The ANC wants us to believe news that President Jacob Zuma has fathered yet another child out of wedlock (and hence that he has had sex with yet another woman who is not one if his wives without using a condom) is a private matter. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya is quoted as saying that Zuma’s right to privacy: “had clearly been violated…. Does the public’s right to know reign supreme over the individual citizen’s constitutional rights regardless of who they are,” Mgwenya fumed.
Mgwenya’s statement is shockingly anti-democratic and ill-informed. The fact is that President Zuma is not a private citizen like everyone else. He is the leader of the largest party in South Africa and President of the country. As the Constitutional Court has made clear, the right to privacy – like all other rights – are not absolute and not everyone can claim an absolute right to keep their private lives secret, regardless of who they are.
The more public a figure, the less privacy he or she enjoys. If private actions could have public consequences, a public figure enjoys very little privacy regarding those particular actions as this would impoverish our democracy as it would deprive us of information needed to form opinions about our political leaders.
The President is not an ordinary citizen. We pay his salary and we have a constitutional right to know whether his behavior is such that we would want to vote for the party he leads. To argue that this is a private matter is to argue that citizens do not have the right to know what their leaders get up to and what kind of characters they have. It is also to argue that our right to vote for the party of our choice in an informed manner should be trumped by the right to privacy of a man who has chosen to take up the position of president of the country – thereby forfeiting some of his privacy rights.
The view expressed by the ANC is reactionary and disrespectful of voters and if adhered to will potentially hold severe negative consequences for the quality of our democracy. Because Zuma is a public figure and a main player in our politics, he has forfeited some of his privacy. If the ANC does not believe this, they clearly have contempt for the dignity of voters and for the right of voters to make informed choices. The view espoused by Mgwenya thus poses a danger to our democracy and must be rejected with contempt.
The same can of course not be said for the baby President Zuma fathered. That baby did not choose to be fathered by the President and has a right to privacy. It would also be in the best interest of the child to keep his or her identity secret. The Sunday Times was therefore wrong to publish the full names of the baby.
The second – and distinct – question is whether the news that Zuma has fathered another child out of wedlock should be relevant for us when we make choices about whom to vote for. I am not a particularly moralistic person, so personally I would ordinarily say that the sexual adventures of a politician should have little or no bearing on his or her political standing. Normally the fact that a politician had an affair or fathered a child out of wedlock would say very little about his or her ability to govern the country and should not really be of great interest to us voters.
But this changes where the private actions of the politician directly contradict his or her public utterances and the policy positions of the party he or she belongs to or – in the case of President Zuma – leads. When that happens, a politician shows that he or she is a hypocrite and that we cannot trust a word he or she says and, hence, that he or she lacks the necessary character to be a political leader who should enjoy our trust. For example, if the leader of a Reborn Christian party who rails against homosexuality has a gay affair, we should condemn that politician – not because of the gay affair but because of the sheer hypocrisy of the man. Why would we ever believe anything that politician says ever again?
This is why the news of President Zuma’s love child is a big deal.
Our President has made many statements which directly contradicts his private behavior. Talking to religious leaders before the election he said that: “we need to teach our people to fear God… There are many other examples, which illustrate that the historical association of the ANC and the Church cannot be doubted. The ANC practically derived its moral vision from the church amongst other sources”.
As far as I know, very few people believe in a God that condones promiscuity and extra marital affairs, and the moral vision of the church is surely not one that condones extra-marital affairs and fathering children out of wedlock. This creates the impression that our President is a hypocrite who says one thing to church leaders (and pretends that the ANC he leads has a vision in line with church teachings) when he personally does not adhere to that vision. This is usually called lying. I wonder what Ray McCauley (who is just about the divorce his second wife!) thinks about this behavior?
Last year President Zuma also made a brilliant speech on World Aids Day and many of us praised him and commended the ANC for this fresh approach to the disease. The ANC Youth League even launched a “one girlfriend, one boyfriend” campaign as part of this fresh approach to HIV prevention. Zuma himself said:
Our message is simple. We have to stop the spread of HIV. We must reduce the rate of new infections. Prevention is our most powerful weapon against the epidemic… All South Africans should take steps to ensure that they do not become infected, that they do not infect others and that they know their status. Each individual must take responsibility for protection against HIV. To the youth, the future belongs to you.
It does not mean that we should be irresponsible in our sexual practices. It does not mean that people do not have to practice safer sex. It does not mean that people should not use condoms consistently and correctly during every sexual encounter. We can eliminate the scourge of HIV if all South Africans take responsibility for their actions.
After the recent revelations it is far from clear whether President Zuma actually meant what he said. Perhaps President Zuma and the mother of his child both had an HIV test before they started having unprotected sex, but if that is the case we have a right to know. In the absence of such knowledge we will surely be forgiven for believing that the President is an unprincipled hypocrite who says one thing in public and commits the ANC to one policy and then does exactly the opposite in private.
At the very least President Zuma must tell us whether he was irresponsible in his sexual practices and whether he has taken steps to protect himself and his sexual partners from HIV infection. He should tell us whether he has had any other extra-marital sexual relations and whether he has fathered any other children out of wedlock. If he does not, the voters will be well within their rights to judge the President harshly and to conclude that he is a man who cannot be trusted, a man who would say anything to get elected – even if what he says is exactly the opposite of what he does.
This goes to the heart of the character of our President. Either he can be trusted and we can believe what he says, or he cannot be trusted and we should assume that he is a pathological liar. When his private actions suggest that he cannot be trusted, voters have a right to know about those actions. Moreover, they also have a right not to vote for him at the next election – not because he is less “moral” than Mother Theresa, but rather because he is not honest.
“Zuma’s right to privacy: ‘had clearly been violated…. Does the public’s right to know reign supreme over the individual citizen’s constitutional rights regardless of who they are,’ Mgwenya fumed.”
Would the same apply to teachers who engage in relationships with their students over the age of consent?
Or company managers with their staff?
Or religious leaders with their followers?
Or doctors and patients?
Or police officers and victims or accused persons?
Or prison warders and prison inmates?
I am not able to grasp why Mgwenya thinks that the 65,9% of the voters who supported the ANC under President Zuma should not be kept informed of personal matters involving the President.
It is unfortunate that the ANCYL now relies on respect for elders when it readily hurled offensive remarks about Helen Zille and her “concubines” so readily (to its credit the ANC did rebuke the YL for that).
Pierre,
I think you are being unfair to the president. His speech was delivered on 1 December 2009. Biologically, it would seem that the Iron Dukes daughter fell pregnant in January/February 2009. So by the time he delivered that speech, he may have subscribed to every word. It is possible.
The same can be said of his trips to various church pulpits.
@ Maggs
You should know by now that it is not the custom to leave an aroused woman unfulfilled. The imperative demanding that we satisfy a lady’s legitimate expectations is but one aspect of what I like to call the “Ubuntu of the Bedroom.”
The inevitable corollary is that new life may from time to time be generated.
Thank you.
It could have been worse.
Fatafehi Paulah, King of Tonga in the 17th century regarded it as his royal duty to deflower all virgens before they sleep with their husbands. He is said to have resticted his sexual activities to the deflowering of 10 virgins a day and during his entire reign had slept with 37,800 virgins.
Mikhail – Yes, ‘new life’ with no rights at all, at least until successful birth!
Now we know why Zuma needed the support of Shabir Shaik, in addition to his salary as Deputy President (of both the ANC and the RSA) at the time. And with that number of children ever increasing, the maintenance requirements might be sky-rocketing. I mean, the President of the ANC and of the RSA as a father?! Well, is the President above the maintenance laws of the country?
I agree with Pierre – the ANC attitude to this sort of thing is laughable. Its all “innocent until proven guilty” and “invasion of privacy” whilst our “leadership” is quickly becoming inhabited by the lowest characters in the country.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 2, 2010 at 8:50 am
A close friend who, like me, strongly supported our President’s ascendancy says he was asked by his young sons (8 and 10) about this on Sunday.
He says that he did the Malema thing and said to them that they are too young to be discussing “adult issues” as a way of buying some time while he works out how to reconcile his political views with the values he is trying to impart on his kids.
He reckons that he feels luckier than parents of young girls.
On 5FM news yesterday the headline was read: “ANC youth league says elders are beyond reproach and therefore it’s nobody’s beeswax” I had to join another club for a run so thats all I heard, but when I tuned in again later or before? they had a discussion where Mr. Cliff suggested that the president has a point and a right to have intercourse with whomever he pleases, because he is the king says Gareth, now all I noticed was that none of the callers or the DJ made a distinction between Bigamy and adultery, they purposefully made an effort to categorize the latter under the former in an attempt to decive the public. I’m propably just not a big Gareth Cliff fan.
yes, Maggs, that’s because parents of the boys only has to worry about the one penis
I was (and still am) not a fan of Thabo Mbeki, but I think over the years he had gotten to know Zuma a lot. Hence he thought Zuma was not president material. The President’s behavoir is disappointing to those who really thought he was being victimised. It appears that his real interest to being president was purely to have unlimited access to the women of this country, so as to satisfy his sexual needs. He is really taking the “father of the nation” title to another level. Really, really embarassing, irrespective of what his spokepeople (both appointed and self-appointed) say.
I cannot continue to see why this has any bearing now>> after all The Majority of SA voted for this individual amidst a “rape accusation” & “corruption”
Call it Crass of me , but do the majority of SA not still support everything this man purports to hold as “dogma” & the indoctrination of the masses as customariness?
I believe the Cliché is : “he has spent his load”>> pardon pun
If the president of the Republic with three wives still has time to fornicate outside of wedlock, then clearly his attention is not on running the country.
This proves Zuma is an absent president, more concerned about living the high life than running the country.
Who is running South Africa?!
Thabo Mbeki was right to kick Zooomer out of his government and i think the ANC should think about redeploying Zoooomer to some rural are somewhere where he can be mayor or something then he can pursue his sexual escapades in quiet. For as long as our tax money pays for his salary and is looking after his fat wives, we have a right to say no! and we have a right to condemn him and his seemingly insatiable sexual appetite that is purued without a condom, noggal! For a man to stand on a morl high-ground and tell people how to behave sexually and then sneek into the back-ground and have unprotected sex with another daughter of a FRIEND is sick and immoral and sadistic. He should know better after his rape case that he won technically like he technically avoid standing trial for corruption charges, he should know better and it shows he lacks character and is only in powere to further his selfish pursuits nd use our taxes to finance his insatiable sexual encounters. our taxes paid for the motorcade that went to pay damages, our taxes were probably used again to pay for the damage itself.now the big question is whetherour taxes are going to be used to bring up this child? the last time i checked, Zuma could not make ends meet with his salary hence Shaik had to loan him some money and pay for his children’s school fees. i dobt if his situation has improved considering he has an additional wife and nineteen other children. an ordinary citizen battles to make ends meet with two children and one wife…i wonder who is loaning him money now, or is he helping himself on our taxes diguised as Presidential privileges and benefits. This country sucks!
The Youth Leagues/Students are now into the “respect your elders” angle. Just not so much for Mbeki, Mothlanti, Tutu etc.
Zuma may be becoming too difficult to spin…. what does one do about an old man who keeps getting caught nyomping his friends’ daughters.
@ Ehud Olmert
This is most unfair. Critical but loyal members of the ANC (like one frequent contributor to this blog), do not support JZ as a matter of “dogma.”
They do so rather because the party which he leads is the only party that can identify with the masses, and is committed to the Freedom Charter.
Also, what alternatives are there to JZ? A “madam” of German ancestry who uses copious amounts of Botox?
What are aspirations of the people of SA and what are our expectations from our leaders? This is giant step backwards and should not be accepted.
We need search harder for leadership in our society and avoid these embarassing moments.
We need a cleansing of the ANC.
BACK TO BASICS.
By the way, who is Malema to start talking about Respect, when it comes to Zuma’s concubines when he could not mete the same respect in the case of his parading Helen Zille’s so called “concubines” who remain unnamed to thisday. The is no way we are going to respet a man in Zuma, who does not have respect of his own children, wives and the country by going fathering children out of wedlock indiscriminately. i was told this morning that he has another fiance who he apparently has three children with. What is wrong with this man? who is going to pay for all his child manufacturing encounters, TAX PAYERS?
Agenda for the next ANC NEC meeting
1. State of the Nation & Budget Spechees
2. Cwele Matter
3. Zuma matter
4. Nationalisation
5. Tswhane name change
6. Payment of service providers
7. Gauteng leadership challenges.
8. Leadership in Parastatals
9. Eskom Price hike
10. ANC Code of Conduct
Resolutions on these matters will go a long way.
Gwebecimele says:
February 2, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“We need a cleansing of the ANC.
BACK TO BASICS”
Indeed.
It’s interesting that the voices that are “defending” our President are doing so on the basis that it’s a “private matter”.
Nobody has come out in approval (yet)!
Of course everyone that is close to the President will start being a lot more cautious about their daughters, sisters, wives, mothers.
The biggest concern that will emerge is what do we say to young people about their own morality, values and self respect given that No 1 has no boundaries.
We are getting to a stage where parents will have to be given Zuma’s diary in order to be informed in advance, of his whereabouts, so that they can “lock up” their daughters behind doors so that they (daughters) do not come into contact with the “energetic” President. Attendance of Zuma’s rallies should also be limited to girls over the age of 18!
Gwebecimele: February 2, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Says everything about the ANC Today! Pity, eh? 8 of the 10 shouldn’t have arisen in the first place.
Regarding Prof’s post today: I think what Zuma doesn’t get is that he is a Democratic leader of a Democratic nation, a part of the International Democratic community. It is dictators, not democratic leaders, who insist on private lives for their many lovers and nefarious activities, both of the heart and bank balances. Democratic leaders answer to their misdeeds, as is honorable. Dictators do not, and have no honor.
What does this say about the real nature of the man?
“Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?”
Excellent article and I couldn’t agree more, President Zuma is a hypocrite and would say anything to please his audiences.
What are you all talking about, these a western values you are trying to impose on our poor Zuma. Just remember, the more children you have, the more children you have to take care of you when you are old. Seriously, who the hell voted for this sexist,homophobic,dishonost,uneducated and morally reprehensible man? Earth to South Africa, we are totally losing the plot. Zuma stated that he loves his wives equally. I suppose this means he loves them all equally enough to cheat on them all..all the time. I suppose it must be his dance moves, I mean who can resist a man ,with a shiny head, in traditional shaking his body to the screaming of the masses and the rhythm of the machine gun anthem….or is it Zumas no pants dance that rules the chickitos worlds. I heard dogs cant control their sexual urges. Jump and hump the dog motto goes. Inferences drawn from this trivial revelation will convey more about the reader than the writer hereof.
So Zuma and Naomi Campbell stranded on an island. Will Naomi be able to resist the charm,wit,intelligence,charisma and physique of our beloved President? And if she can resist, which is highly unlikely, will Zoomalicious Zuma you know..take matters into his own hands…by using his highly developed skills to build a raft from the available materials. Maby his hypothetical inabillity to save them could be blamed on a political conspiracy theory. Why not, the man is very creative in his blameshifting tactics.
When Clinton’s tryst with Monica Lewinsky began known, his political opponents attempted to harness the resultant public outrage (a product of America’s absurdly puritanical public culture), as a weapon against him. I see the scandal about Zuma’s “love child” in a similar light.
Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky had, in itself, nothing to do with his ability to govern the country. The same is true with respect to Zuma.
Here it is alleged that JZ sets a bad example by not wearing a condom. But the fact that one has unprotected sex on any given occasion is not, in itself, a mark of sexual irresponsibility. We simply do not know anything about the nature of the relationship between the President and the mother of his newest child.
I do not accept the ANC’s characteristically hyperventilative defense of the President. But I do think it is for JZ and his lover to negotiate the terms of their intimate lives.
On that note, Pierre writes “[p]erhaps President Zuma and the mother of his child both had an HIV test before they started having unprotected sex, but if that is the case we have a right to know.”
I agree with Pierre that, as a legal matter, a political leaders’ right to privacy is attenuated by the fact that he voluntarily thrusts (!) himself into the public spotlight. But to suggest that this demands the level of self-disclosure Pierre demands is absurd.
[By Pierre’s reasoning, the President should have assured the public that his new wife had had a HIV/AIDS test before their wedding night.]
Some Choice moral quotes from the most virile man in SA:
all obtained from: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/search.asp?search=moral+regeneration&Action=GO
“The building of strong families should be the cornerstone of the campaign, as families are the foundation of communities and nations. Regardless of the type of family – whether single or two parent families – we need to ensure that our children get the love and respect that is required to mould them into responsible adults.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, let us all re-affirm our belief in the dictum that “Every Child is My Child”, as we prepare for National Children’s Day and the Campaign of 16 Days of Activism against violence directed towards women and children, next month.”
Pierre – the beauts you could chew on from here… http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/main.asp?include=former_deputy/sp/2003/sp1024a.htm
it’s a good thing HongKongPhoey resolved that moral dilemma…
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/somethingtodo/files/2010/02/Zap.jpg
I would like to make three points here. For a start, I am going to associate myself with one of Michael’s submissions: we cannot fairly accuse Zuma of hypocrisy on the sexual-irresponsibility score given that we just do not know enough about the circumstances surrounding his encounter with the mother of his new-born. So even though I have scant respect for Zuma, I think his plethora of failings should not automatically disentitle him from a fair shake.
Secondly, the position is quite different as regards Zuma’s purported association with the Church. As far as I am aware, Christianity takes a dim view of infidelity. And given his very vocal association with the Church, we are justified in concluding that Zuma publicly condemns infidelity but that he is prepared to ignore the injunction in his private life. As the Professor and others make out, this pretty much colours Zuma an untrustworthy politician who is comfortable with misleading the public or, at the very least, with abandoning the content of his moral advocacy.
Thirdly, it should be clear by now to any moderately critical South African that the ANC will only approach contentment when it achieves the establishment of a totalitarian state complete with a robust brand of censorship. Dario Milo wrote a piece for last week’s M&G which outlined some prime facie disquieting legislative developments which, if passed, will gravely constrain press freedom. He also mentioned Zuma’s predilection for defamation suits and our favourite Zuma-lackey’s (Simelane) decision to prohibit prosecutors from talking to the press without authorisation. In sum, the ANC wants unchallenged sway, uncritical support and the power to control what is said about its figures.
The Professor’s submissions about the nature of the right to privacy and the view that it will, at times, be the case that the private vices of public people will be public property make good sense. The trouble here is not the logic. The trouble – as so many have pointed out so often – is that the ANC wants carte blanch and the better part of the electorate are pretty much giving it to them.
@ Leigh
Perhaps I am too cynical to be shocked or outraged over the apparent inconsistency between JZ’s ties to the church and his private life.
I take it for granted that the church itself is hypocritical to the core. (Who in their right mind could for a minute take Pastor Ray seriously, for God’s sake?) So, how I could be bothered by the fact that a politician does not live up to standards that the chuch itself only pretends to believe in?
Even a model of rectitude like Obama has to pay lip service to simple religious pieties that we know no intelligent person would uncritically embrace. Does this little hypocricy make me think that Obama is generally untrustworthy? No.
Very interesting of you Michael Osbourne to refer to the Clinton scandal to try and make your point. Fact of the mater is that had the Clinton scandal broke out during his first term in office, I can bet you all my pension money, he would not have gotten a second term. Why do you think John Edwards pulled out of his presidential ambitions?
The other obvious difference between Zuma and Clinton is that Clinton was a leader with leadership qualities and a successful record. We are not so sure if Zuma is a leader – let alone a successful one.
By the way, John Edwards finally admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock. (A private matter between two consenting adults according to the defenders of the Zuma irresponsibility). John Edwards’ political career is DEAD! No prize for guessing why that’s the case.
Leigh writes “…we cannot fairly accuse Zuma of hypocrisy on the sexual-irresponsibility score given that we just do not know enough about the circumstances surrounding his encounter with the mother of his new-born …”
I would like to respectfully disagree. Having unprotected sex outside wedlock could have at least one of the following two consequences:
• Infection with some sexually transmitted disease.
• Birth of an illegitimate child.
In short, unprotected sex outside wedlock (like Zuma did) is grossly irresponsible, as we now know that it did in fact result in the birth of an illegitimate child.
Making this child legitimate could be some cost to the taxpayer. The President acted irresponsibly, period.
According to ‘The Times Live’, Irvin Khoza may just as well call Jacob Zuma “my son-in-law.”
And think about the perks for the first lady (in this case, the five first ladies if you include the Ngema kid). The taxpayers should be thrilled that they ultimately will bear the cost of this ‘private matter’.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article289155.ece
Ever think about the other possibility? That Zuma is not truthful in the documents that he and Sonono are married by customary law? FRAUD!
MARK GEVISSER on MONEYWEB in 2007
MONEYWEB: “Why do you think Mbeki is running and campaigning so hard for a third term as president of the ANC?”
MARK GEVISSER: “It’s a very good question, and one that’s perplexed a lot of people around him too, because he is in many ways the kind of the signal-bearer, the flag-carrier for democracy and progress in Africa. Now why would he be falling into this trap of the president-for-life syndrome that’s been the death-trap of so many African states? There are many reasons. One is that I think he was persuaded that he is the only person who could stop the Zuma juggernaut, and he genuinely believes the Zuma juggernaut has to be stopped. It is his perception, it is the perception of the people around him, and I personally don’t take a view on this. I’m reflecting what Mbeki thinks – that Jacob Zuma has very little respect for the rule of law, that he has bad judgement, and that he’s not presidential material. And Mbeki feels that he is the thin blue line between South Africa being a successful democracy and yet another failed African experiment. Now why does Mbeki think that? Has he come to believe his own propaganda, or is there some truth to it? ……..”
Michael, you cover two related points in your post which you directed to me. In the first of those points, you offer the admittedly cynical view that when church leaders themselves are obviously hypocritical, then it can hardly beggar belief that their followers will also be hypocritical. There is some good sense in this stance. But that being said, it seems to me that one could potentially still justifiably take issue with the politician that purports to be committed to the church in public only to betray Christian teachings in his private life. If the politician expressly associated himself with the church as an institution, and if it was the case that that institution itself was clearly hypocritical, then as you make out, we should not be surprised by the hypocrisy of the institution’s political affiliates. But if the politician professed commitment to the Bible’s teachings – and here I distinguish between the church as an institution and the Bible – then we would be justified in being surprised. But both instances merit outrage. In the first, we could and should be bothered by both the church and the politician for their betrayals of the proper standards of the applicable religious teaching despite their appeals (either express or, at least, tacit) that other people uphold those standards. And in the second instance, we should take exception to the politician.
To turn to your second point which, I think, can be articulated somewhat thus: as politicians go, Obama enjoys at least some moral authority – and for what it’s worth, I think he ought to and anyone who would say otherwise might do well to take a second look at the nature and extent of the challenges facing him. You make out that even Obama is guilty of a little hypocrisy and that his hypocrisy does not render him generally untrustworthy. Again, you make sense here. But I would like to sketch out two possibilities. The first seems to support what could be an implication of your view. The second runs counter to that possible implication.
The first possibility is that many of us have not judged Zuma’s trustworthiness on the strength of this one instance of hypocrisy alone. That is, we may have taken it together with the other things that we know about him. That could well be true. And as I think a possible implication of you position runs: that could be a tad bit unfair towards Zuma.
The second possibility is that we can distinguish between different species of hypocrisy. Obama may pay lip service to pieties that no intelligent person would uncritically embrace. But at the least, it seems we can say safely that when he does so, he does not have as his basic object the satisfaction of his personal appetites. The question is: is that different from (a) clearly attempting to cast one’s party and thus one’s self in a righteous light only to (b) disobey an injunction of the relevant teaching for a purpose that is obviously self-serving? I tend to think so. So my point is this: it could be that sometimes we can reliably infer political untrustworthiness from hypocrisy and sometimes we probably cannot. A good bit seems to turn on the subject matter of the double standard.
Dumisani, as far as I am aware, we do know whether Zuma knew that mother of the child well enough for him to justifiably conclude that the risk of transmission of a sexually transimitted desease from her to him was markedly low. And for all we know, at the time, Zuma may have known for a virtual certainty that he was not infected by anything.
Moreover, for all we know, the two love birds may have used some other means to guard against the conception of an illegitimate child that simply proved to be ineffectual. Or, the mother may have wanted the president to knock her up and he may have been happy to oblige – which of course could justify a bit of criticism but not the criticism of sexual irresponsibility in the sense of being unmindful of the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
In short, we do not know very much about the particular circumstances which obtained.
@ Dumisani
I agree of course that Clinton would not have been re-elected, and I know of John Edward’s experience. But so what? I think this demonstrates the immaturity of the U.S. electorate.
(A useful comparator is Pres. Mitterand, who also had a “love child.”)
Dumisani Mkhize says:
February 2, 2010 at 23:01 pm
“I would like to respectfully disagree. Having unprotected sex outside wedlock could have at least one of the following two consequences:
• Infection with some sexually transmitted disease.
• Birth of an illegitimate child”
It may well have been that they wanted to have a child together – if so it would nullify the “two consequences”.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 4:36 am
“One is that I think he was persuaded that he is the only person who could stop the Zuma juggernaut, and he genuinely believes the Zuma juggernaut has to be stopped.”
If Gevisser is correct, that thinking is rather COPEish – create the problem then blame others for the consequences.
With mature politicians having been systematically sidelined, marginalised even unceremoniously dumped by the wayside and the alliance in tatters, it was either Mbeki or Zuma.
Given all (disappointing and even unsavory) that is emerging now about our President in respect of his personal actions and some of his decisions, even the tatters that the ANC appears to be under his seemingly directionless leadership, if the choice again emerges between Mbeki and Zuma, I would support Zuma.
There can be nothing worse for us than having a President for life!
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 7:00 am
The problem with many amongst us, is that their follow personalities and not policies and principles. I suspect that you are one of the many amongst us. How can anyone forsake direction at the alter of hero-worship?
On creating ‘the problem then blame others for the consequences’. Are you calling President Zuma a ‘problem’? I am really trying to reconcile your school of thought here and it seems quite directionless. Very rich for someone who has just accused JZ of having ‘directionless leadership’ qualities.
I will submit to you that the ANC has a better direction than your thought process. Please gather yourself and say something sensible.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 7:19 am
I entirely agree that personalities are important. After having established their policies, organisations do not run on auto-pilot. If they did, then the leaders might as well be selected by the lotto machine.
The “problem” that I refer to is the dumping of mature politicians during the last ten years. The consequences are manifesting itself virtually everywhere – from matric results to the tardy state of public hospitals to the parastatals. That is a result of the last ten years.
Of course the ANC “has a better direction than your thought process” – it ought to have it’s an organisation with enormous human and intellectual capacity. I would expect it to be better than one individual with access to the internet. I am not sure what you point is but no doubt it is “something sensible”. Please share!
Maggs Naidu says: February 3, 2010 at 7:00 am
“There can be nothing worse for us than having a President for life!”
I suppose a President for life is worse than having a hypocritical forever horny President who doesn’t give a damn about his own political party / government policies!
Someone please remind me, was TM running to be the country’s President or the ANC President? If the latter, I suppose even if you are simply a political party’s President for life, it still doesn’t get any better!!
And what is this rubbish I hear about people complaining about 20 kids and how all those kids will have to be supported by their taxes. That is such a hogwash. Did anyone pay any less tax or receive any rebate in the last 10 years because the then President did not have any kids??
Which ‘mature politicians’ politicians were dumped in the past 10 years.
Point me to one policy that has changed since the people who were leading in the past 10 years have left government. Just one policy. Better yet, prove to me that ‘one individual with access to the internet’ ran this country without consulting on the issues.
P.S.: stop digging yourself into a hole by making hollow postures.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 7:53 am
Which ‘mature politicians’ politicians were dumped in the past 10 years and what effect did that have on the matric results and the public hospitals.
Point me to one policy that has changed since the people who were leading in the past 10 years have left government. Just one policy. Better yet, prove to me that ‘one individual with access to the internet’ ran this country without consulting on the issues.
P.S.: stop digging yourself into a hole by making hollow postures.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:19 am
“Which ‘mature politicians’ politicians were dumped in the past 10 years”.
Hmmm – that’s a hard one. Let’s try a few names – Jacob Zuma, Cyril Ramaphosa, Matthews Phosa, Tokyo Sexwale, Frene Ginwala, Pallo Jordan, Nathi Nhlekho – in time the list can be expanded.
I think you misread my comment a bit about ‘one individual with access to the internet’. Maybe I should rephrase it.
You wrote “I will submit to you that the ANC has a better direction than your thought process.”
I agreed with that. I am an individual with access to the internet. The ANC is a very large organisation with many thousands of people, many of whom are highly skilled, very smart and access to much resources.
It is necessarily have a better direction than my “thought process”.
Maybe I missed your “sensible” point in that comment by assuming that it’s a no-brainer.
p.s. Thanks for your concern about my welfare but until now I was extremely capable of managing myself in the holes that I dig for myself with my hollow postures. Much appreciated.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:31 am
“Point me to one policy that has changed since the people who were leading in the past 10 years have left government. Just one policy.”
Hmm – darn you ask hard questions. The hole is getting bigger.
How about that we now have Ministries of National Planning and Performance, Monitoring & Evaluation?
Does it count against my submission seeing that the National Planning Commission is yet to be established?
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:31 am
“Hmmm – that’s a hard one. Let’s try a few names – Jacob Zuma, Cyril Ramaphosa, Matthews Phosa, Tokyo Sexwale, Frene Ginwala, Pallo Jordan, Nathi Nhlekho – in time the list can be expanded.”
What could these individuals have done to ensure a better pass rate at matric or even better public hospitals? Please feel free to list individually.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:31 am
“Just one policy.”
How about this?
“The question on everyone’s lips is why we do not, as Mamphela Ramphele always wants us to do, declare the death certificate of outcomes-based education, OBE? I must say that we have, to all intents and purposes, done so. So if anybody asks us if we are going to continue with OBE, we say that there is no longer OBE. We have completely done away with it.” MINISTER OF BASIC EDUCATION, ANGIE MOTSHEKGA
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:39 am
“What could these individuals have done to ensure a better pass rate at matric or even better public hospitals? Please feel free to list individually”.
It seems that you are asking me to speculate on what people would have done had they been in government at one time and possibly what the shape and character of our country would have been like had that happened.
That’s is a tall order – sorry I plead no contest on that. I stand on having named some names as you asked earlier.
But I am tempted to get deeper into the hole so here goes.
I think (without foundation) that Phosa was better for Mpumulanga than one Lies somebody.
I think Nathi Nhlekho was better as a Chief Whip of the ANC than Goniwe.
I even think Lekota was better for the Free State than Marshoff .
But then what do I know – as you correctly point out I have not gathered myself so probably it is not sensible.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:41 am
Whose idea was it to have OBE in the first place? And who advocated and approved its implementation?
Please indulge me!
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:49 am
@7:53 am
You said ‘The “problem” that I refer to is the dumping of mature politicians during the last ten years. The consequences are manifesting itself virtually everywhere – from matric results to the tardy state of public hospitals to the parastatals.’
You are already speculating that had they been part of government things would have been better. What is the problem now? Can you prove that Mpumalanga matric results would have been better and Mpumalanga public hospitals would have been better run if Phosa had stayed as Premier?
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:54 am
I see you keep changing the goalposts.
Or is that your way of enlightening me?
You asked for policy changes – I gave it.
Do those that I posted not qualify as suitable response to “Point me to one policy that has changed since the people who were leading in the past 10 years have left government. Just one policy”?
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:59 am
“You are already speculating that had they been part of government things would have been better. What is the problem now? Can you prove that Mpumalanga matric results would have been better and Mpumalanga public hospitals would have been better run if Phosa had stayed as Premier?”
I am missing something.
How can I prove what did not happen?
I will speculate though, as the hole gets deeper and as wrong as it may seem, that it may have been better for public health if a suitably qualified health professional was the DG of health rather than an educationist.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:59 am
At no point do I say that no policy has changed. Please indulge me on how OBE got to be since you seem to know the root cause of our problems as a country.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:05 am
“At no point do I say that no policy has changed”.
So this was a trick question?
“Point me to one policy that has changed since the people who were leading in the past 10 years have left government. Just one policy.”
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:04 am
That is my point EXACTLY. You have no way of proving that things could be better if the so called ‘dumping of mature politicians during the last ten years’ – did, as a matter of fact, lead to the said consequences. Just as you have no way of proving it could not have been worse with them around.
By the way, Ginwala, Jordan and Zuma were around.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:08 am
You have raised OBE, lets talk about OBE. How did it come about who advocated for it and who approved it? More importantly, who may have been against it?
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:09 am
“By the way, Ginwala, Jordan and Zuma were around”
Zuma was fired if I recall correctly.
Jordan was removed as a Minister to a backbencher.
Ginwala “retired” after being demoted.
So by your reasoning, it would be ok to replace say the Minister Gordhan with Julius Malema as Minister of Finance since there will be no way to prove that the country will be better or worse off with that.
Maybe Mathias Rath as Minister of Health?
Glen Agliotti as Minister of Police?
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:11 am
“You have raised OBE, lets talk about OBE. How did it come about who advocated for it and who approved it? More importantly, who may have been against it?”
Play fair!
You asked for policy changes.
Either dropping OBE is “just one” of the policy changes brought about by this administration or it is not.
The merits of OBE is an entirely different matter.
As I pointed out, there are two questions here: (1) do we have a right to be informed by the media about aspects of President Zuma’s private life that could have public consequences or could cast light on his charachter? The answer must be yes. (2) Should we draw an adverse conclusion from Zuma’s behaviour? My take is: (i) one has every RIGHT to draw an adverse conclusion based on one’s own moral and political views because we are all free to make up our own minds regarding who we trust and want to vote for and on what basis – it’s called democracy. One also has a RIGHT to ignore the news and to endorse promiscuity based on your moral and ethical commitments; (ii) given the political fall-out of the President’s behaviour and the fact that many South Africans will take a dim view of his behaviour, the best way to manage this for the President is to come clean and to explain himself – if he does not we would be justified to conclude that he had unsafe sex and that he is dishonest; (iii) Personally, the problem remains for me not one of morality (thus not that the President is promiscuous), but of integrity and honesty. Although I agree with Michael that if one is realistic one allows politicians a margin of appreciation regarding the differences between private conduct and public utterances, where the gap between the two is potentially so vast – as in this case – it is not unreasonable to draw adverse inferences from it.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:25 am
But my dear Maggs, is OBE not at the core of our problems in education? Problems to which you subscribe the last ten years to.
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:38 am
OBE may or may not be at the core of our problems in education. Dr Ramphele seems to hold that view. Some educators whom I have spoken with seem to think that “the devil is in the detail” as the saying goes. OBE or no OBE, teachers being in school and actually teaching will help. Learners attending classes and actually studying will help. Provisioning schools will help. Districts doing what they are paid to do will help. Re establishing teacher training centres, as this administration has undertaken to do, will help.
But getting back to the subject of Pierre’s piece, and in consideration of your comment relating to Mbeki, I think that Zuma’s antics are less problematic than Mbeki’s tirade against Charlene Smith.
And Zuma must start getting into the news more frequently for the right reasons – leadership and direction. I cannot understand for example the reason for his silence when the Deputy President of our country and Ministers (like Min Shabangu) get blasted publicly for ensuring that our country sticks to it’s policies and good practices.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 10:03 am
Are you a black African person. If you are not, what gives you the authority to gauge the amount of insult that Charlene Smith may have cause on black African men? The follow up questions is, if indeed, you are not of black African descent, how can you gauge the correct amount of reply that the president should have accorded to Charlene Smith?
As a person black African descent, I derive considerable insult at the thought that you seek to raise Charlene’s insult at this point. What brief do you hold?
Maggs, the meeting with Zuma that made such an impression on you: Why did you not ask Zuma whether he had a condom?
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 10:44 am
“What brief do you hold?”
What??
What are you smoking???
Seriously, though, Dumisani makes several excellent points. (Michael, an atheist? Says “for God’s sake?”)
What does the public have knowledge of? Zuma is accused of rape of HIV-infected woman. Thereafter, we get news of a child – adulterine.
Is it unreasonable for the public to want to get the moral measure of their man by asking whether he had engaged, knowingly, in unprotected sex with a innocent third party after he had exposed himself to HIV?
Is our President that kind of person? Literally, that irresponsible?
In some countries that is a crime, is it not?
Will the ANC never tire of heaping shame upon our country?
P.s. What happened to Ju-ju’s bling while he was on stage?
khosi says:
February 3, 2010 at 10:44 am
“Are you a black African person. If you are not, what gives you the authority to gauge the amount of insult that Charlene Smith may have cause on black African men? The follow up questions is, if indeed, you are not of black African descent, how can you gauge the correct amount of reply that the president should have accorded to Charlene Smith?
@ Khosi and those who are interested here’s the public record :
“On page 738 of Gevisser’s tome he writes: “Charlene Smith would write in the Washington Post that rape was ‘endemic’ in Africa and had become ‘a prime means of transmitting the disease, to young women, as well as children’.” He gives the source of this as “Smith, C, ‘Their Deaths, His Doubts, My Fears’, Washington Post, 4 June 2000″.
What I wrote was: “Give the man his due. Mbeki is right, of course, in saying that African solutions must be found. In the United States, Aids is primarily a gay men’s and intravenous drug users’ problem. Here, it is spread primarily by heterosexual sex — spurred by men’s attitudes toward women. We won’t end this epidemic until we understand the role of tradition and religion — and of a culture in which rape is endemic and has become a prime means of transmitting the disease, to young women as well as children.”
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2007/11/23/did-you-ever-sleep-with-mbeki/
And here is the original article that Smith wrote that caused the tirade :
“The article that has caused Mbeki years of rage
Their deaths, his doubts, my fears
The Washington Post, June 4 2000
Author: Charlene Smith
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2007/11/23/mark-gevissers-careless-writing-defames/
And here is the recount by Smith of that horrid experience.
“Every 26 seconds a woman gets raped, it was my turn last Thursday night”
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2009/11/24/every-26-seconds-in-sa-a-woman-gets-raped-it-was-my-turn-last-thursday-night/
Now I stand by my comment “I think that Zuma’s antics are less problematic than Mbeki’s tirade against Charlene Smith.”
So sorry to hear that you “derive considerable insult at the thought that you seek to raise Charlene’s insult at this point.
Eish!
Brett Nortje says:
February 3, 2010 at 11:04 am
“Maggs, the meeting with Zuma that made such an impression on you”
At risk of ignoring Sne’s sage advice, I’ll be brave and respond to you since the hole that I have dug for myself is very deep indeed.
The impression that Zuma made on me is as a result of his role in bringing peace to KZN and Burundi, but most of all for rising to the highest office against formidable political odds and legal woes and rescuing us from what could have turned out to be akin to a dictatorship.
The conversation that you refer to relates to why I think it’s ok to express my concerns and why I think President Zuma and his administration are capable of accepting criticism (unlike some among us who see themselves as beyond reproach).
Maggs Naidu says: February 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“rescuing us from what could have turned out to be akin to a dictatorship”.
Maggs, I think you are giving JZ way too much credit. To the best of my knowledge, TM never wanted to be the President of SA again or are you extending the meaning of “dictatorship” to a dictator within the ANC?
@ Maggs
Precisely.
The ANC official line about this being a matter of the President’s “privacy” is a red herring. It is actually more a matter of his autonomy, to fashion his own domestic arrangements as he sees fit. Provided he is not breaking the law, I am just not interested in whether he chooses to have multiple wives and/or to have children with women to whom he is not married. This is a matter for gossip columns rather than serious political consideration.
Maggs Naidu says:
February 3, 2010 at 11:57 am
You have not answered my question on whether you are a black African or not.
Khosi is right.
Maggs, you have no right whatsover to speak on this sensitive matter unless you can demonstrate that you are member of the Negroid race, or what the Nationalist government affectionately termed a “Bantu.”
I demand that you furnish a hair sample, so that it can be tested by expert racial scientists, who will be summoned from their retirement for this express purpose.
Michael, I agree with you that an autonomy argument is the only one available to President Zuma and the ANC. But I suspect unlike you, most South Africans are rather moralistic (and religious) and would not agree that it is ok to father a 20th child out of wedlock if you are already married to three other woman and if you have presented yourself as a man of God. That is why the ANC cannot go that route and they have to put up the red herring defense…..
mzo says:
February 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm
JZs role in KZN and Burundi is widely known so it’s unlikely that you disagree on that.
Until you know who comes back, whoever leads the ANC effectively leads the country.
And with it’s enormous support base and political power, with a dictator leading the ANC we may as have ended up a “constitutional” dictatorship (whatever that may be
)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 3, 2010 at 14:45 pm
Hey Dworky,
Now you’ve ruined the friendship!
BTW the hole that I dug for myself is huge now – it may easily be mistaken for a mine.
You wanna nationalise it?
Hey, Maggs – no-one asked you about Burundi! I wanted to know whether you advised the President to condomise? (A question you ask Dworky quite often…)
In future, Zapiro ought to draw a condom spotti on the Pres’ head, instead of a shower.
Brett Nortje says:
February 3, 2010 at 17:18 pm
As I raised (Maggs Naidu says:February 3, 2010 at 6:44 am) there are some assumptions which may be entirely incorrect.
Why is it assumed that our President and his partner did not want to have a child?
With his views on polygamy now known to the entire world, why is it assumed that our President would have no other relationships other than those that we know about or even that he would not develop others?
@ Khosi
The fact that we have not done a wholesale change on policy direction does not necessarily mean we were wrong about Mbeki. Policies are not the only area of problem we had with TM. I have had lengthy exchanges with people such as Mayimele about the performance of our previous administration and reasons why TM should be blamed for more than half of those problems.
I don’t think there must be confusion on the fact that we were and probably we are still implementing non coherent policies. The fact that JZ/ANC is avoiding changing the policies does not absolve TM.
In SA, a survey from Sunday times claimed 7 OUT 10 African children are growing up without their fathers. What is this saying about our standards as a society? Pehaps many amongst us have contradictions in their lives. If these people are JZ followers, probably they understand what he is going through?
Gwebecimele, many of Mbeki’s economic policies were the only realistic, responsible, pragmatic responses at the time. The people calling for sea-changes now are either blowing smoke or completely irresponsible and set to ruin the economic system dumping everyone in Zimbabwe-style poverty and famine.
I am going to take a page out of Dumisani’s book now and ask you to look at the whole picture.
Tragedy of Mbeki is (and I think the ANC elected the wrong Mbeki) that he had the insight to see the problems clearly – but he could not bring himself to doing a damn thing about the solutions.
These are not policy failures they are implementation failures. In short, the ANC. Planning, not doing. Talking, not doing. Promising, not doing. Making law, not doing.
A prime example – the Firearms Control Act. It does nothing about crime but sounds reassuring. Feelgood solution. 5 year backlogs in renewals, Billions down the drain. How many criminals behind bars? Now Nathi Mthethwa (one of South Africa’s most illustrious families, their place secured in history) has sacrificed his personal integrity to cover up his predecessor’s monumental mismanagement and scorned the Constitution to thwart a High Court judgement.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and all that.
I bet Cope will say nothing about this perfomance of the past few years.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/f0e2a4071eb64fbebabc58fe7d546d62/04-02-2010-09-01/Scopa_Defence_dept_a_time_bomb
Gwebecimele says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:30 am
“I bet Cope will say nothing about this perfomance of the past few years.”
They gonna blame the current administration.
@ Brett
My view is that we never mastered policy making nor planning namely;
1. Housing Policy
2. Health Policy
3. Education
4. Industrial Policy
5. Crime
etc
Gwebecimele, it is true that the ANC is an organisation that constantly scorns first principles.
Like: Put up a candidate that can balance his cheque-book, provide for his children himself. If the leader knows what living within ones’ means entail, the country will live within its means.
Imagine you were that kind of head-of-the-family?
Think of all those grannies scrimping, saving, budgeting, going without right now to bring up their grandchildren, give them a bit of a chance to survive this world. What has the ANC’s message to them been? Totally irresponsible, out of touch with the big-people world.
Interesting choice of words from Mr Kodwa.
“Kodwa added the president had already paid damages to the Khoza family.”
http://www.ewn.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=31727
Whatever does “damages” imply?
@ Maggs
Lets put another spin to it.
In an African culture damges of a married woman are paid to her husband/family since he paid lobola for her. Divorce is normally not recognised and lobola not refunded.
@ Brett
Are we on the same page about failure of policy and planning?
Agree with you we need a responsible candidate.
Gwebes, I am considering your position and may migrate there yet.
IMHO the failure is not in the policy but the implementation, but you make me consider now that the failure is already built-in in the policy-planning stages because there is no business plan making provision for small-step-by-small-step implementation? And no plans for measurement of that small-step implementation? And there you have your break-down of management, programmed in from the beginning.
Still, not a complete failure of policy?
For what it’s worth :
“ANC Women’s League accuses IFP of keeping women down”
“ANCWL provincial chairperson Lungi Gcabashe yesterday called on “all forces in the IFP who believe in a truly equal society to jump ship”.
“There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the IFP’s decision to redeploy its chairperson , which is that there is no place for women in the IFP,” Gcabashe said.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1110640
Excuse late reply, to comment by Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder?
No luxury of copious amounts of time to embellish my words / thoughts on the wonderful leadership that majority of black African leaders on the African Continent present. As a less than frequent contributor to this blog let me lift my “veil of ignorance” here!
If apologies are in order wrt comments construed as unmerited so shall I furnish.
By definition majority Mr Dworkin Fassbinder refers to the main stream/ popular South African support that zuma enjoys. Additionally the ANC Youth League, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), in fact The influence of structures who helped Zuma retain support even as he was removed from the deputy presidency of the country. Not forgetting the threats of violence & unrest should he have been jailed? Thus irrespective of “corruption, rape” & gun totting musical anecdotes looming in the backdrop of elections this precise majority had their say & day. Let me not do a lesson here in con law 101 iro voting & democracy I believe most who blog here frequently, understand the workings of a democracy & proportional representation which I will leave to the prof!
My (call it unkind) comment / question ” but do the majority of SA not still support everything this man purports to hold as “dogma” & the indoctrination of the masses as customariness?”
Refers to the continuous support zuma has from the very same majority mentioned above, in fact they publicly feel the need to humiliate themselves continuously ” as they feel obliged to maintain through ignorance that what zuma does with his personal life is no business of the same public that voted for him. Mr Dworkin Fassbinder I would predict & recommend ppl vote for persons who represent political parties not out of loyalty or partisanship but for the reasons that arise out of the legitimate expectations of promises made to them and a nation in the hope that such nation may flourish, grow prosper, excel and advance in the process especially in conjunction with those promises. I critically could not see such prospects in the face of a corruption trial, a rape trial & then a dismissal? The confusion still flabbergasts me!
” With his views on polygamy now known to the entire world, why is it assumed that our President would have no other relationships other than those that we know about or even that he would not develop others?”
Precisely, why the fuss now? Here are a mere few wonderful words of emphatic “dogma” that so eloquently spews from the bowels of this man shiny top>
“There was nothing that they did not open… no place in which they did not search,”
“When I was growing up, an ungqingili (a homosexual) would not have stood in front of me. I would knock him out.”
Confiscate their babies and have the mothers taken to colleges and “forced” to obtain degrees.
God expects us to rule this country because we are the only organization which was blessed by pastors when it was formed. It is even blessed in Heaven. That is why we will rule until Jesus comes back. We should not allow anyone to govern our city when we are ruling the country.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=377983
While some are on leave.
. . . like rands flowing through SARS, these are the days of his wives . . .
Pierre De Vos says:
February 3, 2010 at 15:00 pm
“Michael, I agree with you that an autonomy argument is the only one available to President Zuma and the ANC.”
It seems that ordinary people are not buying that argument.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-02-05-public-tide-turns-against-jz
Even Malema had this to say “So far I think the ANC collective has done a great job. We should not isolate Zuma.”
It may turn out yet that when 65.9% of the voters said unconditional support that they did not quite mean unconditional!
It seems that the ruckus is being taken into consideration :
“Leave President Jacob Zuma and his family alone to “reflect” on the concerns expressed by South Africans over his love child with Sonono Khoza, the ANC urged on Friday.
“This experience, painful as it is, has taught us many valuable lessons,” said spokesman Jackson Mthembu in a statement.
“We have noted all the concerns and criticism raised by many South Africans through the media and in private conversations.
“Having listened to your views on this matter, we now make the appeal that the ANC, President Jacob Zuma, his family and children be afforded an opportunity to reflect on the concerns.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20100205155315144C969078&page_number=1
A refreshing change from the initial tardy response!
Unlike Jackson most of us (excluding Maggs) have those painful lessons cushioned a bit by virtue of the fact that we see the obvious coming and take evasive action.
Lets have a show of hands: Who here hoped against hope that the incredibly obtuse bordering on idiotic members of the National Assembly would see the obvious and that Kgalema Motlanthe would emerge from that secret ballot still President of the Republic?
I know I did!
(Lets see: Jackson didn’t….Maggs didn’t…)
Brett Nortje says:
February 5, 2010 at 16:50 pm
”
Who here hoped against hope that the incredibly obtuse bordering on idiotic members of the National Assembly would see the obvious…
“I know I did!”
What can I say Brett – you’re impressive
Well spotted.
You are clearly part of the elite “incredibly obtuse bordering on idiotic”.
LOL! You’re grasping, now, Maggs! Straw men nogal. Leigh is far too nice to you.
Why do you not just admit that there is no logical, intellectually defensible reason for anyone to vote for the ANC? Considering its track record and the class of people who represent it?
Brett Nortje says:
February 5, 2010 at 19:55 pm
Ok – I admit that you caught me out.
You’re not really impressive, I threw that in as an extra.
BTW who do you support?
It’s just interesting that while a lot of those who comment here are ready to challenge my support for the ANC, nobody is confident enough about their choice to be able to say it openly.
There’s nothing to be ashamed of in supporting the losers
Maggs, I’ve never hidden the fact that I support the ADCP.
Why? Surprised that I vote for a party with leaders and supporters that are, largely, black?
Well, seeing that you asked….You can hardly argue TMI!
I must tell you that in the last election I split my vote. I could see the Christian parties were going to get caned – predicted they would months before the election. They ran shocking campaigns and were more occupied with infighting than the godless, shameless ANC and a disgraced candidate like JZ.
The reason I split my vote though and tried to influence as many people as possible to do the same was that we had to return the FF’s Pieter Groenewald to Parliament. There is an MP who understands his job. Parliamentary oversight! To a large extent questions he raised in Parliament ensured the easy victory in the JASA case in the Western Cape High Court – where the Minister of Police was ordered to start rolling out compensation for surrendered firearms.
An order Nathi Mthethwa is thwarting, BTW. He is so poorly advised that he has not thought of the consequences of losing the next round of court battles. Traded his personal integrity for loyalty to his ANC predecessor who dropped him in this mess.
WHat a typo! I meant the ACDP!
Brett Nortje says:
February 5, 2010 at 20:59 pm
“I could see the Christian parties were going to get caned – predicted they would months before the election. They ran shocking campaigns and were more occupied with infighting than the godless, shameless ANC and a disgraced candidate like JZ.”
So it seems that your reckon that if the Christian parties got their act together, ran very good campaigns and stopped infighting, then they may trounce the ANC in the next election.
They had better get their act together – “the godless, shameless ANC and a disgraced candidate like JZ” deserves to get trounced at least once, before you know who comes back.
I would vote for them but as you know I am a Hindu, so they lose my vote.