Living in a constitutional democracy can be unsettling and complicated – especially if one has not embraced the values underlying a functioning constitutional democracy. In such a democracy all role players must accept that there are competing views of what constitutes the public good. They also have to accept that it is legitimate for members of different political parties to advance alternative versions of what would constitute the public good or how to achieve it.
Even if one passionately believes that one’s own version of the public good (or the version of the public good espoused by the political party of ones choice) is the correct one, one has to embrace the idea that other, competing and even radically different visions, are legitimate – even if one believes that these alternative versions are dangerously misguided and immoral or that pursuing such alternative versions would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the majority of the citizens (or the majority of citizens who voted for the party of ones choice).
One must also accept that the political party of one’s choice has to compete for votes in free and fair elections and that the party who wins the majority of votes at an election (even if it is the party that one belongs to, supports steadfastly and may have been one of the parties involved in the struggle for a just South Africa), has no divine right to rule and holds power only temporarily and at the mercy of voters.
One must accept (even if one is its leader and the President of the country) that the current ruling party’s continued rule is subject to the continued support of the majority of voters who at any future free and fair election can reject the vision put forward by that party and vote into government another party or parties to rule the country.
What flows from this is the need to accept that there is a fundamental difference between the ruling party and its interests, the government and its interests, and the state. If the ruling party is voted out of office the state will continue functioning; ID books and passports will continue to be issued, social grants will continue to be paid, judges will continue to interpret and enforce the law and the constitution – even if the party of one’s choice is rejected at the ballot box and a new party or parties (temporarily) take over the government.
In a constitutional democracy the health and wellbeing of the ruling party is not to be equated with the wellbeing of the citizens. Taxpayers can therefore not be required to pay for party political activities – except to the extent that all political parties in the legislature are funded in a fair and equitable manner. The party in government cannot utilize government resources to fund its activities. If it did, it would be abusing its powers to gain an unfair electoral advantage and this will make free and fair elections impossible.
Where the party in government abuses public resources to advance its own party political interests it therefore acts in an anti-democratic manner and undermines the basic values underlying the South African Constitution. When the governing party abuses state resources to keep itself in power, it signals the death of democracy.
Where one political party dominates the political landscape (in, what is called a dominant party democracy) and continues in office for a considerable period the distinction between the majority party, the government and the state tends to get blurred. Members of such a governing party have a tendency to begin to believe that the party, the government it leads and the state are the same thing and that the state and the government are there to further the interests of the party (because the party is the embodiment of the aspirations of the people).
Because it is wrongly assumed that such a governing party’s vision of the public good is the only legitimate vision and the only one that could possibly be morally valid (because the majority party has won successive elections with large majorities of the popular vote), members of such a majority party can begin to believe that the interests of the party, the interests of the state and the interests of the citizens of the country are all one and the same thing.
Only the majority party is then seen as being capable of advancing the interests of the majority of citizens and a belief may take hold that the majority party has a right to continue ruling the country in perpetuity. The party and the state becomes difficult to distinguish from one another because it is assumed that the party will continue in government for a very long time (or even for ever – remember Iain Smiths comment that his party would rule “Rhodesia” for a 1000 years) and that it therefore “owns” the state.
This view is deeply problematic because it negates the essence of democracy, namely that a political party does not own the state but only temporarily holds the reigns of state power, serving the people as the governing party until the next election – when it can be returned to government or can be rejected by voters while the state continues to function in its normal fashion.
It is against this background that reported remarks by President Jacob Zuma at the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the ruling ANC last month must be viewed as rather disturbing. President Zuma is reported to have proposed that ANC NEC members should be allowed time off to advance the interests of the ANC:
If it is necessary, for example, to release NEC members in government to do organizational [thus ANC] work for two weeks every quarter, then we should agree to do so. People may be concerned that government work will suffer as a result. But it will suffer far more if there is no viable ANC to drive the process of social change.
These reported remarks illustrate, rather alarmingly, the tendency I have highlighted above. Because the ANC is (righty or wrongly) seen as the only body who can legitimately drive valid social change, the roles of members of the ANC government are equated with the roles of these members as leaders of the majority political party.
If President Zuma was reported correctly, he is clearly not a democrat in the sense that the term is usually used. The remarks suggest that Zuma fails to understand that in a constitutional democracy members of the government are elected by the voters and their salaries are paid by tax payers to do government business and that party business and government business is not the same thing.
Party business relates to activities aimed at mobilizing and promoting the political party to allow it to remain in power. Government business relates to the running of the country and implementing the policies of the governing party. Neither the party or the government “owns” the state.
The suggestion that ANC members in government must be allowed to do party political work for 8 weeks a year, assuming while they are being paid a salary by taxpayers, because the ANC is the only party that can drive social change, is therefore quite outrageous and anti-democratic. It conflates the party and the state and also assumes that the interests of the party and that of the government are the same.
President Zuma’s proposal is clearly not in line with what is allowed by the Constitution. Several provisions in the Constitution recognizes the fact that we live in a multi-party democracy in which free and fair elections forms the basis of the legitimacy of the government of the day. If President Zuma’s reported proposal is adopted it would completely subvert the multi-party nature of our democracy and would bring an end to any semblance of democracy in South Africa.
If President Zuma was reported correctly, he is not a democrat as envisaged by our constitution. In any case, his proposal would be unconstitutional. Someone should whisper in his ear and tell him this. Maybe it is time for the democrats in the ANC (of which there are many, along with the Stalinists and the kleptocratic nationalists), to stand up to our President (as they eventually did with Thabo Mbeki after he had embarked on a catastrophic and murderous questioning of the link between HIV and Aids and refused to roll out life saving ARVs to those who could not pay for it).
The ANC does not own the government or the state. Suggesting, as our President reportedly did, that it is, is just as troubling as the moves by the ruling party to muzzle the press. If he was reported correctly, every true democrat in South Africa would rightfully be outraged and a bit scared by his comments. Maybe its time for someone like Jeremy Cronin to show the same kind of backbone he showed in speaking out against the dictatorial tendencies of Thabo Mbeki.
I’m sorry Prof did you say democrats in the ANC?
hilarious!!!
Prof the blur between party and state happened ages ago, welcome to the 21st century. Mbeki-era gave us cadre deployment aka an unlawful purpose driven blurring of party and state. By the way with full backing of the NEC.
How many of these so-called “democrats” spoke up after the ANC’s Mafikeng conference when Mbeki announced the ANC’s cadre deployment??
I am guessing very few…. if any.
Maybe it is time for the democrats in the ANC (of which there are many, along with the Stalinists and the kleptocratic nationalists), to stand up …. and be counted.
I count only one, retired, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
In the meantime accepting of bribes, seemingly at arms length, goes happily along;
http://allafrica.com/stories/201008200983.html
Is this not really corruption on a grand scale, but seen as a perk, a right by the incumbents.
(Btw This is the kind of reporting that “is undemocratic”)
…tie-up between *South Korea*’s Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, the world’s second largest shipbuilder, and the Impinda Group, a little-known South African company owned by Khulubuse Zuma.
………The little-known Mpisi Trading 74, of which Khulubuse is chairman, entered into a contract for a vehicle dealership with Dongfeng Automobile Company, a Chinese government-owned manufacturer
…….*Duduzile Zuma*, one of the president’s daughters, is closely linked with the South Africa-based Sahara Group, which is owned by the * Gupta* family of *India*.
………Zuma’s nephew incorporated Foxwhelp and Caprikat in the British Virgin Islands in March. Zuma’s companies now have the rights to Blocks 1 and 2 in the Lake Albert Basin, licences originally awarded by President *Joseph Kabila*’s government to *Ireland*’s Tullow and South Africa’s Divine Inspiration Group in 2006.
……..Ciprikat and Foxwhelp have the rights to an unprecedented 60% of profit oil from the first 12 million barrels of oil. *Michael Hulley*, a lawyer with connections to Sexwale and President Zuma, signed on behalf of Foxwhelp.
If those in power can show disregard to our constitution, laws, regulations, ethics codes, it’s sad but not unsurprising then that we have experiences like :
‘The nurses were busy singing while my unborn baby was dying’
ON Saturday the Thwala family buried their baby who died because of alleged negligence by striking nurses.
When they pulled the baby out they used force and the head was separated into two parts.
Busi Thwala, 28, said she went to Germiston Hospital to give birth but left traumatised after her baby died because nurses refused to help her.
The consequences of the civil servants strike and the trauma suffered by those who have become victims of the unfortunate human tragedy unfolding is horrifying.
The blame, this time, for the anger of the workers and for the horrible consequences has to be put squarely in the laps of those in power. Through their awful behaviour and blatant disregard and abuse of the system those in power have nearly eliminated the activist spirit of millions of dedicated workers.
Some of the goings on over the past fifteen months is nothing short of a darn disgrace.
I think the media tribunal is coming too slow. There is no reason to debate this matter. Parliament should just enact the relevant laws.
I cannot wait for the day when such scant regard for the truth will not go unchecked.
@Khosi
What exactly is untruthful?
@ Khosi
“I cannot wait for the day when such scant regard for the truth will not go unchecked.”
Khosi is right.
I beg you all to read Sandile Memela’s brilliiant letter in the Business Day today. Addressing journalists directly, Mr Malema writes:
“[Y]ou should be reminded – as an African! – of the history that has produced you.”
Thank God,no one is immune from criticism.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/columnists/2010/08/23/oh-how-i-long-for-the-return-of-the-childhood-magic-of-radio
Professor, I regret that your discourse is premised upon the discredited bourgeois distinction between party and state. This notion derives from the European Enlightenment. It is foreign to Africa. (Although it is true that deviationist elements in the ANC have flirted irresponsibly with this conception.)
Please grasp that the ANC is not just one party amongst others, competing for the privilege of governance. It is in fact permanent institutional embodiment of the objective will of the African people. This is why, as Maggs has eloquently pointed out, the only authentic “opposition” in South Africa is reflected in the ongoing debates within the ANC.
You are welcome to join this discussion debate. Just do not snipe from the outside, using the liberal media as your unstable platform.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:53 am
Hey Mossad Guy,
In the fine print, there’s an exclusion does not apply to Dworky
“Even if one passionately believes that one’s own version of the public good (or the version of the public good espoused by the political party of ones choice) is the correct one, one has to embrace the idea that other, competing and even radically different visions, are legitimate – even if one believes that these alternative versions are dangerously misguided and immoral or that pursuing such alternative versions would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the majority of the citizens”
Maggs, I am frankly shocked and hurt to see you selling out to LIBERAL PLURALISM.
Henceforth, I will no longer speak for you!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
August 23, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Sorry Dworky, it was an error of judgment.
p.s. are you also annoyed at the guy who wrote a nice letter to the Queen of England (the same guy is also friendly with the King of England)?
khosi says:
August 23, 2010 at 9:19 am
59 Public access to and involvement in National Assembly
(1) The National Assembly must-
(a) facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the Assembly and its committees; and
(b) conduct its business in an open manner,
Please forgive the long post. If you do not appreciate it as much as I do ask Pierre to delete it!
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=81631
ALLISTER SPARKS: Our Constitution is a sacred covenant
ALLISTER SPARKS
Published: 2009/09/16 08:19:50 AM
I participated the other day in an unusual gathering of people who were involved in the secret negotiations that took place in the 1980s between the old South African regime and the outlawed ANC, which opened the way to our negotiated settlement and the miraculous birth of the new South Africa.
The gathering was organised by the BBC for a radio programme called “Reunions,” which was broadcast on BBC’s Radio-4 last Sunday. The idea was to bring together some key participants to reminisce about that process which brought about one of the most remarkable events in the history of the world — when a ruling ethno-nationalist regime which had not been defeated decided to hand over power to an antagonist which had not been victorious. An event so unusual as to be regarded by outsiders as still worth recalling, while here at home its true meaning and importance is sadly becoming blurred.
Not all the participants in those secret talks took part in the programme, for there were many. But it was an interesting small group which included Niel Barnard (deelteken over the e), who as head of the old regime’s National Intelligence Agency led a small committee of high-powered bureaucrats who held a total of 47 secret meetings with Nelson Mandela while he was still in prison; Professor Willie Esterhuizen, who led a group of well-connected Afrikaners who met several times with ANC exiles in an English country manor; former President Thabo Mbeki , who led the ANC group to those and other meetings with white South African groups in Senegal, Ghana, Paris and Zimbabwe; former Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad , who accompanied Mbeki to those meetings; and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was a pillar of the black resistance movement here at home.
My own role was primarily that of an observer. I had followed these events closely as a journalist, participated in some, and wrote a book on the whole process, “Tomorrow is Another Country,” which later became a BBC television series. Audio sections from that series were intercut in Sunday’s programme.
But what struck me anew as I sat there reminiscing with the others about those events was what an amazing process it was, and how important for the new nation that was born out of it.
As Barnard put it in the programme: “The South African Government took a decision, consciously, to negotiate themselves out of power.” I know of no other instance in history where a government has done that, least of all an ethno-nationalist government representing a people who regarded themselves as a threatened and vulnerable volk, or nation, in a country and a continent numerically dominated by others.
Yes, they were under international pressure and the black majority population was in a state of uprising, rendering some black townships ungovernable. But the white government was far from facing defeat. It had the most powerful military machine in Africa and could easily have remained in power by force and repression for at least another 20 years.
For its part, while the ANC could have continued causing serious disturbances there was no prospect of its being able to win a military victory any time soon. Oliver Tambo was not about to ride into Pretoria atop a Russian tank.
So there was a stalemate, and in that condition both sides recognised that if the struggle raged on for another 20 years South Africa would be reduced to a wasteland. Neither side wanted that. So the stage was set for a negotiated settlement.
That was the real importance of those secret talks. That is where the basic understandings between the two main protagonists were reached, later to be hammered out through formal negotiations into an outline that all parties and all races agreed to in a unique moment of national consensus in this hitherto deeply divided society.
And so, finally, the deal was embodied in our new Constitution.
That is the true value of our Constitution. It is not a document drafted by some detached group of peacemaking law advisers. There were no outside mediators. That Constitution is the product of a historically unique process undertaken by our own people, a process that raised all of us above ourselves so that we could end our own suffering and save our country, when we vowed collectively to end our ethnic conflicts and never return to them.
It was a deal we all made with ourselves. A sacred deal. Nelson Mandela, the chief participant in the process and the personification of it, understood this well when in his inaugural address he called it a covenant.
A covenant is a pledge, a binding pledge with sacred overtones.
“We enter into a covenant,” he said on that memorable day, “that we shall build a society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity — a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.”
Then came the pledge, from a man who had once told a judge whom he believed was about to sentence him to death, that he was indeed prepared to die for the cause of nonracialism: “Never, never, never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.”
That pledge, that covenant, is the very essence of our Constitution, distilled from the process that produced it.
That, in my book, makes it sacred. Which is why it distresses me, and worries me, to hear some people in power beginning to blur the meaning of our Constitution and of the institutions that have been put in place to interpret and protect it.
President Jacob Zuma , who has had problems with the courts, says judges are not God. True. But the Constitution is sacred and the judges of the Constitutional Court are the specially qualified human beings we have chosen to be its custodians.
Judge-President John Hlope publicly demeans both the Chief Justice and the Constitutional Court as a whole — and the Judicial Service Commission lets him get away with it without so much as a proper hearing. Now Judge Hlope is himself seeking to become a member of that court. As the old Afrikaans warning goes: “Jy maak wolf skaapwagter.”
And now we have Julius Malema, who as ANC Youth League leader is presumably the person the ANC is grooming for the future leadership of this country, taking aim at the very heart of Mandela’s covenant — nonracialism. Malema thinks it is wrong that white, coloured and Asian people should hold the government’s key economic portfolios. Never mind their qualifications or the roles they played in the struggle against apartheid, their jobs should go to black Africans.
Yes, ANC secretary-general Gwede Montashe has countermanded him. But now there appears to be a plot to oust Mantashe among others. There is turmoil and confusion in the ANC.
A warning is in order. Ours is a fragile society with a seriously conflicted history. Using race and ethnicity for populist politics is deadly dangerous in a society like ours. If it becomes the fashion in the Malema generation, it will quickly spread beyond the mere sidelining of minorities. It will rip like wildfire through tribe and clan, where Africa as a whole has a record that should be a warning to us all.
The Constitution is all that stands between us and such a disaster. It must be handled with care.
In 1960s, as a first year philosophy student at Stellenbosch, I had to write an essay on “What is the state?”. At the time the relevance of prof Degenaar’s question was probably just as lost on me as it is on many of the comrades today…
@ Brett
“As Barnard put it in the programme: “The South African Government took a decision, consciously, to negotiate themselves out of power.” I know of no other instance in history where a government has done that, least of all an ethno-nationalist government representing a people who regarded themselves as a threatened and vulnerable volk, or nation, in a country and a continent numerically dominated by others.”
Barnard is right, under the prevailing terms and conditions, the offer was just too good to miss and all whites should see what is unfolding infront of them as victory. Few more years of struggle coupled with the inevitable defeat would have delivered serious consequences. Similarly for Blacks there would have less smooth migration into the elite club but a long endured fight and the more deserving rising to the top, followed by a geniune inclusive effort to rebuild from scratch.
Gwebecimele, we’re 10 years into the 21st century. Do you really think atavistic posturing along the lines of ‘we could have taken them’ is appropriate when we look back at people choosing peace over war?
The simple fact of the matter is that 45000 whites have been murdered in 16 years, under a flag of truce, and 90 000 white women raped. Some victory, huh?
If the ANC was capable of shame, that would be as much reason for shame as is Zimbabwe’s survival by the charity of others – that is, if the parasite Mugabe was capable of feeling shame.
Gwebe suggests that, had there been no 1994 settlement, but years of struggle, there would have been, post-liberation, a “genuine inclusive effort to rebuild from scratch.”
Gwebe is right.
Look at Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola, where there was indeed “years of struggle.” Then, in each case, an effort to rebuild from scratch.”
Splendid results in each case!
For all those trolls and idiots (this latter term as you know, flowing from ignorance) who believe corruption undisclosed, media tribunals and restrictions on information are good for the country, just what sort of country do you want.
Perhaps you should recall the famous quote from a song on freedom: “you don’t know what you got, till its gone”.
@ Brett,
You write that in 16 years 45000 whites have been murdered and 90 000 white women raped. I assume you mean in South Africa and since 1994? This would equal in average approximately 2800 whites murdered per year or almost 8 per day. And the double number of rapes. Can you please provide the source for these numbers?
Good question Ricky. Wonder what the daily SA murder rate score is – for all SA’s not just the paler variety?
SJ – well put. we keep hearing about rogue journalists but no names are ever mentioned. I think those that label them thus are referring to all journalists who write expose’s on government corruption etc
And yes, Pierre has it spot on only its not a recent trend. Party/state/governenment = ANC has always been the way.
ANC is not the state but it is governing. It does continue to fight an internal battle of separating between the two. A bill is in parliament if I am correct to prevent part office holders from Municipal non-political positions. I think JZ proposition should not only be for the ANC but for all parties, even though in all fairness he can only speak on behalf of the ANC. Politician should find time to go and work among communities, interact and be exposed to challenges we face. It is annoying to see them only during elections. They must carry the work of their parties; they had Manifestos, and they must come and implement, and tell us how are they getting on with all that. How are they governing and how are they in opposition; and JZ does regurlarly take time to do party work among communities, even if its just talking, that how thing get done, better than his predecessors.
Bert quotes the number of whites murdered, raped; and it is true and sad reality that post 1994 has resulted in such. Stats for black people deaths, raped, are in multiple folds. Why do we continue to endure all these. It is Government, I know. But have we took time to ask; do we really think we can put up high walls, pile up private medical aids, private education, etc, while others endure a legacy of centuries, expected to be turned around in 15 years. While turfs are being protected in the workplace to maintain status quo and umemploment among others sits at 40% and 4% among others, In such a divided society we are bound to endure these difficulties, and unless we move to Australia, or help to turn the situation around, we are bound to be sorrounded by the sick while we are healthy, and yet breath the same air.
Silber and Geffen writes (rather dispelling the point made by Brett:
We have looked at several sources in an attempt to break down crime by race. Given the impossible task of accurately quantifying the level of serious crimes (including sexual offences and assault) using official statistics – due both to under-reporting and poor or unavailable police data – the best indicator we have to gauge the level of violent crime is death by non-natural causes, and homicide rates in particular. And while assaults and even attempted murders may often go unreported, very few murders do.
In 2008/2009 18 148 people in South Africa were murdered. This amounts to 37,3 people per 100 000, or just under 50 per day.[21] The evidence we have examined indicates that the victims are disproportionately African and coloured working class people. Young men are also disproportionately represented in the murder statistics.
We examined Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) mortality data to determine the breakdown of murders by race. Our analysis is inconclusive but it indicates that victims are disproportionately Africans and coloureds.
Stats SA has released several mortality reports since 2000, one of which provides data on unnatural deaths broken down by race.[22] This report published the results of a detailed analysis of a 12 per cent sample of death notification forms from 1997 to 2001.[23]
There is no specific murder category. Instead we examined unnatural deaths, which includes murders, suicides, motor accidents, poisonings, etc. The largest category of unnatural deaths is unfortunately titled ‘Unspecified’. Until 2000 ‘unspecified’ was the largest cause of death overall, after which it was overtaken by AIDS. Table 1 shows the percentage contribution to the South African population for each race during this period. Table 2 shows the unspecified unnatural deaths broken down by race in the sample. As can be seen, the race groups are affected by crime in approximately equal proportion to their contribution to population. However, the data are very limited because an additional 13 946 unspecified unnatural deaths, i.e. 45 per cent, were classified as ‘other or unknown’ race.
Table 1: Percentage contribution to South African population for each race 1997 – 2001[24]
Race % contribution
African 76.7
Coloured 8.9
Indian 2.6
White 10.9
Source: Stats SA
Table 2: Contribution by race towards unspecified unnatural deaths 1997 – 2001
Race % contribution
African 13,100 – 78.06%
Coloured 1,730 – 10.31%
Indian 325 – 1.94%
White 1,627 – 9.69%
TOTAL 16,782 100
Source: Stats SA
Nevertheless, one category of unnatural death does indeed shed light on the relative proportion of murders per race group: death by assault.
Table 3 shows deaths by assault for males broken down by race. This shows that African and coloured men are disproportionately affected. However, again an additional 432 deaths in this category were classified as ‘other or unknown’ race.
Table 3: Male deaths by assault 1997 – 2001
Race % contribution
African 1,230 – 81%
Coloured 209 – 14%
Indian 18 – 1%
White 54 – 4%
TOTAL 1,511 100
See http://writingrights.org/2010/01/12/race-class-violent-crime-in-south-africa-dispelling-the-huntley-thesis/
Thank You proff, for stats..I do realise I am also guilty of throwing figures, 40% and 4%. Let me indicate that those most probably not true as there is no reference, however I am sure they are within +/- 5 to10%, for worse or better; I was only proving the severity of the gap in our society.
Look, Brette has used the word GENOCIDE to describe the fate of whites since 1994.
I hardly think that, as a responsible blogger, he would have used that term without a very solid statistical foundation!
Thanks.
@ Brett
I am not suggesting that WAR was/is the better solution for SA but merely highlithing that the negotiated settlement we reached (as indicated by Barnard) might be meaningless to many blacks but there is no doubt that it is a victory for whites.
Whilst many of the poor blacks still hope for a Mandela to deliver on the promised land, others have lost hope and resorted to continous drinking, crime, prostitution, drugs for comfort until the last day comes.
With all the knowledge of guns, you seem to know less about wars. I have no doubt that a war can easily exceed 45 000 deaths and have high numbers of rapes as it is the case in many previous wars. By the way, death in a war normally comes from both sides and please spare us your one sided concern.
Thanks Prof for the link and I copied the following paragraphs;
Well Brett, it seems as if the people who are enduring the hardship of this negotiated settlement are in the black areas such as nyanga, gugulethu , khayelitsha etc.
“Cape Town is the South African city that best exemplifies the uneven distribution of resources that renders this country one of the least equal societies in the world in terms of income.[27] Its demography is stratified more than any other city along geographic lines – a remnant of the Group Areas Act. It also happens to fall into one of the most violent provinces in the country, and is the city in which Huntley resided. We have analysed Cape Town’s crime data to illustrate the extent of serious and violent crime, and who is most affected by it.
A recent study carried out by the City of Cape Town[28] contains a breakdown of crimes under investigation by each police district in the year 2007/2008. The results indicate a significant disparity between homicide and rape cases in low-income areas when compared to wealthier and traditionally white communities. It was found that of the 58 police districts in the city, five police districts account for over 44 per cent of murders – Nyanga (13,18 per cent), Harare Khayelitsha (8,67 per cent), Khayelitsha (8,47 per cent), Gugulethu (7,58 per cent), and Delft/Belhar (6,1 per cent).[29] This is illustrated graphically in figure 1.
A similar scenario emerges with rape cases: Five police districts account for 34 per cent of reported rape cases, Nyanga (7,97 per cent), Harare (6,91 per cent), Mitchell’s Plain (6,83 per cent), Khayelitsha (6,75 per cent) and Delft/Belhar (5,28 per cent).[30] This is illustrated graphically in Figure 2.
Looking at these graphic representations we can immediately tell that for both rape and murder, the lowest number of reported cases occurs along the Atlantic Seaboard (Camps Bay, Sea Point, etc); and along a corridor of affluence that stretches from Simon’s Town in the south to the prosperous southern suburbs (Constantia, Claremont, etc.), and then east through the northern suburbs to the city limit. There is indeed a higher incidence of rape and murder cases in certain areas in the northern suburbs that include middle-class white and coloured suburbs, but this can be explained by the fact that they are large geographic areas that also include large poor and working class communities”
Dworky and Brett
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article618201.ece/Six-rocket-launchers-mortars-missing-from-SANDF
@ Gwebe
I cannot speak for Brett, but I swear I have neither the rockets nor the mortars in my possession.
I am interested only in a small nuclear facility — strictly for peaceful use.
Thanks.
Although I am more interested in the politics of gun control, and then a shooter/hunter, not a militaria buff – I would love a mortar. Where can I get one?
We’ve been through all this before. Many, many times! Except for “In 2008/2009 18 148 people in South Africa were murdered. This amounts to 37,3 people per 100 000, or just under 50 per day.[21] ” Stats SA’s figures quoted by Silber & Geffen bear no relation to the homicide statistics release by the Department of Police every year.
OK, seems that everyone agrees on the inevitability of the success of the NDR, had it not settled in 1994 negotiations. Why is everyone so sure of that? Why has ‘victory’ been deemed inevitable?
Militarily, the state was never threatened. Economically, ditto – inconvenienced, surely, but threathened? Why?
Would the ANC center have held? Would it have survived the demise of Mandela? As we’re learning more and more about the ANC, from current practice – it is clear that it is more a feudal band of warlords, organised around some symbolic ideals and leaders. To this day, it operates like that – it pays allegiance to a very beautiful statement of aspirations, captured in the ‘better life for all’ – but its actions have nothing to do with that objective. That’s the current PR – before 1994, it was even easier to assume the moral high ground. But hanging on to the high ground requires increasingly desperate fakes – a process that started around the HIV deaths, Zim, etc.
Arguing the stats of murdered and raped whites is a red herring. Rape stats for the last decade have hovered around 55,000 per annum, now at some 65,000, but with the inclusion of male rape. The best estimate is a reporting rate of 1/9 – 1/10, so we have 500-000-650,000 raped South Africans every year. On a population of some 50m, that’s 2% (now that boys are included). Whether or not the damage is felt proportionally or not should be irrelevant?
The strategy of capture works well, and the party will be the state, especially if there’s so little relevance or definition to that party. Party can be anything, as long as its members adhere to the discipline. The program doesn’t matter – any party that can make stalinists sound reasonable has no program.
It’s when the party breaks up (there is, after all, jealousy among thieves) that we’ll return to the intention of the constitution – and personally, I’m quite confident this is in the works. Cope was an interesting test-run: most revealing the anxiety and witch hunt within state structures – much worse than the hunting within the party. Party is just a means to the capture.
Where I’m less confident is when I imagine what it will take to recover from a decade or two of mismanagement. But we’ll fix that, too. This is a resilient bunch, that has always been able to withstand poor management. Zuma *(and his ons and nephews) is exactly what we need to bury the feudal state we’ve found ourselves in. The warlords pay homage for as long as they must, than they’ll bury him like a stone.
Ricky says:
August 23, 2010 at 14:41 pm
Hey Ricky,
“Can you please provide the source for these numbers?”
hehehehehehe – good luck!
No-no-no-no-no, Pekkil!
I for one do not agree that the ANC could have seized the country violently! Angola, Zimbabwe and Mozambique had tiny white populations.
To me, the magic of the settlement is that the Nats CHOSE the civilised option! They seized the moral high ground during the nineties, the ANC abandoned it with their anachronistic responses – a handful of years left before the 21st century, remember – to crime, property rights but most of all, the AIDS pandemic.
The Nats chose the High Road – the ANC chose whatever they could carry away.
Maggs: Braying burro!
@ Brett
“The [Nats] seized the moral high ground during the nineties
Brett is right.
I thought the Third Force stuff was especially highly grounded!
Brett Nortje says:
August 23, 2010 at 16:48 pm
“The Nats chose the High Road”
Indeed they did.
Joining the ANC was High Road.
pekkil monta says:
August 23, 2010 at 16:39 pm
“The warlords pay homage for as long as they must, than they’ll bury him like a stone.”
It would seem that the knives are already drawn and ready to strike.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-20-zuma-fears-plot-at-anc-indaba
Gwebecimele says:
August 23, 2010 at 16:08 pm
Hey Gwebs,
Thanks for the link.
The mortars and rocket launchers are understandable, but however did the five 9mm pistols go missing with no one noticing?
Maybe Brett will be able to explain that one.
Hey Brett
I think you’re misreading my comment. I was suggesting that, whilst everyone seems to agree on the inevitability of an ANC victory, I don’t agree. I think it was a choice – if it wasn’t for the Nats giving up, Juju would have been an old man before he would be allowed to walk around in Pretoria.
My point is – if the Nats had not settled, would the collection of warlord and criminal smuggling syndicates, which made up the off-shore ANC – would that ANC have held together, especially if, say, Mandela hadnt survived?
The true nature of the ANC outside the country seems mightily misunderstood? TO me, it seems it was on its last legs – the Nats revived them with their approach?
Maggs, be honest, what is there of the high road in the ANC apart from Johnny Walker. And isn’t Johnny a western agent of some renown.
ANC High Road! LOL!
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article615738.ece/Inside-an-ANC-cover-up
sirjay jonson says:
August 23, 2010 at 17:24 pm
“Maggs, be honest, what is there of the high road in the ANC apart from Johnny Walker”.
“The Striding Man Club” is a good start!
You have a point, Pekkil.
IMHO the NP made a conscious decision to modernise in the early 1980′s. Clearly, with two decades of the 20th century left race-based franchise was an anachronism. Separate amenities and sport were clearly morally indefensible. After 2 commissions of inquiry and recognition of the black labour movement the sluices were open.
For 350 years the central issue for white Africans has been: How do we avoid being murdered in our beds tonight. Christian, moral people, they were not prepared to engage in the naked savagery that maintaining white control would have entailed. Then, it just became a question of how quickly the National Party could take its electorate with them. (That is where Dworky’s silly chirp comes in.)
After the Tri-Cameral Parliament became a reality the ANC was desperate. Anyone could see that there would be a fourth chamber in Parliament within years. White liberals like the Urban Foundation were effecting delivery – like housing and a burgeoning black entrepreneurial class – at a frightening scale.
The ANC – the world’s most ineffective liberation movement, later to become one of the world’s more ineffective governments – had nothing in its arsenal except propaganda. And cheap black lives. Women and children being shot in front of the world’s TV cameras. Can’t get better TV, better propaganda than that!
After years of ANC inaction the UDF was formed. Have vehicle, will travel.
Maggs, I would love an R1. If your buddy JZ calls about making you the official supplier of T-shirts to the ANC, could you drop a hint?
The R1′s, R4′s and rocket launchers? Moonlighting members of the SANDF? Cash-in-transit heists? Whaddya think?
Of course, in cash terms the value of the ‘liberated’ equipment pales in comparison with the value of the entire SADF stock of Lee-Enfield .303s the ANC had dumped in the Southern ocean.
You know, Maggs? The .303′s my oupa and his brothers leaned against their tanks when they made tea after chasing Rommel around the desert the whole day?
The ANC are a bunch of cretins with no respect for anything. When is Parliament going to investigate the raid on the Imperial War Museum during which the curator was blinded?
Dr Pallo?
This topic was supposed to be about the distinction between party and state. Typically, we have all derailed it nicely.
Brett Nortje says:
August 23, 2010 at 20:33 pm
Hey Brett,
It’s your lucky day – you must be like Nostradamus Lite.
JZ just called. He says you can have the R1 – just go to the nearest SANDF armoury for it. Be sure to tell the military guards that you have permission from the boss himself. He said to tell you not to take no for an answer.
p.s. while you oupa and his brothers were chasing Rommel around the desert, my oupa was chasing my ouma. Maybe it’s a cultural difference, eh! Mine also made tea when he eventually won her heart. So you got a bit of Rommel in you or perhaps the converse – all thanks to oupa and brothers of course
Drat! Evidently he caught her….
Bad ouma!
Brett Nortje says:
August 23, 2010 at 21:37 pm
Hey Brett,
I thought that you would think that.
It’s ok – you can chase Rommel Jnr. Maybe he prefers to run away from you into the desert, but keep at it.
@ Pierre……my sympathies.
Your best efforts to create a site for adult discussion is constantly being undermined by silliness. Some of the contributors would do well to understand that there is a world of difference between smart and smart arse. What a pity that mildly amusing has become tediously repetitive.
To (try to) get back to the subject under discussion … The points made by Prof de Vos are all very valid – in the abstract – but the problem is that the ANC is a self-described revolutionary organisation (conducting a “national democratic revolution”). By definition, revolutionary movements do not accept that there is a status quo. The ANC does not regard itself as being bound by the Constitution per se. Meeting the contingencies of its “revolutionary” agenda is what determines how the ANC acts.
@ marco polo
that leaves it dependent on the definition of ‘revolutionary’. My guiding definition is the expression ‘I didn’t join the struggle to be poor’ as the revolutionary expression.
Clearly, they didn’t have to struggle to get rich, either.
The proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT) is receiving “overwhelming support” from South Africans, ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said during a debate on the matter in Johannesburg.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article619496.ece/Overwhelming-support-for-MAT–ANC
Prof says;
“What flows from this is the need to accept that there is a fundamental difference between the ruling party and its interests, the government and its interests, and the state.”
If u allow me to stretch this debate further, Who is the state?
How different is the state from govt? Are supporters(non-members) also part of the party?
My suspicion is that some of these things exist only in theory.
Hey Dworky, it seems as if Brett has some support and they probably have the same source of statistics.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article620164.ece/Government-genocide-against-Afrikaners-claim-ludicrous
Email slams ‘unschooled’ leaders
By Bronwyn Gerretsen
Eight Toyota employees have been fired for distributing an “offensive” email – with an opinion article published on Facebook, blogs and allegedly in a UK newspaper – by a South African emigrant.
The employees have condemned their sacking, saying they merely forwarded the emails out of interest and habit.
They were charged with “distributing an offensive email using the company/email facilities”.
“We didn’t think it would be offensive; (but) informative we’re reading this type of thing every day in newspaper opinion pieces,” said one, who would not be named.
Another of the eight – who are all white, with a combined service of more than 200 years – said he forwarded the email to people of all races.
On speaking to recipients, he found they were not offended. Some disagreed with it, passing it off as “as just someone’s opinion”.
Toyota said last week 11 employees were undergoing disciplinary procedures regarding the distribution of the email.
Human resources manager Tapelo Molapo said no employees had been dismissed. There was an “elaborate legal process” under way, which he did not want to jeopardise by revealing details.
However, after establishing that eight people were dismissed, Molapo was questioned again. He reiterated that the legal process could see the employees being reinstated.
Three of the 11 employees were reinstated. The remaining eight were dismissed in June and appealed unsuccessfully in July.
Their case is now going to the Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
The article questions whether South Africa will head the same way as Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.
It also uses IQ test results to demonstrate that black people are allegedly intellectually inferior to other races, and criticises the ANC, President Jacob Zuma and Julius Malema.
“In IQ tests Jews come in at 114 points, East Asians 108, white Europeans 100, African Americans (with mixed ancestry) 85 and sub-Saharan Africans a lousy 70-odd.”
The author – who cannot be established – then delves into the issue in ways that can be construed as racist and derogatory.
“Who would have believed that this country would ever be headed by an unschooled, rape accused, adulterous, corrupt, sex obsessed bigot like Zuma? Anything is possible with the ANC,” it states.
Another statement is: “Our ruling party is voted into power by a largely moronic plebiscite. If the cut-off point for moronic is an IQ of 70, half the voting population would be classified as such.
“Simply put, they are bloody stupid, and they rule us. Zoooooma says they will rule us until the second coming. I believe him.”
The article also refers to white people as “honkies” and those of mixed race as “half-castes”.
The employees, most of whom were nearing retirement and stand to lose out on millions of rands in service packages, suspect the matter was used as an excuse to oust them as Toyota had a 20 percent workforce reduction target at that time.
Some of them have more than 35 years’ service with Toyota.
A labour lawyer said the courts took a “very hard line” on anything racist, even if the people in question were not the authors of the emails. “If anyone gets any email like this, they should delete it.”
He said some companies did use email contraventions to get rid of employees.
“It is the easiest way to nab someone. Companies do use it.”
______________________________________________________________
INTERESTING THAT SUCH EMAILS ARE DOING THE ROUNDS. I WONDER WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE FINDING THESE OPINIONS FROM?
Gwebecimele says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Oh well, maybe the Canadians are going to have a lot of permanent residence applications to process.
@ Thomas
Even in this blog, we have contributors that label others as “Double digit IQ’s”.
@ Gwebicemele,
You ask what is the difference between the state and the government. Well, for instance in my view the courts and the parliament will be part of the state – but not of the government.
Our non-Zulu bloggers may benefit from this;
In response to floods of inquiries from South Africans of non-Zulu extraction who are dying to understand the Zulu psyche, I have put together a short A to Z idiot’s guide to the state of being Zulu.
So, here goes:
A is for amabele – in our language amabele means two things: sorghum, which is beloved by us as we can make porridge out of it, but we can also make sorghum beer. Sorghum beer makes us jovial. The other meaning of amabele is: women’s breasts, which, as any proud Zulu man can confirm, are also beloved by us.
B is for bhaxabula — to beat a person vehemently, a favourite Zulu pastime. The synonyms for (uku)bhaxabula are (uku)bhibiza, or (uku)bhonya.
C is for is for (uku)cula – singing. Singing, as the new President has demonstrated, is very close to our hearts. But C is also for Clegg, Johnny Clegg. This visionary white man saw the light a long time ago – and became a genuine Zulu man at a time when it was not fashionable to wear Zulu garb in public places.
D is for (isi)dudula – a firm woman with a nice, well-formed behind and good amabele – a true African woman.
E is for ehhe – which means “yes”. We like saying “ehhe”, especially when the full sentence is: “ehhe, ngiyaphinda ngithi ngizokushaya (yes, I am saying it again, I am going to donner you!)”.
F is for fihliza – to demolish. Just what the ANC did to the opposition in the last election.
G is for (uku)gida – traditional dancing, as ably demonstrated by our new President.
H is for (e)hositela – that’s where many of our men choose to reside, the hostels. H is also (i)hlongandlebe – one who is so stubborn it seems as if he was dropped on his head when he was young. In other words, Julius Malema, the president of the African National Congress Youth League.
I is for inyoka – snake. We hate snakes with a passion – especially if the snake in question is actually a person; an untrustworthy person, especially when he holds a differing political viewpoint. I is also for imbongi – a poet. Zulus love a good poet – especially the opposite of Mzwakhe Mbuli, Mbuli, Mbuli.
J is for (i)jele – that’s jail to you. We are afraid of jail, but our predilection for ukubhaxabula (see above) always lands us in (e)jele.
K is for Khumalo – the loveliest people on earth, as long as you don’t mess with them.
L is for (i)landi — that is rand to you, the stuff that you produce when you are buying something at the shop. We have great respect for (i)landi and we go to great lengths to acquire it. Some say we steal ilandi, when, in fact, we are actually repossessing ilandi that was stolen from us by successive unfair governments and uncouth exploitative employers.
M is for is for (u)mantshingelane – security guard. There was once a time when being a security guard was every Zulu boy’s dream. But then non-Zulus like Nelson Mandela and Mbhazima Shilowa decided to become mantshingelanes. Ah, a great tradition lost its glamour and glory.
N is for (uku)nqoba – to be victorious. We love being victorious, no matter what the contest. That’s why the ANC had its (siya)nqoba rally just before the last elections.
O is for Ofezela – The Scorpions. Zuma evaded their sting … just!
P is for (i)phixiphixi – a hypocrite. The best example of (ama)phixiphixi would be the leaders of Cope, who say they are defending the Constitution when, in fact, they served in a regime that undermined it by using state resources to settle political scores. Amaphixiphixi!
Q is for (uku)qudula – to be cantankerous. The (former) editor of The Sunday Times has his favourite illustration of a person who qudulas – a chief whose surname starts with a B, who is a leader of what once passed itself off as a political party representative of Zulu people.
R is for … no, we don’t have an R in Zulu. We say ilandi, instead of rand, Fled instead of Fred.
S is for (uku)shaya – to beat up. But ukushaya is a milder form of beating up. The more appropriate form of beating up is, as we have seen, ukubhaxabula, ukudukluza.
T is for (ama)tekisi – taxis. We have a monopoly over ibhizinisi yamatekisi (taxi business) – as drivers, queue marshalls, izinkabi (enforcers) and, of course, as owners.
U is for ukudla – food. Who doesn’t like it?
V is for (uku)vova inkani – to frustrate a person. We derive pleasure from frustrating people. When ANC voters flocked in their numbers to the polling stations they were collectively determined to do exactly that to the opposition parties – to vova them.
W is for (uku)wina – we love winning, whether it’s a debate, a stick fight, a race between taxis, or the lotto.
X is for (uku)xoxa – to converse. We like conversing, and we are good raconteurs, as our good President has so ably demonstrated. But X can also be for (uku)xabana – to quarrel. We don’t choose to be quarrelsome, it’s just that the entire universe is quarrelling with us. So we strike first.
Y is for “Yehheni!” – an exclamation of surprise, as in: “Yehheni- bo! Nansi ingulube inginonela (My golly gosh, this pig is getting fatter)”, in other words, “this person is being quarrelsome with me and I am going to do something to him” (bhibiza him, perhaps.)
Z is for Zulu. You know what that means. But Z can also be for (uku)zuma. Ukuzuma is a verb that means ‘to ambush’, or ‘to surprise’. And we all know what Zuma has done – he has surprised many; in other words, he has zuma-ed those who dismissed him as a spent political force given that little matter of the charges.
Now that you’ve been enlightened about Zulu ways, why not hug that Zulu who’s been standing on your stoep begging for your attention? During Mandela and Mbeki’s eras every influential person had his own Indian.
Now, every South African must have his or her own Zulu. Continue your zweet interaction with my people.
Fred Khumalo is an award-winning columnist and editor of the Review section of the Sunday Times. His book, Zulu Boy Gone Crazy (KMM Review Publishing), is available from bookstores nationwide for R179
@ Ricky
What about Ministers, they not part of Parliament and govt ?
Also see the definition below from Wikipedia.
Civil authority (also known as civil government) is that apparatus of the State other than its military units that enforces law and order
Ministers are almost all members of Parliament. They are also members of the executive (along with President) and thus temporarily form the government. The state is a much broader concept. It connotes the institutions that do not change when governments change: the military and police; the courts, the civil service; all form part of the state. The government of the day may have some control over aspects of the state machinery to help it implement its policy but it is distinct from this machinery. See section 195 of the Constitution for some indication of the need for an impartial civil service (which probably makes cadre delpoyment unconstitutional).
@Gwebecimele, on the state of being Zulu:
lol LOL
@ PdV
Is it realistic then to differentiate between state vs govt and on one hand govt vs ruling party?
Is it not normal practice to appoint head of army, police chief, chief justice by new administration and possible align their terms with their principals.
Position, organisations,powers and responsibilities make up the state and the individuals are only relevant when in that position. Whilst positions and titles might be distinct but you can’t split the individual into two. We have to live with the fact that people who occupy more than one will continously change caps and sometimes in a conflicting manner.
Thomas says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:06 pm
“In IQ tests Jews come in at 114 points, East Asians 108, white Europeans 100, African Americans (with mixed ancestry) 85 and sub-Saharan Africans a lousy 70-odd.”
The history of racial “science” is replete with contradictions, and rationalizations for white racial supremacy. When data has emerged that contradicts the racist views of scientists, they have simply altered their arguments to take account of the new scientific “reality” and to allow them to maintain their existing perceptions of superiority and inferiority. As Tucker notes (1994), at the turn of the century, scientists were saying that the tendency for blacks to do far better on memory-skill tests than whites was due to their being “closer to the primitive state” where memory was more important and functional than higher-order skills, logic, reason, etc. Then 10 years later, when tests began to show that the children of rich whites scored better on memory tests, these same scientists insisted that their superior performance was due to their “greater intelligence.” Then many years later, these same scientists once again changed their minds when new memory tests showed that poor and black kids with “low IQ’s” had excellent memories that surpassed those of wealthier folks and whites.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm
Just ’cause you feel it doesn’t mean it’s there
Is Anton Kannemeyer’s new Bitterkomix collection, Pappa in Afrika, flagrantly racist or is it a lament for a continent ravaged by centuries of colonial rule?
The narrow gap between tintin and Anton Kannemeyer — An edited extract from danie Marais’s postscript to Pappa in Afrika
Anton Kannemeyer is not racist. Like many South Africans and, in particular, recovering Afrikaners, he is caught up in a world that does not make sense. Not that apartheid made much sense. Eighteen years ago he joined forces with Conrad Botes to create Bitterkomix and boerepunk. Their abrasive humour ensured that the chink in the armour of Afrikaner nationalism developed into a gaping hole, a this should be seen as a progressive development.
I am less tempted these days to believe the outlandish claims by artists and critics that art is necessarily revolutionary, but if the Bitterkomix generation did convince some young men that apartheid was not worth dying and killing for, it was certainly a good thing. Whether that brand of acerbic humour is striking the right note today requires further reflection.
In Kannemeyer’s recently published Pappa in Afrika, an image titled Liberals (2010) is a retake of Zapiro’s Rape of Justice, except that in Kannemeyer’s version a “coon” is slitting the throat of a man one presumes is one of Kannemeyer’s alter egos. The alter egos populate the comic book. The rape victim screams: “Do something, Harold! These historically disadvantaged men want to rape me!”
The relationship between Zapiro’s cartoon and Kannemeyer’s is quite obvious, but with a few significant differences. Zapiro’s is a bit more literal in the sense that Zuma was accused and acquitted of rape charges, whereas Kannemeyer’s perpetrators are anonymous “coons”. Second, Zapiro’s victim is the mythological figure of Lady Justice in the form of a black woman. This is what sets Zapiro’s work apart from Kannemeyer’s in that the whiteness of the victim is a direct comment on the fears of whites generally, a theme elucidated in JM Coetzee’s Disgrace.
But the two cartoons are similar in a more fundamental way, in that criminality and deviant behaviour are directly identified with black masculinity. Zapiro’s may be a bit more blunt than Kannemeyer’s more tongue-in-cheek approach. That there are no women and white perpetrators in Zapiro’s Rape of Justice is also telling. There is no Jesse Duarte and there is no Carl Niehaus — both of whom were Zuma supporters. Although the treatment of the subject is different, white fear lies at the heart of both Zapiro’s and Kannemeyer’s work. But white fear is nothing new. It is what sustained and made apartheid possible in the first place.
Apartheid, in both its ideological and administrative manifestations, made one’s place in the world quite clear; social roles were narrowly defined. For many South Africans, both white and black, it seemed the world had turned upside-down in the post-apartheid era. Even during Nelson Mandela’s presidency people across the colour divide were struggling to come to terms with a Constitution that gave women equal rights and increased protection for children and minors.
The perceived loss of power and identity that came with both political and, to some extent, economic changes has left white South Africans, in particular, with feelings of insecurity. On one end of the spectrum there are those who are preparing for war in paramilitary training camps and on the other you have cynical liberals who are constantly making buffoons of current leaders.
There is no doubt we are living in a country of excess. There is pervasive violence and rampant corruption and artists and journalists cannot be blamed for pointing out these horrors. But a number of traps are set against these crusaders of truth and justice. These are the tendency to reduce the African experience to a kind of pathology, the temptation of African exceptionalism, the equation of transgression with progressive politics and the blind spot of their own privilege.
CONTINUES BELOW
African-American feminist bell hooks is also useful here for having coined the term white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy, which is even more instructive than simply to label someone as racist. It is also insightful for emphasising the connections and interdependence between these social forces that are often spoken about in exclusive terms. It is possible to critique not only the surface of Kannemeyer’s imagery, but also the underlying network of attitudes that underscores his art.
To a large extent the reasons negative images of Africa continue to be peddled not only by the right but also by liberals and so-called progressives is that they are compelling because they bear some resemblance to the truth and they have been internalised in our psyche and popular imagination. There are so many black and white South Africans who see immigrants from other African countries as being parasitic on South African “success”, which suggests that it is difficult or near impossible for South Africans to imagine that people from other African countries have anything to offer and that visiting or working in those countries can be anything but traumatic.
The first and most obvious temptation is to suppose that the only response people can and should have to colonial violence is murder and rape. The notion that oppressed people can have novel and even non-violent responses to racial violence is a trap that even progressive movements seem unable to escape from. In the rhetoric of films such as Birth of a Nation, this endemic violence is a sign not of colonial violence but of a less developed, uncivilised psyche.
Furthermore, post-independence kleptocracy and corruption are alternately seen by leftists as necessary and inevitable consequences of unequal power and capitalist exploitation and, by those on the right, as necessary and inevitable consequences of the loss of the steadying hand of the colonial master. In some cases it is evidence that the African subject is inert to modernity. In either case the anomaly of misrule and bad governance are assumed to be conditions from which Africans can hardly escape.
In this way the historical-materialist analysis that purports to be more politically aware than the essentialist notions of African experiences also has the tendency to pathologise African subjects as nothing more than prisoners of history and violence. Unfortunately for all their political savvy and attempts to be critical, these assumptions maintain that the cartoons of people like Kannemeyer are unable to subvert.
In the concluding pages of Adam Horschild’s Leopold’s Ghost, the author raises questions of what motivated the groundswell of criticism of Leopold’s excesses in the Congo and why similar excesses by other European powers, not only in other parts of Africa but also in the colonised world generally, did not elicit similar outrage. In the attempt to answer the question he notes that the movement for change in the Congo came on the back of the abolitionist movement. Paternalism and philanthropy in protecting defenceless Africans against the Arab slave trade gave King Leopold II a pretext to enter the Congo and to turn it into his personal fiefdom.
The idea that there is something special about Africa, even though putting a finger on exactly what that thing is often proves illusory, does not prevent people from insisting that it is there.
It is difficult to look at the excesses that continue to bedevil the continent and not come to the conclusion that there is something seriously wrong here. But it seems that it is equally difficult for us to acknowledge that there are millions of Africans who travel to other countries — not as refugees but as businessmen and women, tourists and scholars. It is also difficult to imagine that there are generations of Africans who have never experienced war, famine or a coup d’etat, or that there are millions of Africans that enjoy a middle-class existence.
One of the questions that Pappa in Afrika raises is whether art that is somehow transgressive or subversive necessarily implies progressive politics. Pappa in Afrika is awash with imagery of African atrocities, the buffoonery of its leaders (Idi Amin appears a number of times) and corruption, but also the complicity of the West. In the world of art, as in the world of political and social satire, evidence that the audience is offended is seen as affirmation that the medicine is working.
Courting controversy and notoriety has become the stock in trade of artists of the post-1994 era. This is especially true of white male artists. Challenging political correctness has been their rallying cry. Such notoriety has been interpreted as a sign of genius in itself without really interrogating the content of the work. Among these have been people such as Kendell Geers, Brett Murray and, more recently, collectives such as Avant Car Guard. But there is a reason we don’t go around calling people “kikes” and “kaffirs” in the street, even if it is done in the name of humour. But if some infantile artists do just that, we are supposed to say they are not racist.
In the accompanying essay in Pappa in Afrika, Danie Marais makes a spirited argument that Kannemeyer is in fact exposing white fears and the racism that inspires them. And the implication here is that, because he is making fun of or “exposing” these fears, he can’t be racist. Whether his use of racial stereotypes, subversive as it might be, is sufficiently removed from its source to make it transformative is a question we have to ask Kannemeyer. Personally, I am not convinced that they are.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Zapiro, in defence of his Rape of Justice cartoon, claims he is not racist because his record in the anti-apartheid struggle “speaks for itself”. If we say that struggle leaders are to be held accountable for what they are doing now and that their struggle credentials are of little consequence, then by the same token we should hold Kannemeyer and Zapiro to the same standard.
In his postscript Marais makes the claim that Kannemeyer’s work should be welcome because the issue of race is one that is not openly discussed in South Africa. This is true, but talk of race and racism has consequences. In an economy in which wealth and privilege are still heavily in favour of whites, there are dire consequences for “race talk” for black people. But it is easy to talk about race as long as you do not mention that attaining social justice also means the necessary pain of having to give up wealth and privilege.
It is not that Kannemeyer is ignorant of the privilege that comes with being white. But acknowledging one’s privilege is not the same thing as acknowledging the responsibility that goes with it. In a world in which artistic freedom and creativity are rightly valued above the instrumentalisation of the arts, “responsibility” is a dirty word. I am the last person to advocate that an artist’s creativity ought to be stifled in favour of political correctness, but that is not to say one ought to celebrate the cynicism of arrogant and intransigent products of racial privilege.
It is not only on the level of race that I find Pappa in Afrika reprehensible. In one of two works, titled Thank You, Black Angel, a black angel gives the artist a blowjob. Whether they are intended to be subversive or simply funny, much of the imagery is condescending. So what if the black people, men and women, in Kannemeyer’s cartoons lack agency and when they have any they act as agents of disaster — and then serve only to populate white fears and Kannemeyer’s fantasies?
It does not matter that they are offensive. It certainly does not matter that he dredges up a host of racist imagery and stereotypes. Indeed we are supposed to look and laugh — because “Anton Kannemeyer is not racist”.
Khwezi Gule was formerly the curator of contemporary collections at the Johannesburg Art Gallery. He is now chief curator at Hector Pieterson Memorial. Pappa in Afrika is published by Jacana Media
Haiybo!
Zuma’s future President is smart!
“If you say that’s too little and you don’t want it, then we take the land and give you nothing. It’s called expropriation with compensation determined by the state.”
If “we take the land and give you nothing” is with compensation whatever will no compensation be?
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article625158.ece/Malema–Well-take-the-land-determine-the-price
The ANC was much more devious with the Firearms Control Act: Wrote compensation provisions into the Act, then promptly ignored them.
This is a step in the right direction.
The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal says it will return the R1 million donation it got from a man being investigated for a R200 million tender fraud if it finds that the money was obtained through corrupt deeds.
“The money will be returned to the donor if we find that it was obtained through illegal or corrupt activities,” African National Congress (ANC) secretary Sihle Zikalala, told reporters in Durban on Tuesday.
The ANC has admitted it received a R1 million from a businessman, Uruguayan national Gaston Savoi who was arrested together with seven other people last week in connection with the R200 million tender fraud.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article632636.ece/ANC-pledges-to-return-R1m—if-corrupt
Unquestionably imagine that that you said. Your favourite justification appeared to be on the internet the simplest factor to understand of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while folks think about issues that they plainly don’t realize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and outlined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , other people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you