to protect the rights of citizens by urgently appointing such an inquiry.
If President Zuma was a true democrat who respected the Rule of Law, he would agree to the request to institute an inquiry into the events that lead to the Kennedy Road tragedy. If the President fails to do so, one will be hard pressed not to conclude that the narrow economic self-interest of the party elite (in cahoots with big capital and the champions of a kind of middle class transformation), trumps concerns for the plight of the poor. The failure of opposition parties, including the DA, to highlight the plight of social movement leaders also suggests that they do not have the interest of the majority of South Africans at heart.
The ANC always talks about its concern for the poor. Maybe this is true in its own way. The ANC leaders are just MORE concerned about their own fancy cars and lavish lifestyles and the benefits flowing from the BEE tenders for their wives and cousins, than they are for the plight of the poor. In such circumstances, the last thing they would want or encourage is real grassroots democracy.
Prof: I believe at the time of the initial incident you had posted an article on the Kennedy Road abuse at your Seminar Room. I wasn’t able to find it today. There is also a video link at YouTube, watched internationally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8gQv19cD4Y
What happened there is seriously foreboding for our future.
Not only should there be an independent inquiry, but determined legal action should be initiated.
As for practical on-the-ground political criminality, the event (ongoing) must be seized and acted on without mercy. I don’t think it is intentional that the DA has missed this, but rather it slipped past them without their knowledge. There were only a few articles in the press at the time, and then the story died.
“The poorest of the poor must expect and demand only the best from the government, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said”.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/local/article227060.ece
Yeah right!
Prof, good post and a sad revelation, not only as it relates to the victims (AbM) but also and most importantly our country and its future under the current government. While we must continue identifying and challenging criminal, illegal and undemocratic practices like this (and not forgetting to give credit where it is due), the sooner we understand that our country has since the advent of Polokwane became the kind of an animal farm where the INTERESTS & RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT COME FIRST, followed by those of the RULING PARTY and its Alliance (members who believe that JZ’s rape and criminal cases were the conspiratory work of TM which justify the illegal and criminal way in which they were dropped) and finally by those EXTREMELY LIMITED & UNPROTECTED RIGHTS OF US MORTALS, the sooner we will understand the real objectives of this government which are clearly in sharp contrast to our legitimate but misplaced expectations of a kind of service delivery and respect for the Rule of Law expected from a constitutional democracy like ours.
As mentioned before and based on the above analysis, the current government’s primary objectives are: (a) PROTECT, PRAISE & SUPPORT JZ in anything and never criticise him even when such criticism is due (thereby using him to remain in high paying government positions including tenders and cover-up for their corrupt practices) (b) DISCREDIT MBEKI at all cost (including lying about the statistics of AIDS deaths under Mbeki’s regime) by undoing and criticising everything he did and said and blaming him for everything bad even when they know that they are lying with their teeth thereby trying to help JZ to achieve his impossible dream legacy of being seen as another MANDELA in all his political and democratic attributes, (c) LOOTING STATE & PUBLIC RESOURCES as quick and much as they can before they are recalled by Vavi, Blade, Malema and Manamela and (d) INSTALLING A ONE PARTY STATE by ensuring that the ANC & its Alliance indeed remains in power until the second coming of Jesus.
These objectives are, unfortunately, not achievable where the constitution reign supreme, the president and the government respect the Rule of Law, the rights of citizens are respected and protected, corrupt public servants are punished without fear, favour or prejudice, and all the state and public resources are used towards the delivery of services to its citizens. To achieve them the opposite is required, including the unconstitutional appointment of Menzi Simelane as head of the DPP in order to first and foremost ensure that the charges against the president of the country are not reinstated and that, as per Vavi and Manamela’s instruction, Mbeki is charged of genocide or at least humiliated in one way or another as a retaliation for, inter alia, allegedly having caused JZ to have unprotected sex with an HIV/AIDS woman half his age and receiving millions of rand from discredited Shabir Shaik for which his name and credibility as a leader was incredible damaged. It is largely within this context that we have today under a democratic government led by a people’s president in the league and class of Nelson Mandela, this apartheitic treatment of the AbM. One can safely call it a case of GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT kind of a situation.
Mayimele.
There might be few decisions of the new adminstration tha I do not support but I think you are a bit harsh on your overall assessment of them.
Why should JZ be personally blamed for TM’s performance? I can support a view that says the ANC is to blame but with hindsight I understand why those around TM kept quiet. TM set the bar so low that it will require less effort from JZ to surpass it.
I can also list problems in the ANC that go back to Mandela’s era but to throw that at the door of the new administration is unfortunate. The greed, nepotism, elitism, aloofness, incompetence, tender hunting, capitalist behaviour in the ANC did not start with JZ. Yes GARBAGE came in long before JZ and will take a while to get it out.
I do not support the way AbM was treated and if there is someone to be hold accountable for that, lets do it.
Mbeki’s legacy is unfolding infront of us and we are paying him well to have ample time to respond to it but as usual he has chosen take a dim view through the pipe smoke.
Maggs
May be the DP can match his words by banning the RDP houses which are less humane than the apartheid 4 room in the towship.
The godless, shameless ANC’s most egregious assault on the rule of law is a matter which the hypocrite gun prohibitionists and the rights industry are silent about.
S 137 – 144 of the Firearms Control Act provides for the payment of compensation for surrendered firearms.
On 8 June 2005, Minister for Safety and Security (LOL!) Charles Nqakula stated in a written Parliamentary answer that no compensation would be payable to firearms owners who handed in their guns.
On 12 October 2005, the Accused (er, SAPS Commissioner Jackie Selebi) told the Safety and Security Portfolio Committee that he would not pay compensation for surrendered firearms because people would pay their rent with the money.
The Western Cape High Court ruled August 31 that the Minister had 3 months to draw up guidelines for the payment of compensation.
The ruling follows a litany of the most disgraceful behaviour by the State and its legal representatives including the filing of its plea on the merits 10 months late.
Government Notice No. 1071 published last month makes it clear that no compensation will be paid for firearms surrendered between promulgation of the Act and, well, now, – the period during which, the Western Cape High Court ruled, its conduct towards gun owners was ‘unlawful and unconstitutional’ and the police attempt to revive their farcical interpretation of S137 that provides that compensation will only be paid for firearms the state acquires for its own use.
[Life is hard for legal representatives who have layed no basis for Appeal in their pleadings other than inadequate representation! LOL!]
Those are YOUR taxes going down the drain along with YOUR Rechtstaat!
Gwebe, thank you for the response. I do not get the basis of your question “why should JZ be personally blamed for TM’s performance? Can you help clarifying this point?
“TM set the bar so low that it will require less effort from JZ to surpass it”. I also do not understand this point. Which standard are you referring to here so I may be able to respond?
“I can also list problems in the ANC that go back to Mandela’s era but to throw that at the door of the new administration is unfortunate”.
I do not think we understand each other in this one. My post does not in anyway try to blame JZ and the current admin for the problems of the past. If there is any past I refer to here is to an extent of JZ’s misconducts which are blamed at TM as a person. In any case, if I had to look at the problems committed in the past and try to allocate them to anyone – you know my position from the previous long debate between you, Maggs and I not very long ago when both of you advocated for a selective blaming of TM and his administration for the things that happened even under Mandela inasmuch as under JZ today- I would have been fair and objective in blaming them where blame is due and credited them where credit is due without prejudice. So it cannot be correct and fair Gwebs for you to allege I have in anyway tried to unfairly blame JZ for problems that happened in the past.
“The greed, nepotism, elitism, aloofness, incompetence, tender hunting, capitalist behaviour in the ANC did not start with JZ”. No dispute on this one. But we must put it into context so we do not loose the theme of PdV’s post inasmuch as the focus of my response in this regards.
“Yes GARBAGE came in long before JZ and will take a while to get it out”. Once again, no dispute. But do you clean garbage by spreading garbage again throughout the administration and particularly in key positions as we witness it today?
“Mbeki’s legacy is unfolding in front of us…” How so Gwebe? Can you share some light so one can understand you better?
“…. and we are paying him well to have ample time to respond …..” Respond to what. Can you be specific? The one thing that majority of unreasonable people like Manamela, Vavi, Blade, Motsoaledi et al have been calling him to respond to and for which they wanted him charged of genocide is the AIDS issue. Could this be one of the issues you want him to respond to? If Yes, have you seen the WHO’s position and decision on some of the vaccines TM has been challenging and for which some of you have, without understanding his argument, insulted him with impunity, in this article below?
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1093175
Gwebecimele says:
December 10, 2009 at 6:20 am
“May be the DP can match his words by banning the RDP houses which are less humane than the apartheid 4 room in the towship”.
Yep.
That and more.
The way our poor are often treated is nothing short of cruel, callous and often inhuman.
Let’s hope 2010 brings about some practical action rather than the continuation of electioneering rhetoric.
Mayimele, I completely sympathise with your obvious frustration with the ANC government. Indeed, the complete truth is that I share that frustration.
The Professor suggests in the piece under discussion here that some people in this country appear to fall into a chattering class inasmuch as they frequently bring up the rule of law when complaining about the ANC. It is true that it could appear so. But against that it has to be said that the ANC shows its contempt for the rule of law so frequently that it is hard not to reproach the party on that score.
A fresh instance involves a junior Durban Metro rail manager and Beki Cele. The manager displayed the old South African flag on her desk. Beki got wind of this and ordered that the flag be removed from her desk. Now whatever one may think of the old flag and the horrors that it represents to many South African, the manager had the right to display it on her desk.
Beki, it seems, is just like most of the ANC: one, he does not even enjoy a rudimentary grasp of constitutionalism or two, if he does enjoy a basic understanding (as unlikely as that is), he just does not give a toss.
The ANC figures have repeatedly shown that they very willing to countenance unjust administrative action. So I suppose it is readily conceivable that they would take to violations to freedom of expression.
Mayimele.
I am glad we agree that the ROT in the ANC started before JZ’s time and he was just handed over a country in ICU.
TM’s legacy is starring at us in Education, Health, Service delivery, Eskom, Coega, PBMR, Arms deal etc and JZ can do no worse on these issues.
Citizens have a legitimate expectation from an ex-President to leave a sound legacy and continue to explain the choices that were made during his tenure. This also creates an opportunity to admit mistakes where wrong choices were made. Bush, Blair, Putin and others are continuing to be put under spotlight by their citizens.
Anyway I do not want this to be reduced to a TM vs JZ assessment but I wanted to highlight the fact that 90% of ANC’s problems started way before JZ.
I support the ANC but I am also very harsh on it for allowing past and current leaders distort its mandate.
Mayimele.
Here is another call on TM’s legacy bY STEINBERG.
“There are of course many other reasons to be angry with Mbeki. The gap between who he said he was and what he became is reason enough. He billed himself as a technocrat and mismanaged. He said he was a constitutionalist and abused his power of office. He disappointed on so many fronts.”
TIME WILL BE THE ULTIMATE JUDGE
Democracy has yet to consolidated. Perhaps we were all a bit too eager to endorse our regular elections without really noticing what happens in hotly conested areas, such as KZN, between ANC and IFP members. It seems that the legacy of this confrontation is politics by other means and ANC members there appear at pains to revert to peaceful means after they have pretty much defeated the IFP.
Leigh, where do you come upon the idea that it is fine for a public servant to display the Apartheid flag on her state owned desk?
I’m also rather concerned by the assertion that the BLA and the BMF are “elitist”.
Metro Rail must send this Manager for assessment and if he/she is found to be aspiring for the old SA then he\she must be fired and banned from public service until she is rehabilitated.
Mpho, thanks for your response. I very much appreciate your candour and that you seem willing to invite discussion. In case you are interested, these are precisely two of the reasons as to why I have a very high opinion of you.
I happen to think that the old flag is hateful. It is a horrid reminder of past wrongs that we as a country should be working very hard to overcome.
But my personal feelings about the old flag are irrelevant to the question of whether the Metro manager has the right to display it.
As you will know, one of the reasons as to why we enjoy rights is that rights limit the ways in which people can treat us. Having the right to freedom of expression means that people can often do things with which other people would take exception. The opponents of the conduct can despise it. But they will often just have to live with it. Or in fundamental right’s parlance, the opponents are duty-bound to tolerate some communications that they find offensive. And I would add that those of us who take exception to the manager’s decision to display what is, in many a reasonable opinion, a repulsive symbol, may very well want to express things in the future that others may find repulsive. And it would be at such a time that we would be grateful for the protection afforded to us by the right.
In a constitutional democracy that truly embraces a culture of human rights, when it comes to the determination of whether someone is entitled to do something, the likes and dislikes of others are often immaterial.
I think the huge colour photos of criminals in all our state buildings are despicable.
What is the message to visitors? Welcome to the Rogue’s Gallery? ‘Crime celebrated here’?
I would also add that working for the state does not mean that the state employees relinquish their rights.
Mpho says:
December 10, 2009 at 10:48 am
Do you know what happened to the thousands of old South African flags belonging to the government when the new flag was introduced? It was not destroyed, it was sold on tender to the civil servants, by an order of the ANC government. So they said, “please buy this flag” and the next thing “such a racist, being in possession of an old flag!” The old flag was the flag of the country, not that of any political party.
All I know about the flag incident is what was reported in the newspaper, but according to the report Mr Cele gave instructions that the flag be confiscated. That just happens to be just another disregard for the rule of law, because such a confiscation happens to be illegal. He humiliated the official involved, disregarding her rights in terms of the Constitution.
Brett Nortje says:
December 10, 2009 at 11:45 am
When pres Thabo Mbeki was kicked out the order that his photos must immedialty removed from all Government buildings was issued without any delay. I don’t remember that happening when pres Mandela retired.
The Professor has repeatedly made a very important point very clear: we are none of us completely safe on the basis of our affinity with a majority. That is, we may enjoy our association with the majority inasmuch as that association keeps us out of harm’s way. But we could find ourselves in a minority someday.
I hope I will be forgiven for my tendency to literature. But maybe this discourse calls for a story. Our central character goes by the name of Jacob Mbeki. This guy is as narrow-minded a dirt-ball as we are likely to see in our life times. He is an excessively enthusiastic supporter of his favourite party. That party is called “Me, My Cronies, Finish and Klaar” or, MMFK. At his workplace (which for very much the most part is staffed and run by black people), he enjoys a bit of pull. And he uses that influence to stop Muslim women from wearing head-scarves and white women from advancing up the ranks. Yes this reprobate operates in the knowledge that he can do these things because the majority of people at the place of business do not see his behaviour as problematic and are even supportive of his unfair discrimination towards white women because they reckon such women were, at least after a bit of a fashion, the mothers of apartheid. That is, Malan and the rest of the boys had to come from somewhere.
Thus far we have a bland tale of bigotry. But our story becomes interesting when our dirt-ball mysteriously finds himself attracted to a man. And not any man mind you. I’m talking about a white man. White as the driven snow on a cold December night in Oslo.
What will he do? To what will he appeal to satisfy his earnest attraction? We might all of us guess that our guy would appeal to his basic rights. The real question is: will he concede that he was a jackass before developing the hots for a man?
I wonder to what extent are “some among us” willing to hold on to the Apartheid legacy…
Sine, a major feature of the apartheid regime was that many people were denied the enjoyment of basic rights.
The Professor drew a very useful distinction the other day. That distinction was between ethics and lawfulness. One way of illustrating this distinction is thus: there is a difference between asking whether behaviour is ethical on the one hand, and whether it is protected by a right on the other. That is, the behaviour could at once be unethical/offensive and lawful.
One important question that we might consider is: what does it mean for one’s ability to express one’s self freely to be protected by a right to do so? The protection can be explained as follows: person A wants to make a movie about inter-racial romantic relationships. But person B finds such relations loathsome. The protection that A enjoys is that he can assert that B owes a duty to avoid limiting the former’s ability to do so. Person A does not have a limitless right to express himself. But his right to do so does have a purview and if his expression falls within that scope, B is obliged to avoid constraining that expression.
Your contributions, on the face of it, take a strong stance against apartheid. However, I think that you have not given sufficient thought to the nature of rights protection (which, of itself, is a very strong departure from the apartheid regime). I think you will say that the correlative of a right is a duty. And you would be correct to say so. But your investigation of the relationship between rights and their corresponding duties is, with all respect, quite shallow. I say that your investigation thereof is quite shallow because at no point during our rights-related discussions have you considered what a correlative duty obliges the bearer thereof to do. As regards the right to freedom of expression, where the conduct falls within the right’s ambit of application, the corresponding duty obliges the bearer thereof to avoid limiting the right holder’s freedom.
I don’t wish to be rude, however, the Prof wrote about the Kennedy Road political crime,and very few of the comments have responded to this as a significant unfolding event, other than to post in general.
Do we get it? How serious this incident is? A seed, now above ground and growing.
Prof: I haven’t really commented on the issue of your referral to the President of the Republic of South Africa as a gangster, such a revelation… ahh. Does a bear kok in the woods?, as one would say in Canada. Well here goes, very simple and short, one word:
Skelm
So much more appropriate, safe, and political correct.
Sine says:
December 10, 2009 at 13:58 pm
I wonder to what extent are “some among us” willing to hold on to the Apartheid legacy
Yes, and onto the communist legacy.
@ Pierre
“The erosion of the Rule of Law affects all of us who do not form part of the ruling elite”
Pierre, when exactly did you tender your resignation as a member of the ruling elite?
And, can I also opt-out?
Gwebecimele/Mayimele.
Whichever view is more correct must surely be irrelevant to two-year-old Thembisa Kometsi.
Another tragic consequence of the rot irrespective of which President is more responsible for it (neither can or should be allowed to escape this one).
“Norman Mabaso, chairman of Sama, the country’s largest doctors’ union, said the doctor in charge of the operation was not to blame.
“He said it was a shortage of drugs, due to the tardiness of Mahlangu’s department in paying suppliers, that led to Thembisa Nikelo losing both her legs below the knee”.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article227165.ece
“Ruling elite not interested in democracy or the Rule of Law?”
Eish!
President Zuma must take full responsibility for terrible casualty of a most unfortunate deployment.
“South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) chief executive Tseliso Thipanyane has resigned after being stripped of key powers by the new chairperson of the commission, controversial former public protector Lawrence Mushwana. …
“He (Thipanyane) was arguably the most visibly active chief executive of any Chapter 9 institution”.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-11-mushwana-claims-first-hrc-casualty
Let’s see what BLA, Nadel, ANCYL blah de blah says about that!
Leigh, I don’t think you’ve answered Mpho’s question and I repeat it: where do you come upon the idea that it is fine for a public servant to display the Apartheid flag on her STATE OWNED (my emphasis) desk?
Maggs
Is he cooking another huge payout for the end of his term at THIS NEW ENTITY.
Sirjay, you are right and I was at fault for introducing a topic which, although somewhat related to AbM due to rule of law implications, is not directly relevant.
I have to say that if these allegations prove to be true, then the situation is grave and indeed desperate. The suppression of basic rights ought to be intolerable. And when government effectively countenances such suppression, well then people have cause for outrage.
It is amazing how the drafters of the Constitution left in tact rights (like in s25 of the Constitution) which were acculated by the minority during the Apartheid era and prior…
Prof
The DA scorecard on Cabinet is out and the scores are very suprising. Barbra Hogan is 7 , Trevor Manuel 6, Nyanda 3, Motswaledi 5, Schalwyk 6 etc .
There seems to be a lot behind these scores.
Can we a posting on this?
Leigh, it seems to me the state or parastatals (or any other employer for that matter) would be perfectly within their rights to adopt a policy which prohibited the display of the old South African flag, just as SA Rugby was perfectly justified in banning everyone who attends a Springbok rugby match from waving the old flag. Freedom of expression is not absolute. It does not allow me to go into church and shout during the service that God is dead (but on a street corner I surely should be allowed to shout what I want about any religion). The context determines to what extent one’s rights can be limited. While one has very far reaching rights to say and communicate what one wants in one’s own home or as a private citizen taking part in public debate in public spaces not under the control of a specific entity (such as a rugby union, a university or an office), one’s rights can be limited by law (property law, employment contracts etc) in a reasonable manner. I doubt any court will find it is unreasonable for the state or a private employer to impose a rule in the workplace that prohibits the display of the old SA flag, given its obnoxious connotations. The Minister or the Commissioner of Police will never have a right to interfere with the employment situation though. And no one can confiscate the flag in the absence of a pre-announced rule. That would constitute theft, I imagine. What happened in this case seems to be that Transnet did not have a policy on this yet the Minister or his officials decided that even in the absence of a law prohibiting display of the old flag (a law that would probably be unconstitutional in any case) or of Transnet regulations to confiscate the old flag. I imagine this constituted theft if the Ministers intention was to permanently deprive the owner of the flag of that flag without any legal authority.
Gwebecimele says
The DA scorecard on Cabinet is out and the scores are very suprising. Barbra Hogan is 7 , Trevor Manuel 6, Nyanda 3, Motswaledi 5, Schalwyk 6 etc .
There seems to be a lot behind these scores.
———————————————————————————————————
Any idea if they score themselves?
Professor, thanks for your post. You make fair points. For a start, it cannot be in denied that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. In the second place, it makes sense that the right’s sphere of application would vary from context to context. Thirdly, one can gather a question from your post. That question is whether the workplace is a context in which the ambit of the right to freedom of expression would be less wide than in public or in the comfort of the right-asserter’s home. As you make out, it seems quite clear that it must be. That is, more limitations on the right would be reasonable in the workplace than in the right-holder’s home.
Maggs is right.
If the DA were to score themselves, honestly, they would all surely be in the minus column.
The contribute nothing with their ceaseless negativism and endless whinging.
Not to mention the implicit racism of the “Fight Black” slogan!
(Anyone surprised that non-African ministers rank highest in the DA’s bigoted eyes?)
Native, I did answer Mpho’s question. At the time I answered it, I thought that the purview of the metro manager’s right to freedom of expression was wide enough to cover her displaying the old flag. And it was on that ground that I would have been prepared to brook the metro manager’s display – and that is not the same thing as saying I would have been fine with it as the latter description suggests that I would take no issue with the display. That is, I can tolerate something to which I take personal exception if the article that induced my personal gripe was protected by a right. But the Professor makes a very fair point when he makes out that the ambit of the right is context-specific. Actually missing that point was a regrettable oversight on my part.
(I would also add that the Professor’s approach to this sort of matter is materially from many other contributions as he investigates the content and extent of the right in question. And that is what we should be doing.)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
December 11, 2009 at 19:40 pm
“Maggs is right”.
Hey Dworky,
Happy Saturday.
I think I have it figured out that you’ve been appointed monitor (sorta like teacher’s favourite) with the main role to decide who’s comments are right.
Since you only comment on those who are “right” even if they are wrong, does that mean that you are of the right wing?
BTW talking about the “minus column” how about rating Tiger Woods -
Car front – minus
Driver’s window – minus
Golf club – minus
Golf game – minus
Mistress one – minus
Mistress two – minus
Mistress three – minus
Wife – ? (let’s play money or the box)
Reputation as Mr Squeaky Clean – plus (the devil made him do it).
Maggs, you are right.
I prefer to focus on comments with which I can honestly agree, and offer generous encouragement to the writer thereof.
There is so much negativism around these days. I prefer to be positive.
I leave the whinging to the DA, and white liberals.
Anyway, how are you?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
December 12, 2009 at 9:10 am
I am good thanks (and I did have an AIDS test. Again!).
On a completely different subject, I think Malema is right.
Mines should be nationalised.
That will avoid government bailing out the struggling sector – government is much better at managing failing enterprises than the private sector.
Then there are those mines with nearly depleted reserves – those companies can avoid financial disaster if government pays them now and they can do something else with the oodles of boodle.
I have revised my original thinking that he was being used by big business to pursue their deceitfully devious agendas.
One smart cookie is Mr Malema.
Mikhail: I think you’re out to lunch on Helen and DA, irony or no.
Irony of no, Sirjay, if I do go out to lunch, it will not be to the smart Constantia restaurants where “Botox” Zille and other white liberals gather to whinge about the ANC, mock Cde Malema’s progressive interventions, and hatch fresh plots against our Judge President!
This “right to freedom of expression must be considered in context” is interesting. What other flags would be inappropriate in a civil servant’s office. Party political flags perhaps?
Dave A says:
December 13, 2009 at 17:35 pm
This “right to freedom of expression must be considered in context” is interesting. What other flags would be inappropriate in a civil servant’s office. Party political flags perhaps?
Yes as well as the communist flag.
Just as I thought – the real reason for Simelane’s appointment.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/0b9a109ac04b47a59310c849dffc1977/14-12-2009-02-15/Government_is_NPAs_boss_-_Zuma
How can there be a rule of law?
Thanks Anonymouse for the link. I for one am not surprised but more worried. More worried, not by JZ per se, but rather by the majority of South Africans who still cannot see how dangerous JZ and his admin is to our politics, constitution, justice, the country and the future generation. They are trapped in celebrating his crocodile smile and charm while mutilating our body politics through patron-clientelism practices, the constitution and the rule of law with impunity as well and chairing and facilitating the looting of public and state resources through corrupt means at the expense of the very same poor people for whom he claims to care than the previous regime.
I am also not shocked that while he always reads nicely prepared public speeches which were suppose to be a form of learning for him, he always say and does exactly the opposite once he finishes reading the last sentences of such speeches. At the end of the day, it is what he does than say away from such nice speeches that reflects exactly his understanding of governance and issues. For instance, when he was inaugurated he took oath to the effect that he will always abide by the law blah blah blah — but six months since he took office he committed more acts where it mattered most that disrespect the law such as the illegal parole of Shaik, disbanding of the scorpion, failure to act on government officials who steal tax payers’ money, and appointment of Simelane. And in line with this analysis, his failure to deal decisively with corruption by public servants can well be explained by why he saw nothing wrong with him receiving more than 700 payments from Shaik and went ahead to interfere with the NIA, police and NPA to get his charges dropped, and why his administration does nothing with Fraser et al for their role in this regards.
He and his followers are also not worried by these grave contradictions which would normally worry any reasonable person following him let alone himself as the head of state. It is not surprising therefore that in the article linked to the link above, he is quoted to have contradictorily, constitutionally, said the NPA report to the government and at the same time that he promises not to interfere with the NPA. How possible? Can one blame Dr. Ramphele Mamphele for saying our leaders today lack integrity and Dr. Frene Ginwala for saying under JZ’s reign there poor political leadership as well as lack of respect in general and parental leadership in particular?
Gwebe, thanks again for the engagement. It has taken me long time to respond to your post because (a) I felt and still feel you are not answering my questions honestly and directly, (b) that you counter my arguments by either introducing new issue which I did not refer to in my post and also linking it to my argument, and (c) I had not read the Steinberg article you referred to in your post. But now I have read the article and do not see anything new that weakens my argument or strengthens yours in an honest and objective manner.
Firstly, on the issue of honesty and objectiveness of your answers, you argued that “TM set the bar so low that it will require less effort from JZ to surpass it”. I asked you to clarify this point and particularly to mention the standards you are referring to; you refrained from doing so.
Secondly, on raising new issues not raised in my post to counter my argument, in your response (Dec 10, 2009 at 6:17 am) to my initial post (Dec 9, 2009 at 22:21pm) you introduced in the form of a question the issue of me blaming JZ for TM’s performance. I again asked you to clarify this point so we could be on the same page of your analogy and understanding and so I can most importantly be in position to respond which will enrich our debate, you once again refrained from doing so.
In the similar vein, you argued that “….we are paying him well to have ample time to respond ….” to which I asked what he must respond to? Again no answer from you.
Thirdly, on the Steinberg article, you selectively extract a passage that you think supports your position and argument but fail to demonstrate on (a) why Steinberg’s opinion in this regards should be seen differently from a bile from Vavi’s mouth such as when he said SA was better off under apartheid than under Thabo Mbeki, or Motsoaledi and JZ’s manufactured statistical lies that so high a number of people died of HIV/AIDS under Mbeki (b) you do not seem to have honestly interrogated the passage cited so as to make a fair judgment as to whether it can pass the factual and correctness test that is required of it to support you position and argument. For instance, on the gap between what Mbeki allegedly said he was and what he became i) when did he say he was a technocrat? and ii)when did he say he was a constitutionalist? With due respect Gwebs, you and Steinberg seem to be driven here by emotions and hatred of TM to confuse what people thought about him (call it reputation or label) to what he himself thought and said about himself, which is incorrect.
Lastly, Steinberg’s article is the work of an uninformed person about the subject he is writing about. If he is informed, then he is a deliberate liar who is bent on achieving his evil goal of seeing Mbeki being discredited to a less than a human being status or at most, for whatever reasons best known to him, seeing TM being hanged like Saddam Hussein while he could not and cannot say the same to his ancestors who ravaged Africa and SA in particular through colonial and apartheid polices that resulted in the unnecessary death of our forefather, brothers and sisters in large numbers than he claims they did under Mbeki allegedly because of his stance on HIV/AIDS vaccines. If the above is not the case, why would an objective and informed person like him who is not driven by hatred and lies ignore the WHO’s findings on the detrimental effects of some of the HIV/AIDS vaccines to HIV/AIDS sufferers and their decision to withdraw them which support Mbeki’s argument and continue to write the garbage he did in line with this point. And why would you Gwebs, after I have provided you (on Dec 10, 2009 at 8:02am) with the link to this article on WHO’s position, without discounting it, you still go ahead 2 hours later to seek support from a person who ignore this fact for ulterior motives?
Lastly, he goes on to say
“In an editorial marking Zuma’s 100th day in the Presidency, this newspaper remarked that “the country is more at peace with itself”
Which war was this country fighting under TM?
Which peace is he referring to now when people are not free to join parties of their choice, gather as they wish without being harassed and physically abused under the guise of being counter revolutionary, when public servants are not free to talk about anything good about Mbeki in fear of loosing their jobs, just to mention a few?
I may be wrong in my analysis above and will welcome any correction based on facts and figures and objective analysis.
mayimele says:
December 14, 2009 at 17:06 pm
Mayimele/Gwebe – it seems to me that we (including me) have become very good at blaming others for our woes.
For the 15 years post 1994, it was apartheid, now it’s Mbeki.
For Bafana Bafana its the coach.
For Hansie it was the devil.
Kader Asmal blamed Prof Bhengu for having sold the teacher training colleges.
Eish!
I am tempted to blame Zuma for appointing Simelane, but I guess that I have to now accept that I campaigned and voted for a Zuma led administration.
So I guess that I have to shoulder some responsibility for the shape and character of our country being determined by, among others, the travel gate fraudsters, criminals, crooks and some seriously corrupt public representatives who, as Pierre would say, are “innocent until proven guilty”.
Maggs, it is apartheid.
Everything — and I mean EVERYTHING — is caused by apartheid.
Finish and klaar!
Mayimele
Thanks for the good debate, I also enjoy our discussion.
It is my opinion that TM did not perform well as a President and I listed the areas where I sincerely believe he underperformed, again, namely Education, Health, Poverty, Crime, Managing ANC, Managing Cabinet etc. A lot has been written and there is enough evidence around us on how badly we are doing on the above mentioned areas. Some would like us to to believe that TM is not responsible for this poor performance but the ANC, others are so blind and loyal that they don’t even see the underperformance.
TM just like JZ or Mandela must be held responsible for the choices and decisions that were and are made during their time. The ANC and its leaders must stand next to them as they pronounce successes and failures of their policies.
I fully agree with all the problems you have identified in the ANC but these started way before JZ.
On Steinberg. I do not know the guy and I am not his fan. I copied that paragraph to support my statement that TM’s legacy is unfolding infront of us and he is continously being judged. He might not have said he is a Technocrat or a Constitutionalist but I agree with the analysis provided by the paragraph.
Yes, certain drugs were found to be toxic but that does not change the way we handled HIV/AIDS. To be precise, I think the Mother to Child transmission was badly managed and that led to 300 000 unnecessary deaths. We could have provided these drugs on HIV+ mothers and later manage the side effects after we have saved the babies.
I have very strong views on TM’s performance as President and there is a lot of material around that support my views. I will appreciate if you can point me to material paints a different picture.
Again the new administration can do no worse on all of the above.
Maggs Naidu, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:38am
Mayimele/Gwebe – it seems to me that we (including me) at blaming others for our woes.
Quite correct Maggs. While blaming others even for our own fault is a common problem to human kind, I think South Africans in general are worse. And, unlike Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder, I am beginning to doubt if this has anything to do with apartheid. I mean how do you explain the non compos mentis state of highly educated people like Sipho Seepe, Melekgepuru Makgoba (once my hero that I supported in his fight against the 13 Wits academics in the mid 90s) and Xolela Mangcu who easily discredit and devalue themselves and their professional status by (a) manufacturing lies and blame them to Mbeki in their blind loyalty to JZ where they were suppose to offer guidance in line with their professions; and they do so without acknowledging even some of the misjudgments on his side, and (b) blame Mbeki for JZ’s woes such as rape and criminal charges against him when evidence are in abundance to the contrary, just to mention a few. The less said about Paul Ngobeni and the host of JZ supporters in this respect the better.
As for you shouldering some of the responsibility, while it is a good practice particularly as you say you campaigned for him, I do not think that is how we should look at it. I am an ANC myself who spent better part of my life in the struggle. Both JZ and TM just like any other ANC leader are my leaders and I know JZ better than TM. But this does not make me to support the ANC even when it engages in illegal and undemocratic practices while I vilify the DA and other opposition parties. It also does not make me to blame either JZ or TM where doing so is unfair and unjust. I also do not fail to blame them just like I did and will still do with Nelson Mandela when such a blame is just and necessary and will help us strengthen our democratic institutions, culture and principles. So, if there is any responsibility we should all take as South Africans, irrespective of political affiliation and personal choices, is to speak truth to power in a fair, just and constructive manner without fear, favour or prejudice. Do not take blame for JZ’s fault, but rather take responsibility to highlight these weaknesses to him for correction purpose and never fail to congratulate him when he does the right things.
Thanks again Gwebe.
You say TM did not do well in health, education, poverty, crime, managing ANC and cabinet among other things. These are really broad areas indeed and I would like to believe you are not suggesting that everything about these departments were bad under TM. That being the case I would request that you highlight specific problems within these departments that reflect TM’s mismanagement that you are not happy about. For instance, I am not sure here whether by mismanagement you refer to (a) policies (b) (mis)implementation of these policies (c) the way he handled the ministers responsible for these aspects since he himself was not directly responsible and on the basis of which I might find it difficult to understand why he should be blamed for whatever problem you are concerned with or (d) the suitability, ability and capacity of the same ministers to run ministries responsible for these issues in which case it will not be proper, in my view to blame TM if it is actually the ministers who have not been doing their job since, in my book, being a minister you are in a position of responsibility of which responsibilities you are bound to be held accountable in the event of failure to carry your responsibilities accordingly.
Again, when you say TM performed badly, that is against which benchmark or standard of measurement? What was the state of these issues mentioned above during NM? And if some of them were worse off under NM why didn’t we blame him the way we are so passionate to blame TM now? While I acknowledge your reference to NM that he must also be blamed for the decisions he made if at all were bad; I seem to get the sense that in as far as it refers to these aspects it is TM who is fully to blame as if (a) he is the first president of the democratic SA and (b) everything including poverty was fine during Mandela and only changed under TM? This approach for me makes it difficult for one to accept your conclusions if you are not holistic and fair in your problem identification and also not objective in your analysis of the situations?
However, on mismanagement of the ANC and the Alliance, no dispute. He could have done better.
On the existence of a lot of written evidence on how badly TM performed or mishandled things, this could not be enough and acceptable a supporting statement. Remember that some of the written evidence you are referring to are those that have been written by your discredited Paul Ngobeni, disgraceful academics Sipho Seepe, Xolela Mangcu and Malegepuru Makgoba; stomach politicians such as Jeff Radebe, Ngoako Ramatlodi, Jimmy Manyi, Vavi, Blade, Mbalula and some journalists such as Mondli Makhanya. So it is important to cite one or a few of these writings, highlight the evidence they document so we could put them to test and see if they indeed pass the test of being evidence at all or they are just the common lies that stomach politicians like them manufacture against TM in order to engrave their names on JZ’s list of true friends – because of their common hatred of TM.
On his possible mismanagement of mother to child transmission I am tempted to agree with you, but due to lack of knowledge of how different the vaccine used in this case and the one discredited by WHO I would like to reserve my vote. But I honestly think, irrespective of their reservations to the other vaccines, TM and the Health Minister, could have done looked at the mother to child transmission differently and better. Where I am becoming confused is when you link this mother to child issue to the 300 000 death which PdV et al also refer to when they blame TM for these imaginary deaths of these imaginary people. Does this figure refer to children or adults HIV/AIDS sufferers or both? If both, how much percentage accounts children?
While we are still on this imaginary figure of 300 000; are you aware that this study that manufactured this figure did not reveal that one of the vaccines it promotes which TM allegedly rejected is the same vaccine that WHO is currently withdrawing? PdV et al accepted everything about this study as gospel truth without him being aware of the detrimental side effects of this very vaccine that WHO is withdrawing. Questions could correctly be asked to you and PdV (a) on what informed basis are you accepting the (manufactured) findings of this institution that (i) these vaccines are (unquestionable & perfectly) pro-long life and that (ii) TM was and still is mad and evil hearted for questioning their intended and real outcomes; particularly in view of WHO’s findings and decision? (b) On the basis of this very vaccine only do you still maintain that TM’s position is misplaced? (c) Do you agree that some of the 300 000 imaginary people who died for whatever, this vaccine and not TM might have contributed? (d) Since both of you did not know about the side effects of this vaccine, yet you wanted everybody to believe you when you praised all of them, this vaccine included, why must we still trust your judgments on the remaining ones? Can one be unfair to assume that your hatred of TM rather than concern a 1000s of people who die because of HIV/AIDS has a lot to do with your unwavering position in this regards even in the face of emerging evidence from credible and authoritative institution against your believes?
What a lot of BS. Splitting of hairs. Lets cut to the chase. You’re not going to fillibuster this one. Mayimele, why do you not just start of by giving us a list of which of Mbeki’s state departments did not receive a qualified audit, and a list of which of his Ministers took ministerial responsibility for the qualified audit their department received by resigning?
Give us an idea of Thabo Mbeki the technocrat, the manager.
Sorry, that should be ‘start off’ with 2 ‘f’s.
Brett Nortje, nice to get your response and thank you. But cool down, dont be emotional or rush so you can make your point clearly. I am not getting the point your post is making or trying to make above.
Can you clarify it for me so I may not misinterprete your argument and therefore answer you appropriately?
Mayimele
Thanks for the reply Broer.
Lets start from the beginning. TM appointed questionable figures to his cabinet who continously underperformed and he never held them responsible as their boss namely, Balfour, Nqakula, Sigcau, Modise and the list goes on.
The basic function of a manage is to appoint the best team and fire those that are incapable of performing and he failed dismaly on that front.
Corruption and audit reports continously made him aware that all is not well and he never acted except for few instances that inolved his enemies. After Mandela he took over the appointment of DG’s and made them to report directly to him and the PSC Reports claim that less than half of these acounting officers had performance contracts. Again I can’t remember a single DG who was held responsible for underperformance or damning audit reports. He reduced the cabinet to himself and made it impossible for parliament and other bodies to hold the executive responsible for any of their failures. The admissions by Ginwala, Asmal and others are a testimony to this one man cabinet that manipulated even the other arms of government.
Yes, Mandela did not do very well either but we must acknowledge that he served one term and he went in first to lay foundation for others to follow. He made us compromise more than we should have and I suspect he has some regrets. It is well known that TM had his hands on the levers of power before Mandela stepped down and he was technicaly in charge as Prime Minister of the time.
The 3 TM’s (Mbeki,Manuel,Mboweni) presided over a period that promoted economic policies that benefited the elite at the expense of the poor.
Big business and the elites including BEE beneficiaries benefited during that time and gap between the rich and the poor was widened. State assets were sold and unnecessary expenditures were created to benefit those with proximity to power. World Cup, Coega, Arms deal, PBMR AND INCOHERENT CHARTERS were fasttracked to facilitate transfer assets to cronies.
HIV/AIDS started before Mbeki’s time and the Apartheid govt and the Mandela govt did not do enough to contain this disease. During his time he did not assist the situation instead he brought confusion to the debate. The 300 000 deaths are children that could have been saved if the MTC transmission was controlled using the grugs that were available. TM was right to challenge pharmaceutical companies to bring the price down to reasonable levels and try and eliminate the toxicity of the drugs. He was wrong to deny a pregnant mother a choice to save her baby from HIV. The battles in court over ARV’s and the nutrition stories were also unnecessary. All medication must be taken with good nutrition and we all understand that.
I have been reading the following material 1) Legacy of Thabo Mbeki by an ex-editor of Sunday times 2) After the Party 3) Arms deal in your pocket 4) Wealth does not tricle down by Ben Turok 5) Battle of the soul of the ANC 6) Life of Hani 7) Dream deferred
Fit to Govern.
Yes I do follow Seepe, Mangcu, Friedman, Mashele, Fikeni, Calland and others.
Our policy and planning ha been found wanting for a long time and that is why we were running a country using a budget rather than a plan. We never had a well capacitated planning unit in the Presidency AND WITHIN DEPTS. Our plans and policies were not properly formulated, no costing , incoherent implementation and monitoring and evaluation was non-existent. We still do not have a good education policy, Industrial policy, Health policy, energy policy, transport policy and we are just implementing piece meal initiatives in response to 2010, global warming, load shedding etc.
Even the clever Trevor has come to admit that we have been snoozing.
I will also judge JZ on the same issues that I have listed and I EXPECT HIM TO HOLD MINISTERS AND DG’ responsible for policy choices they promote. I expect the ANC to do its part firstly support and possible recall those that are not performing.
In short we failed to do policy and planning. Our implementation also was not up to scratch, just check the Auditor Generals reports and no one was held reponsible.
We were successful in rolling out grants to keep the masses at bay and participated in a lot of feel good international activities. We starved the poor and underfunded service delivery to achieve good debt ratios for our country. We were effective in collecting taxes but wasted a lot of this money on inefficiences.
Mayimele
I do not hate the ex-President neither do I hate Mandela nor Zuma but I will question each one of them on the choices they made for us and I will continue to hold them responsible for the consequences.
I am currently reading a book by J. Stiglitz on globalization and another one by Alex Perry with a title Globalization, World Peace and other lies.
These writers clearly explain how we came to be in a recession and identify practices that should be avoided by governments all over the world. Unfortunately our 14 yrs of democracy committed these mistakes under the stewardship of TM and we are continuing to pay dearly for those choices. The poverty, inequality and elitism was not avoidable having chosen the policies of the past.
We chose to house our people in less humane RDP houses and neglected their welfare. We could have started an a big Infrastructure Dev Programme that builds Water, Electricity, Roads, Rail and less stadiums, Coega, PBMR, Gautrain etc. We underfunded parastatals such as Eskom, Transnet and we never provided them with a proper mandate which is not profit. Instead we allowed executives in these institutions to corporitize them and create profit aligned bonuses. We delayed implementing OSD in public service and caused chaos in schools and hospitals and we had no idea of how many of these people qualified for it. Our justice system is near collapse and crime pays when a criminal must commit about 100 break- ins before they are arrested.
Failed to act on Zim and inherited some of their problems with our meaningless borders.
I can give you more examples but the essence of what I am saying is that there was clear under performance and no accountability. This was missed at the top by the big INduna and that paralysed the rest of govt.
Premiers, Mayors and Ministers were dishing out tenders to cronies and undeserving companies and there were no consequences. All that I have mentioned above is not what the ANC stands for and must be eliminated at all costs. I also do not support stomach politicians and I am very worried that politicians think they should drive the biggest cars and live in luxury while claiming to represent and understand the poor. People are lining up around JZ because they have seen how patronage can be dished out from the previuos regime.
Have a gud break, I am off to the coast will repond whenever I find time to be online.
Gwebe,
“We chose to house our people in less humane RDP houses and neglected their welfare”.
I was fortunate at the time to have attended the Housing Summit convened by the then, now late, Minister Joe Slovo – if I recall correctly the DG for Housing was then Barry Gilder.
The essence of that for me was that the housing needs would be best addressed by “incremental housing”, starting with many small, good quality houses and then increasing the size of houses over time – there was tremendous buy in from all stakeholders.
Then came Minister Sankie MM – “What? Our people cannot live in those tiny hovels. We need to build six roomed houses, with proper yards and gardens so people can live in dignity” or thereabouts. The associated campaign by some fringe group (Unemployed something or the other) which went sort of like “A chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway”.
Out when that policy. Out went the DG.
And what do we have as a consequence of a policy that was “better than Slovo’s”!
That aside, I find the philosophy behind housing rather lopsided.
People live in squalid conditions mainly because they can not afford better. So then have minimal furniture, no service charges, no rates, no garden service costs and so forth.
Along comes a RDP house, two bedrooms, kitchen, lounge – for free at that.
Nice.
There’s running water, electricity, refuse removal – not free.
Not so nice.
The cherry on the top is “Pay your TV licence, it’s the right thing to do”.
In response to Maggs Naidu’s posting of 16 December, for the record I was never DG of Housing. I was DG of Home Affairs from 2003 to 2005.
Hi Gwebe and `complimento’ of the new season. I hope you had a nice one bro. Thank you for your last 2009 post in this discussion. I really enjoyed it and I must mention that you really dug very deep to make your interesting points some of which I could trace back to discussions of other topics in this blog – a consistency which is lacking in some of the comrades and for which you maintain my respect.
Ok, let’s go straight to the arguments you have raised in your post. However, before I go deeper in tackling your arguments, I must make you aware of my expectation from you that any example you cite as a negative on the part of TM and his admin, should (a) neither be found / happening under JZ’s admin nor have happened under NM’s era (b)wherever such is a common denominators on either both (TM-JZ admins) or all – i.e. including NM, I expect you to equally name, blame and shame them proportionally which is part of my argument in this discussion. If (b) is not practiced then it will strengthen my argument that i) most of the things given as TM’s misdeeds are deliberately manufactured lies ii) wherever these misdeeds have indeed been committed by TM, such have been normal human errors that have unfortunately been blown out of proportion by his political detractors to seize political and state power and control of the means of production for their personal gain as opposed to that of the nation as they would like us to believe; and such errors are not proportional to the persona non grata status that his detractors have sentenced him with and went on to indoctrinate large section of our population (including those people one thought were learned and enlightened enough to differentiate good from bad, moral from immoral, darkness from light, right from wrong, democratic from non-democratic practice as well as having ability to give leadership to the nation by advocating for the good and moral as opposed to the bad and immoral when circumstances require) to believe and treat him as such. This I do taking into cognizance that you have demonstrated openness to acknowledge the bad decisions and actions that happened then under NM as well as some under JZ but have also noted that you still prefer UNFAIRNESSNESS in apportioning the sentence to them with regards to the bad decisions and actions taken by these leaders of our time and their administrations, largely in favour of NM and JZ, which is my concern.
Based on the above, in this post, let’s deal only with one of your arguments that “TM appointed questionable figures to his cabinet who continuously underperformed and he never held them responsible as their boss namely, Balfour, Nqakula, Sigcau, Modise …..”
Firstly, let’s get it correct here that Modise and Sigcau were appointed to their ministerial positions not by TM but rather by NM. TM just continued their appointments and went on to appoint Balfour and Nqakula. Be that as it may, I share your view that this quartet has really not impressed in their positions.
Secondly, as for their performance, I prefer not to make any pronouncement for I am not privy to their brief. The same goes for him (TM) failing to hold them responsible. Remember that some of the appointments at this level are for political and strategic reasons such as transformation which you and I may not always comprehend. Again it is not a binding norm of governance to hold your ministers and premiers accountable in public and in the presence of the media as one of the ways through which you and I could come to know about it to an extent that we can make the correct and fair assessment of their performance as you are making in your argument above. Again such accounting will obviously be based on the brief given and not on what you and I think the minister was supposed to do. It also a question of depends on the style of management which differs from one person to the next. And as for TM, we all know how closed and diplomatic among other attributes his management style has been which has left not only his party but also many people guessing. So for you to argue that he did not hold them accountable you certainly need to be privy to their brief and also to his style of management in which case you will have to present facts and figures on meetings he held or failed to hold with them, issues discussed and resolutions taken and whether or not such actions were acted upon, performance reviews he conducted that revealed their underperformances and failure on his part to either (a) put into place corrective actions and time frames for them to improve their performance and / or (b) relieve them of their duties. This also raises another point of consideration that it does not always follow that if one is a non-performer removal from one’s position in question is the appropriate remedy.
Thirdly, on the same issue of non-performing ministers, NM’s cabinet also had its fair share of non-performers and deadwoods as you and I have already identified some of them above. You can add cde Jay Naidoo as the Minister Without Portfolio after the RDP has been discarded. We also had cde Alfred Nzo as minister of foreign affairs who also used to enjoy sleeping in parliament sometimes in full glare of the media and international visitors. So as your argument goes above, given the above and the fact that he (NM) have never criticize them for their non-performance but instead kept them in their ministerial positions, NM was also supposed to be heavily criticized the same way TM is being criticized today, but this is not the case. Why? And why are the two, NM and TM being given different sentences – NM a darling of the movement and TM a counter revolutionary?
Remember again that Siqcau was not only a non-performer in the eyes of many but also an alleged corrupt politician who received bribe from Sol Kezner while a head of the Transkei homeland government, but the ANC went to an extent of expelling Holomisa for divulging her corrupt practices to protect her. This is despite Holomisa’a contribution to the struggle through by aiding and protecting ANC leaders and the fact that his (Holomisa’s) revelation in the context of giving reasons for toppling Stella’s few days’ government was in line with the international law and that he did consult with NM and TM prior to his presentation at the TRC.
Fourthly, having drawn your attention to the importance of briefings, political and strategic reasons behind ministers’ appointments which you and I may not be aware of; let me share with you what different `schools of thoughts’ think about the Holomisa-Sigcau case. One school of thought reason that following Holomisa’s alleged misconduct that brought the organization into disrepute, the organization had to choose to either reward Holomisa for blowing the whistle and subject Siqcau to disciplinary action or vice versa. In making its decision, the NEC had to consider the elections which were forthcoming in 1999 and the constituency that each of the two had in the Eastern Cape. Their assessment in this regard showed that they stood to loose the province had they subjected Siqcau who belongs to the Royal Family to humiliation and possible dismissal than when they used Holomisa as a scapegoat. Thus, Holomisa was unfairly expelled and Stella was kept not only in the ANC and in parliament, but also in her ministerial position despite her underperformance in you and my view. The other school of thought however, conclude that, Holomisa, just like Tokyo, Matthews and Ramaphosa were not the yes-men kind of the people TM would like to work with, hence his pounce on the opportunity to engineer Holomisa’s dismissal from the party, followed by that unfortunate allegation that Tokyo, Mathew and Ramaphosa were planning to topple TM. This also raises another possible reason behind appointment of anyone in any position – compatibility as opposed to competency. Whether or not you and I agree with these explanations is another thing, but clearly the appointment of ministers is motivated by more strategic reasons than just to build houses. And for anyone to make judgments on their performance and lack thereof, one has to be privy to such strategic reasons behind their appointments.
Lastly, the same strategic reasons apply in Zuma’s appointment of ministers and filling of other key government positions which beyond our comprehension. It is against this background that we are faced with and questioning the appointment of Simelane, Moe Shaik e.t.c. While I believe you will agree with me in this observation, I also expect you to disagree with me on this conclusive analysis that – while similar bad decisions and actions were committed during NM and TM and that the same are being committed by JZ and his administration, TM is the only person who suppose to bear the brunt of fire while similar misdeeds committed by the other two are extenuated as they end only light acknowledgement. This is my chief concern.
One reader, identified as Sipho, correctly asks a relevant question in the “The Times, Tuesday January 5, 2010 p2 under the “Your SMS Comments” section in relation to Ray Hartley’s article in last weekend’s Sunday Times which, in my view, sums it all – “which president in the world chooses his/her team solely on competency? So, this being the case, if you agree with the intent of this question, why punish one president with life sentence when he employs and keep non-performing ministers and reward the other with royal status for the same conduct?
Barry Gilder says:
December 28, 2009 at 9:02 am
In response to Maggs Naidu’s posting of 16 December, for the record I was never DG of Housing. I was DG of Home Affairs from 2003 to 2005.
———————————————————————————————————
Apologies for that – I recalled incorrectly then.
Any idea who was the DG then?
mayimele says:
January 5, 2010 at 14:29 pm
While I agree with you that compatibility is an over riding consideration, it cannot be that the mighty ANC does not have large corps of ready, willing and able competent people, who are compatible with any leader.
Re “such errors are not proportional to the persona non grata status that his detractors have sentenced him with and went on to indoctrinate large section of our population” – that surely cannot be correct. Take into account that TM had almost absolute control over all levers of power, a position than can only be the envy of any politician the world over. The “detractors” on the other hand had very little to go by. In the end, the reality was defined by the perception – that perception (and its consequences) was what he alone created.
Re “for anyone to make judgments on their performance and lack thereof, one has to be privy to such strategic reasons behind their appointments” – I am struggling between the sound intellectual rationale behind that view and the brutally, cold, hard reality in almost every facet of our society, which translates to my mind at least, of nothing short of callous cruelty of massive proportions.
You may recall from our previous exchanges that my view of TM is euphemistically stated “not good”. And of JZ and the JZ administration is “not soon enough”.
That said, I am now starting to question how soundly based my loyalties were and still are.
It seems that not many in government are taking our president seriously enough – and that is beyond what any of us could have reasonably expected. That, if there is any merit, may well result in terrible long term consequences, far from any strategic contemplation. I was inspired, for example, when our President called together the school principals and “laid down the law” – I am horrified at the many fiascos with matric exams and results, as has been reported.
I am perturbed at some of the rising voices within the ANC and the accompanying rhetoric which deviates substantially from some of its core principles, and that the promised re-emergence of open and robust debate seems to have degenerated to such levels that our leading intellectuals appear to have now withdrawn into isolation.
Nonetheless, I am hopeful that there will be a visible turn around in the coming months.
Huh? What do you mean you are “not privy to their brief”, Mayimele?
Sounds like babble IMHO. Members of Cabinet can find their job descriptions in S 91 through 102 of the Constitution. The only ‘briefs’ those members of cabinet have that we have not seen are their jockeys!
If you believe Ministers’ competence should be judged not by objective measures like the audit of their departments but by some kind of amorphous obscure confidential ‘brief’ why do you not apply to the information officers in those departments for access to those ‘briefs’?
Thanks Maggs for your input.
“..it cannot be that the mighty ANC does not have large cops of ready, willing and able competent people who are compatible with any leader”.
Quite correct. But it is still a prerogative of the leader to choose who among all the large corps of ready, willing and able competent people he would like to work with and who will best deliver on (a) the constitutional mandate, (b) political and (c) other strategic objectives – whichever is the greatest – that such a leader would like him/her to achieve.
“Take into account that TM had almost absolute control over all levers of power, a position than can only be the envy of any politician the world over”. Quite correct, just like NM had both constitutionally and after he had delegated much of it to TM – please note the importance of the word delegation-meaning TM did not illegally, forcefully and without NM’s approval usurp this powers from NM. And this did not stop NM from revoking these delegated powers from TM if he felt TM was abusing it. NM delegated TM to do most of the work not only because TM was his immediate deputy but also because he saw TM as being capable to so. The same applies to JZ; he has all the powers that are due to him by the constitution which give him control over all the levers of power that are there to be controlled. I cannot comment much about the situations of other politicians in the global society due to differences in political systems and even between and amongst those states that claim to be democratic. Based on this, I do not see what was unique about the powers that TM has which is different from the powers that NM and now JZ which justify why he should be treated as a pariah and devil as it is the case now.
Conversely, if indeed TM had control over all the levers of power, how come did Menzi Simelane, NIA, SAPS and other government agencies connived with JZ against him while he had all the powers to tell them what to do and what not? Could this have happened under Robert Mugabe who even under the power-sharing government still wilds more power than the pact government itself? So between TM and Mugabe who has control over all levers of power that is envy to other world politicians? Do you really and honestly think under Mugabe’s regime JZ could have survived the rape trials? And do you honestly think with the powers that Mugabe have today the ANC could have managed to recall TM? Would malema, vavi, blade, quelane, makgoba and seepe et al who carelessly go around lying to the nation in various forums that there was no democracy in SA under TM would have had space to vomit this nonsense under TM if he indeed had the extraordinary powers that no other political leader has globally as Mugabe seems to boost? I doubt.
“In the end, the reality was defined by the perception – that perception (and its consequences) was what he alone created”. So the perception here shaped the reality instead of vice versa. And then, you Maggs and the multitudes who share your views in this regard resigned yourself to perception and without digging deeper to establish the facts or lack of thereof behind such perceptions jump to the conclusion that this perception is real and true and go on to pass a capital judgment on TM without substantial evidence. This confirms my argument that his detractors have succeeded in indoctrinating large section of our population including those who were supposed not to be easily cheated to believe that TM is as bad as they claim and that whatever they are blaming him for cannot, will not and is not happening with JZ inasmuch as it did not happened with NM.
“Re “for anyone to make judgments on their performance and lack thereof, one has to be privy to such strategic reasons behind their appointments”-I am struggling between the sound intellectual rationale behind that view and the brutally, cold, hard reality in almost every facet of our society, which translates to my mind at least, of nothing short of callous cruelty of massive proportions”.
Firstly here Maggs you need to pronounce yourself to whether or not you agree that one’s ability and competency to deliver on the constitutional mandate is not all that matters when presidents choose people to occupy certain ministerial positions – that is, there are sometimes certain political and strategic reasons that they consider that may not be written anywhere and which you and I may not always comprehend or agree with. Once you have done this I will be able to understand your argument in this regards. For instance, I am not sure whether by your reference to “the sound intellectual rationale behind that view” you are questioning the intellectuality behind this observed practice by presidents or my observation of this practice.
“You may recall from our previous exchanges that my view of TM is euphemistically stated “not good”. And of JZ and the JZ administration is “not soon enough”.
Quite correct Maggs and you have not shifted an inch. But I can tell you that over the past six weeks I have observed from a number of newspapers that a number of people are now coming out saying it is not as green as we thought it is or as it looked from a distance. This includes those staunch JZ supporters who have tried painstakingly to project him as a saint as opposed to TM and a people’s president who will turn SA around for the benefit of all South Africans as opposed to TM who only benefited his close friends are now changing their tune. Sipho Seepe is one of them, while others are from within the alliance itself. However, this is another debate for another day.
mayimele says:
January 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
Very interesting.
There is much that I agree with.
For now re “‘the sound intellectual rationale behind that view’ you are questioning the intellectuality behind this observed practice by presidents or my observation of this practice” is the crux of this.
I concur that the high profile placements are in relation to the strategic perspective of the incumbent president.
My comment was this.
If in exercising the Presidential prerogatives the strategic choices consistently result in outcomes different, for the worse, to that which is enshrined in the ANC’s election manifesto, then, in my view, the President is, in simple speak, out of order.
There are complex processes which lead to the manifesto and the President is duty bound, morally anyway, to ensure that all stops are pulled out to achieve those outcomes or at the very least to make sure that the country works its way towards that.
It may be unfair to assess this early, but I am somewhat saddened by some of what I see and read which has to be placed squarely at the door of the Zuma administration.
It boggles the mind how the situation was allowed to develop where some matriculants will get their results too late for university admission affecting not only their futures but that of their families and the entire country. The country went into panic when a young man killed himself because he could not get his ID book and therefore a job. What is it going to take to get exam papers marked and results released on time or maybe even just to make sure that people do the work that they are paid to do, from the President down?
“If in exercising the Presidential prerogatives the strategic choices consistently result in outcomes different, for the worse, to that which is enshrined in the ANC’s election manifesto, then, in my view, the President is, in simple speak, out of order”.
Now I understand your point Maggs and fully agree. All I can say is “such is politics” and it happened with NM and TM and now with JZ and one can vouch that it will still happen with any other presidents long after JZ will have stepped down.
“It may be unfair to assess this early, but I am somewhat saddened by some of what I see and read which has to be placed squarely at the door of the Zuma administration.”
I fully agree with you on this one too. But while it is indeed unfair to blame JZ’s admin for the fiasco surrounding the matric results in Mpumalanga since it is just a byproduct of the corruption and mismanagement of the province by Ndaweni Mahlangu in particular (remember that this problem started long in the mid 90s) under TM that has spread over to Makwetla, this unfair criticism of JZ is justified in the sense that when all these corruption was happening under TM he (JZ) together with his alliance, armed with greediness for power and to avoid prosecution, saw and labeled this as an indication of TM’s poor management as a result of which, among other things, he had to be recalled. In the process they promised heaven and earth that once JZ comes to power he will sweep every public sector institutions clean and improve service delivery. Now, six months in power instead of people being catered with improved service delivery they are instead fed with tough talk rhetoric against corruption and corrupt public officials which are hardly translated into practice. And instead of seeing difference on these fronts between JZ and TM, they seem to be seeing more similarities. Based on this, the criticism is justified. There was a degree of deliberate lying on their part as well as clear indication of how uninformed about governance they have been and still are irrespective of the fact that some of them have been in government since 1994.
mayimele says:
January 6, 2010 at 13:50 pm
So it seems.
There’s the issue of open and robust debate. It could hardly have been anticipated that that implied some of the uncalled for vicious, racist and/or sexist rhetoric that occupied much of last year.
Where public space should have been occupied by policy, strategy and tactical issues, some high profile ANC members and/or supporters have given way to humiliating and ripping others to shreds – hardly the way to build the organisation.
While I think he was mischievous at best, in trivialising and personalising the beneficiation debate for example, Jeremy Cronin certainly deserves better than contempt with which he was treated by Malema. The important essence of Cronin’s valuable input as a result, now seems lost forever.
On that score beneficiation surely has to do with a lot more that manufacturing a few finished products. I think it goes to the very heart of economic (and social) transformation. In unpacking the structural and systemic elements around the constraints, more informed objectives can be defined, not the least of which is education and skills development at all levels. Add to that our rather pathetic transportation network, including an excuse for a rail system, the port systems and the like. Add to that electricity, telecoms, IT and and and.
That to my mind is better and more important than selling of mines with depleted resources to the state, a move which can only serve the interests of now desperate mining companies.
The debates have been cunningly and deliberately, I would venture, turned on their heads.
I suspect that future generations are going to wonder what it was that this generation was smoking to allow ourselves to degenerate so.
It almost seems that, if we keep going the way we are, the Phoenix that rose from the ashes of apartheid will end up as one cold turkey!
@Maggs
“Where public space should have been occupied by policy, strategy and tactical issues, some high profile ANC members and/or supporters have given way to humiliating and ripping others to shreds – hardly the way to build the organization”.
Quite correct Maggs. What surprises me a lot with this new type of “robust debate” (80% of which appear to be personal, racial and sexual attacks through insults, humiliation and character assassination) which was apparently stifled in the past 15 years (logically by Mandela and Mbeki) is that it is misguided, uncontrolled and as a results bringing more harm and shame to the ANC than its opponents (Cope, DA e.t.c) who were supposed to be the greatest beneficiaries of this wickedness. The worse part of it is that it is spearheaded by imbecile youth league members, Cosatu and the SACP who clearly lack any political education and discipline that previously formed part of the grooming of leaders in the ANC. And while all this is unfolding, senior and veteran members of the movement retreat because the very president of the organization who was supposed to be the first to condemn this malevolence is `cool’ with them and even encourage them to do more. One would expect this new ANC to what sword to reserve for its opponents and a stick to use for its members, but that will be asking for too much. It is against this background that, comparatively speaking, the top drawer insults and ill-treatment they meted out to Mbeki is extremely evil than they have ever treated their political opponents with.
And under this situation where the new (Zimbabwe type of war veterans of 15 to 20 years who have never been part of the real struggle against apartheid) liberation fighters have captured the control of the ANC with JZ’s blessing; forget about our public space being occupied by the robust debate of policies, strategies and tactical issues. This never happened under NM and TM and with the complete erosion of acknowledgement and respect for parental and seniority leadership within the movement, let alone political education and maturity, it will take decades to understand why the two did not give blank checks to Peter Mokaba and Gigaba during their reign and why TM did not bend to the disrespectful approaches of the youth league under Mbalula. The same goes for why they did not want to give the SACP and Cosatu even a passage at Luthuli House.
That is the basis upon which the two previous leaders wanted to build the ANC which is clearly contrary to how JZ want to build his ANC. Although in his mind and he is doing it the Mandela way. You be the judge.
“While I think he was mischievous at best, in trivializing and personalizing the beneficiation debate for example, Jeremy Cronin certainly deserves better than contempt with which he was treated by Malema. The important essence of Cronin’s valuable input as a result, now seems lost forever”
Quite correct again. And in my view, as indicated, above, under the current circumstance where imbecile and the less informed are leading the debate, it is not easy to apply reasoning, lest you are labeled the intellectual. It is against this background that the informed and politically matured senior members of the movement such as Kader Asmal, Ginwala, Kathrada, Pallo Jordan have retreated with shame. Those who tried to provide guidance like Ginwala, Asmal and now Cronin, were ripped to shreds and resolved to stay away from the kitchen while SA and its future is burning to ashes. This can also explain why Mbeki, despite his usual self-centeredness, used his knowledge and experience to see through these `new liberation fighters’ without a course and refused to argue with them.
Because of this, not only Cronin’s valuable input has been compromised and lost, but there are also a lot of opportunities we have lost as a country that could have helped us to sustain our miraculous transition to democracy, consolidate our democratic institutions, entrench our democratic practices and principles of freedom, non-racialism, fairness, and faceless before the law as well as improved equitable delivery of services. It is unfortunate that the very same new ANC has also captured the civil society structures which, at this point in time when there is no hope for our political leaders to arrest this downward spiral in which our country and hard-earned democracy finds itself in, would be our only vehicle to challenge this malice.
“In unpacking the structural and systemic elements around the constraints, more informed objectives can be defined, not the least of which is education and skills development at all levels. Add to that our rather pathetic transportation network, including an excuse for a rail system, the port systems and the like. Add to that electricity, telecoms, IT and and and”.
Quite correct. When you look at education and skills development particularly, we are often told that there are no adequately skilled people in SA to do perform certain functions and carry out certain activities. Since the mid-1990s our country has been a theatre for professionals from different countries such as Cuba, UK, us, e.t.c. to close the skills gab. At the same time our education system and curriculums have always been fiddled with by one minister to the next in search for solutions. So far these changes from one education system or curriculum to the next has not been informed by any substantive, transparent and holistic review of the past interventions but rather driven by political agendas which have not looked at some of the core problems that requires our attention. For instance, the contribution of political deployment in both public and private sector, cronyism, nepotism and corrupt appointments (which often involve placement people who have neither formal education nor experience in key strategic position) to the ineffectiveness of our education system and curriculums; skills development and sustainability of skilled people in these sectors and country. The practice by institutions of high learning and big companies of cheating transformation by employing African academics from other African countries instead of the locals. All these can only be identified, thoroughly discussed and resolved with good management and regulatory policies and strategies if the leaders of the “robust debate” in this regards are, inter alia, informed, mature and objective and also have the interests of SA and current and future South Africans at heart.
mayimele says:
January 7, 2010 at 9:58 am
“And in my view, as indicated, above, under the current circumstance where imbecile and the less informed are leading the debate, it is not easy to apply reasoning, lest you are labeled the intellectual”.
“The meek shall inherit the Earth” or so the saying goes. We seem heading to where the dumb shall inherit South Africa.
In the recent past few months I have engaged with a range of young people and I am impressed so much about them and what they think and aspire towards.
For a nation that has inspired the world post 1994 in so many ways, it’s indeed a crying shame that young people have allowed their political space, and therefore a lot that impacts on their tomorrow, to be occupied and determined by those who have very little to offer, beyond retards who literally offered naked bums to the cameras and the world.
There’s still time for President Zuma to turn things around – but the absence of intellectuals and political philosophers is becoming glaringly obvious.
Where have all our great minds disappeared to?
@ Maggs
“Where have all our great minds disappeared to?”
One wise man once said; “Let a fool shout, in case people do not notice the difference.”
@ Mayimele
Thanks for your kind words. I hope you had a gud break and all the best for 2010.
I appreciate the effort you demonstrate in our engagements and your ability to support your opinions without resorting to unpalatable comments. I will try my level best to keep our interaction at highest level possible.
I have noticed that Maggs challenged you on some of the issue you have raised and I will not go into detail about your exchange but rather voice my support for Maggs comments. Lets start with your ‘chief concern’ TM is the only person who suppose to bear the brunt of fire while similar misdeeds committed by the other two are extenuated as they end only light acknowledgement.
It was not my intention to unfairly criticize TM while I spare JZ and NM. Lets first agree on the following split 1) ANC challenges 2) Government Challenges 3) Others e.g. legacy, personality, management style.
Let us also split our period after 94 to the following NM= 94-99, TM=97-2008, JZ=2009- NOW(Mothlante is under JZ). Based on these time frames TM has been in charge for 2/3 of our democratic moment and hence it is fair to apportion bigger slice of the blame on him. Although it is well known that Mandela handed over to TM halfway thru his term we will still hold him(NM) for his period since he could have intervened when there was a need. This was the first term of govt of the the ANC and not much was expected out of this term other than to review certain oppressive laws and formulate new progressive laws, policies etc. My criticism on NM lies more on the negotiation period rather than his term as president. Yes Mandela had deadwood in his cabinet but all appointments then were based not only strategy but potential. By the time TM came we had 5 yrs of experience in running the country and he appointed deadwood not only once but twice. During Mandela’s term TM was influential enough to channel thru the GEAR policy which he later implemented religiously in his two terms and again it will be fair to give him both the credit and blame of the outcomes of those policies.
We can all agree that the following depts/Programmes have undeperformed since 94 Education, Health, RDP, Home Affairs, Housing, Defence, Sports, Public Enteprises, DTI etc. In a normal democracy the party/president who presided over such failure should loose elections and must be laballed as failures.
Once in govt the ANC developed a new culture of elitism, corruption, patronage and selfishness. Comrades started uttering statements such as,” I did not struggle to be poor.” Proximity to Power especially TM made one a suitable candidate for BEE. Big business started selecting their targets (rented darkies) carefully and it was all obvious who the right peolple were. Public funds from PIC, IDC, DBSA, LANDBAK and other entities were used to finance these deals. State assets such as Telkom, Iscor and others were offloaded again to the right people under the watchful eye of ………. and at times with his blesssings.
TO BE CONTINUED
Gwebecimele says:
January 7, 2010 at 11:06 am
“Lets start with your ‘chief concern’ TM is the only person who suppose to bear the brunt of fire while similar misdeeds committed by the other two are extenuated as they end only light acknowledgement.”
Of course he is, there’s no way around that. And there’s no excuses.
Ditto for President Zuma for the current term. He’s been given a solid mandate to get the ANC and the country into shape. If he fails, there’s no excuses.
And the mess that’s going on – he, JZ, is fully accountable. How long does it take to organise cleaners to clean up the filth and grime at some of our public hospitals. It took only a few months to get our President’s home extended at the cost of R65 million, it should take not more than a week to organise some must dos. How difficult can it really be to clean up the raw corruption at Home Affairs or identify and fire the useless, lazy, corrupt civil servants in Education?
Mayimele is wrong on that score – the buck has to stop with the incumbent President.
I agree with you on President Mandela.
@ Mayimele
JZ and NM have made the some of the mistakes that were commited by TM and they should be held accountable for that. JZ has been President for one year and when the time comes I will subject him to the same test. The ANC and its leadership must also share the blame for allowing itself to be reduced to one man vision.
Can we limit ourselves to facts and public knowledge about the performance of our state entitites. The Auditor Generals reports in their edited versions are there for all to see on what was the performance of these entities and their political heads. Their re-appointments can only send one message that the Boss happy with their performance. Parliament was discouraged and even reprimanded for trying to hold the executive responsible. DG’s were reporting directly to the President who appointed them. JZ and NM did not appoint DG’s. If the President keeps underperformers then he must shoulder the blame. I am not even interested on how he manage or appraise them but I want to see correction/improvements where failure has been identified.
The matric results today are still a reflection of what happened in the past and govt failed these kids with OBE and other incoherent initiatives that happened in the last 12 yrs. The DG of Education (both Hindle and Mseleku) should have been taken to disciplinary hearing for underperformance. Thanks to the new admin Hindle is going, OBE gone and there are two education depts that can change the fate of our children.
I blame Mandela for not acting on HIV/Aids and really selling us short at the negotiating table. I will also blame him for allowing the axing of Holomisa from the ANC and the appointments he made to cabinet. Already JZ has made unpopular decisions and there are actions that I am not comfortable with but he is just one year into the position. My expectations are even higher for him because this is ANC’s third term and there is enough lessons that we have captured along the way.
In my books TM was in charge and he is fully responsible for what happened in the 2/3 period of our democracy. The failures are all out there for us to see.
Sine says:
January 7, 2010 at 11:04 am
One wise man once said; “Let a fool shout, in case people do not notice the difference.”
———————————————————————————————————–
Hey Sne – do you think Minister Nzimande really shouted this?
“He then urged party members to go out in big numbers to help grow the organisation to fight other threats – such as the mushrooming malls in the townships.
“’I have heard people singing SACP songs at Nafcoc meetings. These are people who have been retrenched and have opened spaza shops and taverns. They cannot survive because malls are taking their business’”.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1102438
Quick question: Maggs, where were your elected representatives during all this? Did they not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and are they not paid in large part to exercise Parliamentary Oversight over the Executive?
Gwebecimele says:
“By the time TM came we had 5 yrs of experience in running the country and he appointed deadwood not only once but twice.”
“We can all agree that the following depts/Programmes have undeperformed since 94 Education, Health, RDP, Home Affairs, Housing, Defence, Sports, Public Enteprises, DTI etc. In a normal democracy the party/president who presided over such failure should loose elections and must be laballed as failures…”
“Once in govt the ANC developed a new culture of elitism, corruption, patronage and selfishness. Comrades started uttering statements such as,” I did not struggle to be poor.” Proximity to Power especially TM made one a suitable candidate for BEE. Big business started selecting their targets (rented darkies) carefully and it was all obvious who the right peolple were. Public funds from PIC, IDC, DBSA, LANDBAK and other entities were used to finance these deals. State assets such as Telkom, Iscor and others were offloaded again to the right people under the watchful eye of ………. and at times with his blesssings.”
“Can we limit ourselves to facts and public knowledge about the performance of our state entitites. The Auditor Generals reports in their edited versions are there for all to see” on what was the performance of these entities and their political heads.”
“Parliament was discouraged and even reprimanded for trying to hold the executive responsible. DG’s were reporting directly to the President who appointed them. JZ and NM did not appoint DG’s. If the President keeps underperformers then he must shoulder the blame.”
@ Mayimele/ Gwebecimele.
”’For ultimately the buck stops with me,’ Obama said at the White House. ‘As president I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people, and when the system fails, it is my responsibility.’”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/article252771.ece
Brett Nortje says:
January 7, 2010 at 18:04 pm
“Quick question: Maggs, where were your elected representatives during all this?”
It seem that many were plotting the palace revolution, which, as is now well known, had succeeded.
Some were fiddling the travel system.
Some did not join the struggle to remain poor.
Others did what they were paid to do and did that well.
Party representatives were in parliament under the able Chief Whip Goniwe who cracked the whip according to instructions hence he is gone.
@ Maggs, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:35 am
“… the buck stops with me, .. Obama”
“I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer”. Obama
Compare the above with the attitutude of our own administration.
MBEKI and no one or nothing elese is the problem. He has now replaced the apartheid policies. However, for the drop inthe 2009 matric results it is not JZ and not Angie but rather teachers. When government administrators, MECs, Premiers, DGs and ministers fail to do their work in the previous regime it was all Mbeki’s fault and he is indeed paying their price.
Maggs, a quick reminder seems appropriate. Four Parliamentary Portfolio Committees are chaired by convicted Travelgate fraudsters. These are the people who make laws to deprive me of licensed firearms. ROTFLMAO!
Gwebecimele, MP’s swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Why is it OK if they have no clue about their duties or the Constitution, but an old lady who would prefer not to cut the hair of the head of the SAHRC is presumed to know what is in the Bill of Rights?
@Mayimele
Neither Helen Zille is responsible for Western Cape results. Angie might be responsible for Gauteng results but not the national. A 2009 matric pupil has been in the system for last 12 yrs and their performance at matric is not only a reflection of that particular year but the overall schooling years.
Earlier I mentioned Ducan Hindle who is the outgoing DG at Education and has been at the helm for about 7 yrs and he watched while the house was on fire. The media has been soft on Hindle and I suspect his skin colour is his immunity. Headline today on the Star, ” Angie got F for maths”.
Brett
I do not recall the words of the oath but I am sure each MP will pledge allegiance to the party first and the country second. By the way these applies to our opposition parties as well. We do not have a good record of MP’s voting against party positions.
Gwebecimele, I fear you are right.
Disgraceful, is it not?
What happened to the idea of allegiance to God Country Family?
In Zille’s case: She was a very effective MEC for Education.
Interesting. Only Gwebecimele has shown consistent conceptual clarity about the functions of state: “Education, Health, RDP, Home Affairs, Housing, Defence, Sports, Public Enteprises, DTI”.
I do not agree with his classification (and I will remind you that Dworky acknowledged my expertise in this field…) But, the New Left has completely befuddled conceptual clarity over the traditional functions of state. Even Francis Fukuyama did this.
In this country one of the major bedevilling factors is the refusal of the ANC and its supporters to distinguish between party, government and state. Not surprising they get away with it considering the lack of conceptual clarity.
When the post-mortem is done of South Africa, the failed state, we might perhaps get clarity of what the functions of state were and how the ANC’s government addressed them, and what policies the ANC set its government to execute the functions of state.
Maggs, you and Mayimele are major transgressors in this regard.
Story of SA
If 100 kids were born during our last 15 yrs .
One of the mothers would die from giving birth(maternal mortality)
70% would receive immunisation
6 would die before their first birthday
9 would not see their 5th birthday
Most will not live beyond 55
Grown up in an economy that is growing at an average 3%
90 will start schoooling and Half will drop before matric
of the 45 writing matric about 25 will pass and only 5 go to varsity
About 2 will complete their degrees
40% will live in poverty for the rest of their lives
About 60 will ever work in their lives
About 20 will be grants beneficiaries
80% will be directly affected by crime in their lifetime
2 to 3 may die from unnatural causes
20% will not have access to RDP standards water
About 25% will not have electricity
25% will have HIV
0.04 WILL BE MURDERED
Some of the above are estimates!!!!!!!!!!!!
Put faces to these figures then you will understand what underperformance is.
And the story goes on and no one is responsible
How many of the 45 will hang themselves because they failed Matric, Gwebecimele?
I found myself dwelling on that a couple of times today. Shameful.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1102769
Khutsong leads and refuse to be relegated to a dustbin.
Gwebe says,
December 15, 2009 at 21:38 pm
Mayimele
Thanks for the reply Broer.
“The 3 TM’s (Mbeki,Manuel,Mboweni) presided over a period that promoted economic policies that benefited the elite at the expense of the poor.”
My understanding here is different. The policies and their intended objectives were not wrong but some of their aspects were and still are not correct. And these incorrect aspects were not intended but rather unforeseen. This aspect relates, inter alia, to implementation and scope. For instance, the macro-economic policy has yielded both positive and negative results. The positive thing about it is that it has helped our economy to achieve a sustained growth of almost 5% for many years since the mid-90s, become stable and attractive to foreign investment which created thousands of both formal and informal jobs, albeit below the initial target of 400 000 per annum, protected our economy from immediate impact of recession as well as shortening its lifespan and impact once confirmed. However, the primary negative aspect is that the kind of economic growth it has achieved over all these years have not trickled down to the broader community in terms of, for instance creating enough formal job opportunities and arresting the ever increasing inequalities and socio-economic status of the broader population. However, this is not unique to SA. Even the first world economies like US and the UK do experience economic growth that does not have immediate magical impact on the ground where each percent of growth directly translates into hundreds of jobs. So it was and still will be unthinkable for anyone to have expected our economy under TM to have done so; and the same applies to the JZ admin.
Another argument mainly from the left hand of the ANC regarding our economic policies has been and still is the inflation targeting focus under TM which is said to have favored the capitalists at the expense of the poor. You will be advised not to take anything from vavi, blade, cronin and vilakazi as well-thought and well-researched gospel truth. Mbeki may not have been popular inasmuch as he has never and will never seek to be popular with the above who own and control the thinking process, choices and actions of the large section of the South African population including their president; but he clearly had the interest of the South Africans at heart. He was not the kind of a person who would have advocated for policies that will put SA out of touch with the global reality for his benefit (which cannot be proven to date) and that of his alleged friends (as we are currently witnessing with the current leadership). What the above are advocating for are the socialist policies that, according to Vohries, will put SA on the “socialist path to capitalism”, the rocky road travelled by countries like the former USSR block and Yugoslavia under Marshal Tito.
What you are saying above, as I have always argued, is a manufactured set of lies by the above et al with the blessing of JZ for their personal gains and egos as opposed to that of the country and the nation. And they have indeed succeeded in convincing not only the poor less-, and un-informed masses, but also the highly educated, informed and enlightened people of our nation to think as such. For instance and with due respect Gwebs, because of you whom I would regard as being informed and enlightened having resigned yourself to their thinking, interpretation of situations and decision-making as to whom to love and hate, you have not taken advantage of your being enlightened, informed, right to formulate your own interpretations of things and situations as well as liberty to make your own decisions to review and satisfy yourself how far true are these people’s arguments and conclusions. As a result in you argument above, you fail to realize the positive aspects of these policies and to apply your own mind in quantifying the positive and the negatives in order to make a fair judgment. This resignation of thyself to the above opportunists has also obscured your analysis to the reality that the current JZ admin is clinging to the same policies you are bedeviling. And they do so against the disapproval of the very same partners (SACP & Cosatu) who elevated him to the highest office in the land which, who would like to see more socialist policies replacing the 3TMs’.
And to me this is understandable. Otherwise, why would they not cling to the policies the outcome of which helped them to win the 2009 elections which they always cited under the colloquial “over the past 15 years the ANC has..blah, blah, blah”. Although in celebrating these achievements, they disappointingly and painstakingly try to separate them from the very same Mbeki who `single-handedly created these policies and ensured their implementation (or lack thereof) to the latter’ for 2/3 of the past 15 years, in accordance with your analysis.
If my analysis is wrong, help explain why the JZ’s admin is clinging to these policies with minor changes instead of replacing them if they are indeed bad policies for SA’s economy and for which Mbeki must be blamed the way in which he is being blamed and treated to date? Why doesn’t the JZ admin put the policies that will immediately create jobs for all South Africans who have been marginalized by the Mbeki policies?
Brett Nortje says:
January 8, 2010 at 9:06 am
“Interesting. Only Gwebecimele has shown consistent conceptual clarity about the functions of state: “Education, Health, RDP, Home Affairs, Housing, Defence, Sports, Public Enterprises, DTI”.
“I do not agree with his classification (and I will remind you that Dworky acknowledged my expertise in this field…) But, the New Left has completely befuddled conceptual clarity over the traditional functions of state. Even Francis Fukuyama did this”.
“Maggs, you and Mayimele are major transgressors in this regard”.
_________________
So what in your expert view is the function of the state so one can see how Gwebe and I have transgressed in this regards.
Maggs and Mayimele seem to agree that TM and his supporters have it all wrong. Maggs and Mayimele – true to their kind – think the function of the state is to please the Party. Their main criticism of TM and his supporters is that TM thought the function of the state is to please the President (from where it was observably a small step to what pleases the emperor is law…)
What are first principles here?
The state is the permanent, timeless entity; the Constitution is the contract by which the people consent to being governed; government is the temporary vehicle directing the execution of state functions according to the dictates of the Constitution.
I – and a lot of other people – thought the inclusion of third generation rights (turning the Constitution into a wishlist rather than a legal framework cast in stone) in the Constitution was a pretty accurate indicator of how serious the ANC was about the idea of supremacy of the Constitution and the Rechtstaat.
The Constitution is not nearly explicit enough about the functions of state although, obviously, going through it with a pen and paper, you can get a fair idea. It is a fatal flaw though when you are dealing with a government that cannot prioritise.
What is a government doing with a department of sport when it cannot maintain law and order in the country? Public enterprises, when it cannot ensure the integrity of our borders? Trade and Industry, when it has run the administration of criminal justice into the ground?
@ mayimele
I hope you have seen the article by Veli Mbele from the City Press( also pasted on this blog by Sine)which summarises our challenges and missed opportunities of the past 16 yrs.
The matric results are just a tip of what is wrong with our education system. The 1 million missing matriculents who started school tweve years ago cannot be accounted for.
It is a sad story indeed.
@ Mayimele
The inequality that has been created around education should embarass any legitimate black politician. Our policies are producing exactly the opposite of what should be done, thanks to the best minds of the last 16 yrs.
One blogger put it correctly and said the Indian and White kids we see with ditinctions are the reflection of the transformation we have been pursuing.
The poor must demand equality amongst public schools and stop this exclusion of their children from the best public schools.
How many Afrikaans-medium schools are left? Look at their results.
If we have a culture it is a culture of order.
Perhaps, Gwebecimele, the larger part of the problem is the excuses and alibis and fingerpointing at anyone but the man in the mirror?
Schooling reflects every other sphere of governance except SARS. The ANC is serious about gathering the loot.
@ Gwebe
I have seen and read the article Gwebs. It is indeed saddening. But it does not only paints an accurate and bad picture of the past 16 years, it also reflects on what is happening today which is the continuation of the past, albeit in a different way, that will continue to shape our future until we stop looking at the challenges that confront us in terms of the individuals, race and the political parties involved and `what is in it for us’ if we adopt this or that position even if we know it is incorrect.
@ Brett
Thank you for your response Brett.
On the function of the state and government, I think you might have slightly misunderstood the thrust of the debate between Maggs and me.
You say
“What are first principles here?
The state is the permanent, timeless entity; the Constitution is the contract by which the people consent to being governed; government is the temporary vehicle directing the execution of state functions according to the dictates of the Constitution. ”
I completely agree with you on this one and I guess Maggs too will agree with you on the separation between the two, their status as well as the role of the constitution in regulating their relationship.
The reason I think you might have misunderstood our debate in this regard is that when Gwebe mentioned education, health e.t.c as some of the functional areas of government through which we must judge the performance or lack thereof of Mbeki’s administration, the focus was certainly not on the role of both the sate and the government on these issues, but rather on the performance of the administration of the day in delivering services in these functional areas. In my response too, my focus was not on whether or not these functions have correctly been placed under the government’s responsibility as opposed to the sate or vice versa, but rather on the performance on the government of the day in this regards and the fact that ability to deliver on these issues is not the only requirement in appointing ministers responsible for the respective departments. That is when Maggs came in (January 5, 2010 at 19:42 pm) with the supportive argument to Gwebe that the ANC has ‘…large corps of ready, willing and able competent people, who are compatible with any leader’ but apparently TM always appointed the underperformers.
So the difference between the two was never a focus of our debate. As a result of the above, it might have happened that we unintentionally allowed the lines to be blurred between these two institutions. But in the whole, I personally know and agree with you on the difference between the two and the contractual relationship between the state and the government as well as how the two should operate. This is despite the fact that these two are more often that not used interchangeable and sometimes without understanding of their differences. This may have its roots and influence from the apartheid era whereby there was clearly no separation between the two.
Also based on the above, I disagree with your analysis below that
(a) “Maggs and Mayimele seem to agree that TM and his supporters have it all wrong”. My contention is that while there might be some of the things that TM got wrong, there are many things that he got right but for which he is not be credited. And the same applies to NM and JZ to date.
(b) “Maggs and Mayimele – true to their kind – think the function of the state is to please the Party.”
You are completely wrong Brett. I have never pronounced myself on what the function of the state nor government is and cannot remember Maggs doing so during our debate.
(c) “Their main criticism of TM and his supporters is that TM thought the function of the state is to please the President (from where it was observably a small step to what pleases the emperor is law…)”
You are also completely wrong on this one. While Maggs and I agree in some of the issues we also disagree in most. I do not have the above as one of my criticism of TM and, while I am not sure, I do not remember Maggs advancing this sort of criticism during our exchanges.
Whichever planet is COSATU living on?
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-26-cosatu-questions-greed-of-marogas-eskom-claim
According to Cosatu: “This is yet another example of the culture of self-entitlement and greed, which has plagued the business sector and has been invading the public service as well.”
“Eskom is still a public utility, with a mandate to provide power to all South Africans as efficiently and cheaply as possible. It is not, and must never become, a business to maximise profits and a way of enriching a small elite of executives.”
According to the ANCYL :
ANCYL spokesman Floyd Shivambu said Eskom workers who support transformation have spoken out against “the victimisation of their embattled chief executive officer Jacob Maroga”.
“The NUM General Secretary (Baleni) has despite the workers’ action in ESKOM, decided to be join those who are spokespersons of capitalists and blindly defend Bobby Godsell. The ANCYL will permanently have a problem with leaders who sit in air-conditioned offices and defend capitalists’ interests against the transformation agenda in the economy.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article189972.ece
“A number of vehicles – including one of The Star’s – had their windows shattered, and a bus and a car were torched when service delivery protests in Soweto turned violent. …”
“The Motsoaledi Concerned Residents issued a statement saying they had taken a decision to conduct militant protests with the aim of disrupting the economic flow in Soweto ‘because that is how these big politicians take notice and come to respond to service delivery issues’”.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100128064816921C723198&page_number=1
Are you counting? The how-manieth service delivery riot is that this week?
Davies’ J-curve theory….
It is amazing is it not? Compare Apartheid-era policing and the amount of force used now in service delivery riots….
Those mhlungus were sooooo evil!
There is a possibility that Pretoria might change its name to Tshwane today.
While we are at it can’t we change Blue Bulls to Ngunis.
Let the right name win!!!!!!!!!!!
Gwebecimele says:
January 28, 2010 at 7:57 am
“While we are at it can’t we change Blue Bulls to Ngunis”.
Nice touch.
There’s too many Blue thingies about anyway.
Blue lights, Blue Label, Once-in-a-Blue-Moon win for Bafana-Bafana, Adv Seth Nthai blew it (maybe), Moan-till-they’re-Blue-in-the-face politicians, Juju’s outbursts come out of the Blue.
@ Maggs
“Adv Seth Nthai blew it (maybe)”
Maggs, I am disappointed to hear you embracing a RACIST conspiracy theory calculated to bring senior Black lawyers into disrepute!
Ah Dworky,
Now that you’re about another one comes to mind.
Blue-blooded racist!
Are you connecting the dots? Qualified audits and name-changes?
ANC ditherers!
ROTFLMAO@theANC! What a bunch of wankers.
Gwebe 15, 2009 at 21:38 pm says,
“The 3 TMs (Mbeki, Manuel, Mboweni) presided over a period that promoted economic policies that benefited the elite at the expense of the poor”
Mayimele January 8, 2010 at 11:58 am asks,
“………why the JZ’s admin is clinging to these policies with minor changes instead of replacing them if they are indeed bad policies for SA’s economy and for which Mbeki must be blamed the way in which he is being blamed and treated to date? Why doesn’t the JZ admin put the policies that will immediately create jobs for all South Africans who have been marginalized by the Mbeki policies?
JZ says, http://news.za.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=151919461
AND GWEBE???????
@ Mayimele
Welcome back, good to hear from you.
My point still stands and the facts are out there to see.
As far as JZ statements in Davos, he is probably telling them what they want to hear.
I am still waiting for your comment on the latest Auditor General’s report which summarises our performance of the past.
Gwebe January 7, 2010 at 18:04 pm argues,
“Proximity to Power especially TM made one a suitable candidate for BEE. Big business started selecting their targets (rented darkies) carefully and it was all obvious who the right people were. Public funds from PIC, IDC, DBSA, LANDBAK and other entities were used to finance these deals. State assets such as Telkom, Iscor and others were offloaded again to the right people under the watchful eye of ………. and at times with his blessings.”
NOW http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5322896
While it was still politically commercial to pass the bug, the ANC treasurer Mathews Phosa had promised to take steps to disinvest the party’s interest in Hitachi, which makes products ranging from home appliances to industrial machinery.
Only God knows what might have blocked the Hon Dr. Matthews Phosa powered by Polokwane resolution to execute this most important action which the ANC under TM committed.
But what we know now is that “there was nothing wrong with the party holding a stake in Hitachi” ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe said this week.
AND Gwebe???????
@ Mayimele
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Again, I still stand by my points on BEE cronies that you quoted and I do not approve of the ANC holding stakes in Private companies or having secret donors.
As for Phosa, I would rather belive Julius than him he seems to be firing a lot of blanks lately.
@Mayimele
The fact that the current ANC is repeating TM’s mistakes does not absolve him. JZ will have to answer for himself when the time comes.
Government inaction on graft alleged
Jan 28, 2010 2:31 PM | By Sapa
The head of the Special Investigating Unit, Willie Hofmeyr, expressed frustration that the government failed to deal decisively with cases of corruption identified by his staff.
“There are cases of a really serious nature where disciplinary action does not take place,” Hofmeyr told Parliament’s watchdog public accounts committee, Scopa.
Calling disciplinary processes “a weakness of government”, Hofmeyr said even when they were initiated, “I’m afraid they seldom run to a conclusion”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article281606.ece
Gwebe, on the Auditor General report, my apology for late response. In actual fact I have gone through most of the reports for the past few years and I agree with you on how bad our government through its various departments and the Ministers responsible for them has performed. But as I have always argued, this was and still is not unique to an Mbeki’s administration. I do not mind also bending to your argument that it all happened under Mbeki, exonerating Mandela for all the reasons and arguments you have advanced. I also do not mind even to accept as you would argue that even the drop in the overall performance of the government from 38% to 35% is as a result of Mbeki. But as I have said above, the young ones are not yet born. Wait for the performance of the new administration in this regards and see you will still have a leg to stand on and courage to bedevil JZ and his admin like you are doing with Mbeki, since they claim to be the new broom that sweeps clean despite the contrary outcomes in many fronts since September 2008 (Motlante) and June 2009 (JZ). For instance, their quick megaphone diplomatic solution to Zim’s problems as opposed to TM’s quite diplomacy (zero), financial policies (no change, instead they are clinging to Mbeki’s policies), stop abuse of state institutions (NPA, SAPS, NIA) for personal gains (you be the judge), respect to constitution (zero), stop corruption (zero), closing down of Chancellor House and disinvesting from Hitachi / Eskom (zero), creating 500 000 jobs (public 0, JZ Pals 100), speed up service delivery (in Nkadla, yes).
Thanks Mayimele.
I am glad that we agree on underperformance of the previous administrations including Mandela’s. Again I am also seeing the worrying signs in the Zuma regime and believe me I have already started to speak out on some of the questionable decisions.
I hope this settles it that the ANC was right to recall Mbeki and actually they should have recalled him much earlier just on undeperformance. Some ministers should have been fired based on these AG reports.
There are groups that staged Polokwane for their own interests but I think some left after failing to achieve their outcome, some jumped the fence, etc.
Gwebecimele says:
January 29, 2010 at 8:21 am
“Again I am also seeing the worrying signs in the Zuma regime and believe me I have already started to speak out on some of the questionable decisions.”
It’s difficult to see much positive gains against the five key areas outlines in the ANCs election manifesto. http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?doc=elections/2009/manifesto/manifesto.html
Min Nzimande has “Place(d) Further Education and Training colleges at the centre of a popular drive to develop skills development for the economy.”
In a selected few other areas there’s some notable progress, but generally your comment reflects the way things are.
What does
“Place(d) Further Education and Training colleges at the centre of a popular drive to develop skills development for the economy.”
actually mean?
Is there anything tangible to show for it?
Gwebe, January 28, 2010 at 12:29pm
@ mayimele
The fact that the current ANC is repeating TM’s mistakes does not absolve him. JZ will have to answer for himself when time comes.
________________
This sounds more like a politician buying time. When TM was still in power the Zumarites shouted from roof top as if they were experts in economic policies telling all and sundry how bad, inter alia, Mbeki’s (and not ANC’s) policies were for the SA economy and its people and when he did not head their calls, they removed him because he and his capitalist policies were doing more damage. Based on the above, one thought once the new guys come to power they will remove these bad policies and replace them with the ones that are good for the SA economy and its people. Out went Mbeki and in-came the master JZ and his crony government. Instead of ringing the changes in economic direction of the country they have promised, they stick to the same. This begs the questions:
(a) were these people really playing the ball or the man?
(b) did they really want to change the policies or the man behind the policies?
(c) if these policies were and still are really wrong, why doesn’t it matter when they are implemented by Zuma?
(d) if they are sure this is a ticking bomb and ones it blasts there will be precious life lost including their own lives why buy time and say “JZ will answer for himself when time comes?
(e) Why not do to him exactly what they did and still doing to TM? Why wait after five or 10 years?
You see, lies never remain truth for a long time but truth does. While you are watching the unfolding of Mbeki’s legacy of failure, I will also be watching the unfolding of all the lies of JZ and his team. But while doing so I will not fail to acknowledge his successes and achievements and will also not blame him for the things he did not do. My punishment for his guilt will also not be exaggerated. Only time will tell.
Seems that the rule elite are interested in the rule of law after all.
“Sheryl Cwele arrested for drug trafficking
Jan 29, 2010 10:46 AM | By MONICA LAGANPARSAD
The wife of state security boss Siyabonga Cwele appeared briefly in the Pietermaritzburg High Court this afternoon on drug trafficking charges.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article282792.ece
Our “Minister of Intelligence” did not seem to know of his wife’s involvement and/or or impending arrest. That’s comforting!
Maybe he did – surprise, bye, cheers, ciao, ta ta, bon voyage. Next!
@ Mayimele
I agree with most of the things you have mentioned. My disappointment and frustration is about lost opportunites that the ANC, Mbeki and Mandela have missed not to mention the unnecessary suffering of our people. If any of these stakeholders( leaders included) were to come up explain and own up to their decisions that would be the biggest step in the right direction. Instead politics, denialism, factionalism, blame game and other tactics are being used to further confuse the masses. An example on health and education the verdict is out (unquestionable underperformance) and as a result a new path is being created without much resistance. On ecomony we are still playing with the confusion and as result we are going nowhere slowly.
Again I am not a Zuma but I acknowledge the mess he inherited. I am also noticing the bad decisions he is making.
In my opinion he should have campaigned on a ticket of change of policies and ignored threats from Mbeki group and DA. Now he is paying the price of allowing them to box him into a corner.
I cannot describe the mentality of the Comrades than these two authors below;
“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.” Frederic Bastia
“I either want less corruption, or a more chance to participate in it.” Ashley Brilliant
“I either want less corruption, or a more chance to participate in it.”
Brilliant!!!
The nationalists in the ANC are saying its our turn!!!!!!!!!!
The Left is the problem, blocking participation.
I agree with you Gwebe and share your frustration on the missed opportunities. But what frustrate me even more is when we allow ourselves to miss even this very opportunity (period after Mandela and Mbeki) by supporting JZ and his cronies in particular who are not in anyway (a) correcting the mistakes of the past or (b) helping us to catch up with the golden opportunities lost. Instead, they are pushing us even further from the opportunities we were supposed to seize as a country given the miraculous transition we have achieved and our globally regarded constitution. Instead of electing leaders who will help us to put us back on the road to success, we allow group of stupid, arrogant and greedy people who are guided by ‘this is our time to get rich’ attitude to lead us. We allow them learned as most of us are to be told what is good and bad for us and therefore who must lead us.
For instance, who within the ANC top brass does not know what JZ is/or is not capable of that they needed the danona political expertise of the (zimbabwe like war veteran) children like the imbecile malema and mbalula, greedy vavi, blade and mantashe that JZ is actually good to be the president of the ANC and the country? Before the shaik scandal blew the roof top, who among them doesn’t know how often Mandela and other ANC top brass told him to stay away from shaik but (because of his ill-discipline as a cadre of the ANC) continued until he was found to be corruptly related to shaik? Regarding the rape scandal, what kind of the former head of ANC intelligence could have fallen so easy to Kwezi’s trap if at all it was a mbeki set up as it is alleged and believed by zillion of brainwashed South Africans that even the fact that the girl was his former friend’s daughter who calls him malume could not stop him from committing such a despicable act for a leader and father like him? After his apology for the Kwezi issue, here is now doing exactly what he said he was sorry of and promised not to do it again. What do all these say about this man as our president in relation to whether or not we can trust to help us correct the mistakes of the past as well as to catch the missed opportunities? It is clear that this is not the man to help us achieve that. It is also clear that the current ANC cabal led by malema, mbalula, vavi, blade and mantashe and not forgetting the greedy phosa and prostituting tokyo is certainly not the one to help us achieve the above. But what we are doing as a country is to suspend our priorities as a country and citizens in favour of their looting and destruction of our country and its future simple because ‘we have been told by the above named imbeciles and greedy cabal to hate mbeki and love Jacob Zuma at all costs for neither objective nor substantive tenable reasons or special good work he might have done in the past; and all these without applying our own minds`.
These are some of the things that frustrate me Gwebs – another lost opportunity in our lifetime without any resistance.
Mayimele, that golden era of being the darling of the world with investors waiting to shower the country with money is gone forever. We missed the bus.
Here is a litmus-test of JZ, the leader: Who here thinks Mbalula and Malema would have behaved the way they do if Mandela was still president?
Could someone explain to me what ‘Hlonipha’ really means? Your woman walks behind you? Or a leader is supposed to be worthy of respect?
mayimele says:
February 8, 2010 at 16:22 pm
“Instead of electing leaders who will help us to put us back on the road to success, we allow group of stupid, arrogant and greedy people who are guided by ‘this is our time to get rich’ attitude to lead us.”
“what we are doing as a country is to suspend our priorities as a country and citizens in favour of their looting and destruction of our country and its future”
If anything illustrated the truth in that it’s this :
“Proudly (NOT) South African
“A senior ANC member of parliament is the central figure in a scandal involving a Chinese sweatshop making merchandise of Zakumi, the 2010 soccer World Cup’s official mascot.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article283738.ece
Sine says:
January 29, 2010 at 13:38 pm
Hey Sne wherever you are, what do you make of these three articles?
——————————————————————————————————
ANC calls for calm after violent protests
2010/02/24
THE ANC yesterday condemned violent service delivery protests that left two people, including a metro police officer, injured in Orange Farm and Sharpeville.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=382797
——————————————————————————————————
MPs blast BCM over infighting
2010/02/24
A PARLIAMENTARY committee delegation yesterday sharply criticised Buffalo City Municipality for political in-fighting that has crippled service delivery in the city.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=382802
——————————————————————————————————
ANC bigwigs force rejection of audit report
2010/02/24
ANC heavyweights – both provincial and from the OR Tambo region – forced councillors in King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality to reject a damning internal audit report which implicated municipal manager Monde Tom.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=382796
——————————————————————————————————
And the result is.
Voters have more confidence in a convicted rapist than the ANC’s candidate.
“Donson, who was fired by local government MEC Anton Bredell last month for breaching the code of conduct for municipal councillors, beat the ANC’s Jakobus Adams, the National Peoples Party’s R Rademeyer and an independent candidate, PJ Roodtman, in a turnout of 48,74 percent of registered voters.
“Donson was convicted of indecent assault and statutory rape in 2008.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100225123605290C119803
I wonder why!
@ Chris,Brett and other champions of “growing the cake”
http://za.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-21-a-bridge-across-the-wealth-gap
When an overloaded taxi crashes we know who to blame.
Who killed the babies?
Replace that with underfunding, overcrowded, vacancies, hygiene etc.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article467619.ece/Who-are-the-baby-killers
Eskom power deals slated
26 May 2010
Sally Evans and Brendan Boyle
——————————————————————————–
Fury over sale of electricity to mining firms at low rates
ENERGY Minister Dipuo Peters has overturned months of stonewalling by Eskom to confirm that South Africa sells power to mining giant BHP Billiton in Mozambique at half the cost of production.
Peters confirmed for the first time in a written response to a Parliamentary question that the company paid an average of 12,3 cents per kilowatt hour for Eskom power supplied to its Mozal aluminium smelter in the year to March.
She said Anglo American also paid well below the production cost of 24,3 cents per kilowatt hour.
This contract, which was signed in 1997 with an end-date of 2025, is being renegotiated, but officials have declined to indicate what the new pricing levels might be.
Ina Wilken from the National Consumer Forum said: “This is outrageous. Consumers in South Africa don’t even have enough money to put food on the table but they still have to pay 41 cents per kilowatt hour. It is totally irrational and I am outraged.”
Cosatu spokesperson Patrick Craven said: “This confirms everything we have feared. It is unfairness, where the poorest pay the most,” while Pieter van Dalen, the DA’s spokesperson on public enterprises – who exposed the low rates in a document in April – said: “I am disgusted, to say the least. ”
Renegotiations of the contracts were meant to be finalised by tomorrow, however, Eskom could not be reached for a comment.
In another Parliamentary question posed earlier this month, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan said: “The final pricing agreements have been signed with the referred-to companies and negotiations are ongoing to clarify certain details. The aluminium sector has been prioritised.”
IFP MP Peter Smith, who put the question to Peters, said: “At the very least, the new prices must cover the full cost to Eskom of producing the power.”
Van Dalen said he believes the negotiations will involve only two out of BHP Billiton’s three aluminium smelters, and that the contract with Motraco – the Mozambique company that carries the power supply to BHP’s Mozal smelter – “will not be re- negotiated. We are stuck with it, it is a fixed contract.”
Aurora has workers working for free.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292523?oid=485770&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
Let them eat cake.
http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Eskom-executive-pay-up-25-20100702