I had a good laugh at the piece written by ex-DA leader Tony Leon and published today in Business Day. Now that he is not the surly – “fight b(l)ack” – leader of the DA anymore, he is actually quite witty and, dare I say, a bit critical of his new leader. Hence he describes Ms Botox as follows:
Awaiting her curtain call, from an office eyrie above the stage, Zille, the DA leader-premier-candidate-mayor, sits behind a desk, impeccably blonde and coiffured, her obligatory blue T-shirt offset by a rather handsome pewter necklace and designer glasses.
Sounds like Tony thinks Helen Zille is a bit fake. All that (bottle) blond hair. Those red, botoxed, lips. The fancy designer glasses. Ouch! Tony has let out his inner bitch. And to prove the point he describes the rally (in Mitchells Plain) as follows:
The DA diva dashes down the staircase to the stage, the crowd roars and, behold, Jacob Zuma-like, she grabs the microphone and begins singing — more baritone than soprano. The ANC president’s trademark anthem, Umshini wami (Bring me my Machine Gun), inspires the ire of the politically correct. But the DA song of the day, which Zille lustily belts out and to which she dances, probably also warrants the attention of the thought — or at least the gender — police. Koekie Lookie , which the crowd loves, roughly translates from Kaapsetaal into “Hot Chick”. Helen’s musical repertoire — if not her sense of rhythm — is also on fire. She proceeds to belt out an old Nat anthem, suitably transposed, “Klim op die DA Bus” (climb on the DA bus), and then another piece of musical doggerel: “Brom, brom, brom, die DA kom”.
For those wanting to read the tea leaves there seems to be much implicit criticism of Zille in this piece. Calling your new leader a diva and pointing out that she cannot dance is a bit rude, not? In any case, read the piece. I cannot believe I am saying this, but it is really well written, funny, a bit bitchy but quite human – so different from Leon’s image when he was the grumpy, often stilted politician complaining about the ANC.
I’ve said this in other forums: if the worst that can be said about Helen Zille is that she’s had botox and wears makeup, well done Helen!
I’ll take botox over corruption any day, thanks.
Are we reading the same piece? It’s well written yes. But I see admiration and energy.
You’ve just got to love this country.
Agree with Wessel – it is witty and human as you say but when read as a whole instead of quoted selectively, its admiring. Just not the usual sycophantic trash written by politcians about their comrades…
This is the way the DA (and other parties) should campaign:
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/silwane/2009/03/18/for-the-love-of-the-da-or-for-the-hatred-of-the-anc/
Helen Zille is a bit of a joke. I cannot imagine anybody taking her seriously, I know I don’t.
But his does raise the question, if you don’t see yourself as DA or ANC, who do you vote for?? (not that I can vote…)
George Gildenhuys // Mar 19, 2009 at 12:46 pm ..
‘…Helen Zille is a bit of a joke…’
Good on you to have such a firm opinion on the woman that holds the post of best mayor in the world.
Now, who do you vote for? Let me put it to you this way; compare the City of Capt Town with Tswane, Kimberly or any other ANC governed city. On a more local scale, compare Stellenbosch with Hermanus. Just by the state of the infrastructure and level of service delivery you can clearly differentiate between the progressive, accountable, transparent governance of the DA and the systematic degradation provided by God’s own i.e. the ANC.
Pro ANC’s, I’m ready for your rhetoric and apartheid mumbo jumbo, but these are facts – by the definition of governance, the DA is doing a superb job while the ANC is stuck fighting for freedom.
So George it really does not matter if you like the Botox queen or not; the fact is the ANC does not have a clue how to govern while on the other hand you can bank on the DA’s track record.
mili // Mar 19, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I cannot agree with you. I am no fan of the ANC, I think they are inept and corrupt.
BUT I cannot see the DA as an alternative to the ANC. To make South Africa work we need more than the DA’s Westminster style politics. A lot more. They seem to be really good at making noise, but little of an alternative.
AZAPO perhaps?!
Seriously, South African opposition parties are dull and uninspiring. Their only reason for existing is that they are not the ANC. Collectively they do not represent the middle, left or the right.
What we really need actually is for COPE to do well in this election and for the SACP to stand separately to the ANC.
That will be the only way democracy in South Africa would be firmly established with proper checks and balances.
George, I was actually considering Azapo – they want a gun free South Africa and seems like Steve Biko’s kind of BC people – until I read in the Sunday Independent last week that they want referendums on the death penalty, gay marriage etc. Turkeys cannot vote for Christmas, so they are now off my list! Problem is, for most of us voting is a combination of a rational decision and an affirmation of who we are and how we see ourselves in the world. Most voters will not choose the DA because emotionally the DA just still seems too much of an old-style party with the dregs of the National Party in its midst and because voters are not convinced the DA represents the interests of anyone but the rich and poweful – despite the catchy phrase about an “opportunity society”. For people with no education and little hope of becoming software engineers or judges, this opportunity society will look like a society that will screw them. The ANC ticks all the right emotional boxes – freedom and liberation, non-racialism, Mandela – but rationally – what with HIV, corruption, arrogance, disrespect for the law and the Constitution and the like – it just does not do the trick. I am probably going to go into the voting booth not knowing what to do!
George Gildenhuys
Although I broadly share your sentiments I think you underestimate Helen Zille. I recently worked on a documentary about the SA border war and we had a section on the conscientious objectors. The very first objector was sent to jail.
And who came to visit him and encourage him? None other than Helen Zille.
I think she’s an authentic leader, not an old style DA parliamentarian.
PS: And at that time she was not a DA or PFP politician, she had nothing to gain by doing this. I think Helen is one of those very rare things in SA politics today. A conviction politician.
I can only think of two promiment others – Patricia De Lille and Zackie Achmat. If Zackie founded a party I’d vote for him tomorrow.
“Patricia De Lille”??!!!!
You’re kidding! Probably the last person I would describe as a “conviction politician”
Just look at the way she sold out her voter base to support the ANC during the coalition talks in W-Cape…
Prof, the DA believes they just a little too much in the “Official Opposition” phrase. They wear is as a badge of honour. And after 15 years of ANC failure, the DA’s lack of progress is as just as much a failure.
Prof another question:
Things like death penalty, gay marriage etc are quite hotly debated a topic that divides opinion a lot.
Why are you opposed to a referendum of these? I would have thought a referendum is the correct way of getting the electorate to decide individual issues.
Being in a civil partnership myself I support gay marriage. But I also support other people having an opinion and disagreeing with me (however unfounded their reasoning might be) and a referendum might just allow people to voice their disagreements without resorting to non-peaceful means…
politics? ? was that still an option
I’ll have to reserve for a swing/ sling vote in this day
i wanted to ask who have the money to do these revolutionary blue green movements
i’ll vote for him (her ) (it ?//
to become safer also
must be one of the principles
ohh and on the referendum issue,
good call – we must actually modernise the process
Why indeed, a good laugh. Toni, but I was always a Evita girl.
George, the outcome of a referendum is of course not legally binding but there is no use in having one unless the government commits itself to comply with the outcome. A referendum on the death penalty or same-sex marriage will thus be a referendum in which South Africans will be asked to make a decision about the protection of the human rights of certain sections of the community. I do not think the rights of human beings should be subjected to a vote. The protection of the human rights of all means nothing if the rights of minorities or unpopular groups could be nullified by the majority. It would send a signal that some South Africans do not deserve equal concern and respect and would fundamentally undermine respect for their (our!) human dignity. If we have referendums on whether we should protect the human rights of all South Africans, we move down the slippery slope of denying the rights of people based on the beliefs and prejudices of the majority. Why not dispense with the referendum and just scrap the Bill of Rights and confirm our enthusiastic support for discrimination against women, people living with HIV, disabled persons, foreigners, adulterers etc etc?
Prof, you make a good point… perhaps voting on people’s rights is not something for a mere majority to decide.
George, in order how and where funamental rights are protected and enforced you have to have some grasp of the concept of a supreme Constitution and it’s constitutional structures.
Fundamental human rights as enshrined in chapter two of the Constitution may only be limited in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom as per section 36 therof.
In other words a public refurendum discussing already accepted rights is really not going to change what South Africa has made something to strive for by the international community.
Friend // Mar 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I agree with you and Prof, both of you convinced me that referendums are not really an effective tool.
I fact, I would go a step further and say that the SA constitution should be changed in a way that requires an even greater majority of the National Assembly to change any section of Chapter two…
George Gildenhuys // Mar 19, 2009 at 3:24 pm,
The Constitutional Court has said in S v Makwanyane; “If public opinion were to be decisive, there would be no need for constitutional adjudication.” This was in response to the Attorney-General’s argument that the majority of South Africans want the death penalty to be retained.
South Africa is a constitutional democracy not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy the majority rules. However, in a constitutional democracy, the majority makes the laws but the Constitutional Court checks the substance, and not only compliance with procedural requirements, to make sure that the majority laws do not trump the rights of the minority groups like gay people, lesbians, elder people, etc.
South Africa, as a country, still needs constitutional democracy because it has proven itself to be incapable of being trusted to cater for the needs of the minority when enacting its laws. In fact, it did not even cater for the need of the majority during the Apartheid era. However, in countries like Britain, with more mature democracies, it may not be necessary so much like in our country to ensure the existence of these guards in favour of the minority.
As Prof. has accurately put it above, at least in my view, resorting back to the referendums to determine public policy would be to trump minority rights and to render our beautifully crafted Constitution completely useless. Referendums may be used to test the general mood of the public and aid in formulating public policy but not to make decisions as such decisions would merely be an enforcement of majority will on the minority. The Constutitional Court was exactly established for this purpose; the jealously guard the rights of the weakest and poorest amongst us.
PS: Imagine if a referendum were held to determine whether the majority wants gay and lesbian marriages to continue to be legal in South Africa and the results show that more than 70% is against that. The minority’s rights, gays and lesbians’, would be thrown out of the windor just like that. With the Constitutional Court this would never happen unless the ANC amends the Constitution…
Minority Front all the way!!!
God, how I miss Tony Leon.
As i said in my comment above, check out and see how the ANC ru(i)ns local municipalities like Stellenbosch.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20090320121607786C379136
Have we also all forgotten that it was Zille who uncovered what happened to Steve Biko?
pdv and gg, you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding referendums and constitutional democracy. when i look at the special rating areas bylaw that has been passed by the city of ct and other municipalities i see a system which will enable a simple majority by way of referendum to establish a SRA and in so doing discriminate against less affluent members of their immediate society. it goes without saying that wealthier people have substantially different priorities and through this mechanism will be empowered to increase property taxes for non-essential services of their own choosing. this legislation can’t possibly be constitutionally democratic in a non-homogenous society such as we have here in south africa. please start the debate before SRA’s start springing up everywhere.
I cannot imagine how a serious academic could think it good to write such bottom feeding rubbish. What does a description of Helen Zille’s choice of clothing or her botox treatment contribute to a meaningful discourse about Constitutional Law? The simple answer is that Pierre de Vos is not a serious academic.
Banality and inconsequentiality are the only intelligible motifs of Mr De Vos’s writing and speaking. The fact that he is actually employed by an academic institution and routinely asked for commentary by the SABC is rather a testament to the assent of mediocrity than to Mr De Vos’s talents.
Behind the sheer intellectual decrepitude, Mr De Vos seems to be driven by a throbbing vindictiveness. One possible explanation is that Mr De Vos still feels slighted by Helen Zille’s victory over the unlawfully constituted Erasmus Commission.
Who could forget Mr De Vos’s gratuitous, and embarrassingly erroneous, defence of the commission and its chair? Is a desperately small man and second rate lawyer still trying to get back at the politician who beat him on his own professional turf?
Professor, I, (as Slim Shady suggested), am the REAL george. Please do not imagine that this idiotic post, (by George Gildenhuys?), represents the termination of my self-imposed exile from this blog. Cheers.
That music is really brilliant, I enjoy listening to it!