It’s not often that I would argue that South Africa could learn something from a politics in the USA (those weirdos have, after all, voted for George W Bush twice in a row) but I was struck today by the difference in the way allegations of corruption by senior politicians are being dealt with in these two countries.
On the one hand we have KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Health Minister Neliswa Nkonyeni (not to mention our own Dear Leader who can’t seem to find his machine gun anywhere), who was arrested on Wednesday, and will face charges of corruption, fraud and additional charges under the Public Finance Management Act when she re-appears in court in January. The Mail & Guardian reports:
Nkonyeni was warmly greeted by colleagues, well-wishers and supporters in court. The courtroom was jammed with journalists, court staff and onlookers. Nkonyeni’s supporters broke out in song and chanted in protest against what they perceived as the delay to the start of court proceedings.
Health department spokesperson Chris Maxon said Nkonyeni would continue her duties as provincial health minister. “She has not been charged yet and she is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When we got to court today, the prosecution was playing another ball game, saying they are not charging anyone with anything, but on January 22 they may place charges.”
On the other hand we have news from Illinois, in the USA where Governor Rod R. Blagojevich was arrested and accused of putting a newly vacant seat in the United States Senate up for sale. There political leaders in the state on Wednesday joined growing calls for his resignation and, as the New York Times reports, sought ways to neutralize him in the meantime, by stripping him of appointment authority or even impeaching him.
Meanwhile, political leaders across the state, including the attorney general, the lieutenant governor, and legislative leaders, reacted to the charges against Mr. Blagojevich with a chorus of shock and dismay, and urged that the governor step down immediately.
Mr. Blagojevich (pronounced bluh-GOY-uh-vich), a Democrat, was arrested at his home at dawn Tuesday on charges of conspiracy and soliciting bribes. A lawyer for the governor said he denied any wrongdoing.
Two countries and two completely different responses. Both countries have a Bill of Rights which guarantees accused persons the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But in the USA, the arrest of the Governor immediately led politicians – across party lines – to call for his resignation despite him not having being convicted of any crime.
In South Africa, the arrested politicians (Zuma, Nkonyeni, Yengeni) become heroes despite facing serious charges. This is the difference between a country with a developed sense of public morality and a country where public morality is completely absent from the body politic. In the USA Mr Zuma could never have become the leader of the ANC. In South Africa, Mr Zuma will become the next President of South Africa.
President elect Barack Obama (who served as a Senator for Illinois), immediately sought to put distance between himself and the governor during brief remarks on Tuesday afternoon.
“I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not — I was not aware of what was happening,” Mr. Obama said. “And as I said, it’s a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment.”
In South Africa, Tony Yengeni is carried shoulder high to the gates of jail and accompanied to those gates by senior leaders of his own party. Mark my words Mr. Blagojevich will resign in the next few days to fight his case in court. However, in South Africa, when then President Thabo Mbeki dismissed Jacob Zuma as Deputy President after Schabir Shaik was convicted of bribing Zuma, there was an outcry from various quarters. After all, these people said, Mr Zuma is innocent until proven guilty.
Nobody in the US is suggesting that because Mr Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty it would therefore be unfair for him to have to resign. It is taken for granted that when one is charged with corruption one’s political career is effectively over. If Mr Blagojevich’s friend had been convicted of bribing him he would not have had a snowballs hope in hell of remaining the Governor.
This is a rather sad juxtaposition and says much about what a broken and damaged society we are and how our society lacks the basic public morality required for the effective functioning of democracy.
That said, the reason why US public morality is of a higher order has nothing to do with the fact that the US is a developed country, or that the majority of people living in the US are Western or white (as some racists might argue). It has everything to do with self interest. All politicians in the USA know that to survive they have to distance themselves from politicians accused of corruption. But because the ANC has such a dominant position in South Africa, ANC politicians have become arrogant and rightly or wrongly believes that they need not adhere to the kind of public morality prevalent in the US.
Over time this attitude will come back to haunt the ANC as slowly but surely more people will come to associate the ANC with corruption and immorality. Jacob Zuma admitted as much yesterday when he spoke to reporters in Namibia. But because of the needs of the ANC to pander to the short term self interest of individual politicians, nothing will be done to deal with this until it is too late.
Only time will tell how long it will take before it is indeed “too late”.
Print 
PDF
I find resonance in what you are saying. In fact, earlier today on the previous post, I raised this frustration with Ishmael. And that our leaders seem to put their self interest before the adherence of the law and what is morally sound.
But I detour when you attribute this to the ANC’s dominant position in our politics. To an extent, you may be right but I think that this is because we live in a country that has not embraced (or has lost) the value that puts the interest of society before interest of self.
In his now highly contested judgement, Nicholson J when speaking of Msholozi, said:-
‘Like a blinded Samson he threatens to make sure the temple collapses with him. The impression created is that the applicant has knowledge he will disclose if he is faced with conviction and sentence.’
By temple, did the judge mean, comrades in the ANC, or all structures of government or even the country itself?
And then the Judge much like Pontius Pilate washes his hands and refers this matter to the appointment of a commission on the arms deal. Then no one seems to find offense in this statement by the judge. It is a high disturbing thing to have been said about our country. Why? I think such things are simple part of our DNA, as a society. We have a very partisan approach to law enforcement and morality.
This is not just a problem created by politicians, its society itself. But as a society we are going through a painful and lonely rebirth. I also believe that in time we will cleanse and all of us will start seeing the fruit of putting societies interests before self-interests.
I do think that one of the differences has to do with respect for the judicial system in the 2 countries. In particular, the apartheid system twisted the judicial system in SA, and the judicial system lost great amounts of public respect. It has not really had much opportunity to regain that respect, at least within the public’s eye.
Of course, a significant reason for this is the position of the ANC, which seems to me to treat the judicial system as suspect–as little different from what it was under apartheid–something to be battled, fought, and discredited. Old habits are hard to break…
I believe this is part of the legacy of apartheid. During the struggle, a criminal automatically became a hero because he would be in opposition with the dominant ideology. This attitude has filtered through to our current fledgling democracy, despite the fact that there is no excuse for not being educated (especially not for Zuma who spent more than an entire school career on Robben Island with ample opportunity to study), no excuse for not having your rights protected, no trials by media except in the minds of those who want to seek political solutions to very clear criminal problems.
When foreign friends ask me what I think of South Africa, I always tell them we have the best and the worst in the world.
Good points indeed !
Thinking about it, there is another aspect to this difference–and that is the respective role of parties in the two political systems. In South Africa, loyalty to the party (particularly the ANC) rivals loyalty to the state. In the US, parties are things that most people hate, or at best consider to be irrelevant. Being a republican or Democrat is almost a matter of convenience–and certainly, no party has any say about my joining them! i am a Democrat simply because I voted in the Democratic Primary elections–and I could have voted in the republican Primary election if I preferred.
But in SA, the system was created to give all sorts of power directly to the parties, which means that party loyalty is terribly important–the party controls the fate of any politician (the party creates the lists, the rankings, determines who gets what position, etc.)
So why is all of this relevant to this particular discussion? B ecause the person who dropped the dime on Blagovich was almost certainly a Democrat! Clearly someone who knew what was going (which means it had to be a democrat) on got sick of it and fingered him to the US Attorney. And this person will likely become a hero in the US, and in the Democratic Party. What happens to people who blow the whistle on ANC bosses?
I think that political parties in SA are too powerful. I think that there should be reform of the political system to create districts, and elect members from those districts, and make them (somewhat) independent of the party.
Probably poliical parties in the US are not powerful enough–indeed, they are almost meaningless–but I think that SA has gone too far in the opposite direction.
En passant:
A few days ago the Prof wrote: “Don’t hold your breath for an arms deal commission of inquiry”.
Unfortunately the discussion took all sorts of twists and turns (sometimes ugly) such that the message was lost.
Well, the Prof has been vindicated. Motlanthe says there won’t be an arms deal commission.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-10-motlanthe-rebuffs-call-for-armsdeal-probe
Garg Unzola // Dec 10, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I do not understand what Jacob Zuma’a level of education has to do with this discussion. Unless you are trying to tell us that morality and adherence to the rule of law are only a preserve of the educated. That cannot be accurate.
You then say:-
‘During the struggle, a criminal automatically became a hero because he would be in opposition with the dominant ideology’
When you say ‘criminal’ then ‘dominant ideology’, are you referring to the bona-fide people who fought for our liberation. If so, how can one refer to these people as criminals, at this stage of our democracy, without being nostalgic of the past.
If not, and are you then referring to the thieves and murderers who committed these acts, in gay and selfish abandon, I can tell you that these people possessed no dominant ideology and were mostly shunned by society.
So I do not get your reasoning for trying to equate uneducated people with immorality and our struggle heroes with criminals. I fiercely contest that aspersion.
Our history is still rubbing against us in uncomfortable ways.
You say “which means that party loyalty is terribly important–the party controls the fate of any politician”
In many ways the party holds the very life or a member in its control. (I live in KZN where hostels are still segregated along political lines and believe it or not, there are still no-go areas IFP/ANC).
Party membership isn’t just a social convenience like in the US – it is often something that has kept one alive or caused one to bury loved ones. The forged bonds are very strong. The ties stretch across generations.
I also get p’d off when politicians don’t seem to have any sense of personal responsibility and their followers abandon any sense of morality as far as their leaders are concerned.
But I guess I understand it.
Good points indeed! My new role.
Perhaps will add with few questions in due course!
Firstly comparing south Africa democracy wit the USA is hardly comparing apples with apples, A REAL democracy has a REAL opposition. Sadly we are effectively a One party state. Sure we all get to vote every few years but apart from that and a few legislative principles and practices we are living in a country stripped of justice, transparency and riddled with corruption.We don’t have to look far to highlight this point, driving every day has become a gauntlet for motorists that may run into the Blue light brigade, In a real democracy this kind of thing is not tolerated and the citizens are treated with kid gloves for after all they are the voters.Sure we are a fledgling democracy and we are learning the ropes but until we get some numbers up for the opposition we will never enjoy the real benefits of a democratic society……….
PdV, your comments are spot on. It is this hubricious attitude of our politicians which is partly to blame for the sense of impunity in the face of our laws. This is particularly sad when one considers that these self-same leaders were selfless in the actions against apartheid.
Prof, after a long period of absence I am back and can’t resist the urge to disagree with your comparing apples with oranges, the USA is full of mostly fair Justices and District Attorneys, SA is full of mostly racist Justices and Magistrates, look at the Meyerton Magistrate who is protecting a racist farmer and the Scott-crossly case to metion but a few.
In the circumstances, the more the NPA prosecutes our struggle heroes but turn a blind eye to P W Botha who committed crimes against Humanity and refused an opportunity to come clean in the TRC, but was never prosecuted don’t expect, us to be gullible and say “oh why cant we be like the USA and ask Zuma, because we know you hate him, to step down”.
So Prof you see we also have public morality and we are not to be duped into thinking we are inferior by the likes of you and by the way conggratuletion, I was watching morning live sometime this week and I heard them refer you as a UCT Constitutional law expert, I thought you were with UWC.
Anyway if you think like you are living in Europe,except Italy, and the USA, whereas you are an African and South African for that matter and compare our politics with theirs you then will never understand why we love Zuma, Winnie, Yengeni et al and for you to perfectly understand, I would like to refer you to yesterdays’ article by a Heidi Holland in Pretoria News, who in my opinion sought to objectively, unlike South African media and commentators, explain this apparent enigma in African politics that the West doesn’t understand.
@Mohanedaly
Your absolutly right. South Africa is a one party state.
The reason why the system in the states works is simple.
a) strong opposition
b) strong patriotic pride whether your black or white democrate or republican and love and believe
c) and most importantly its Laws. The judiciary in states is extremely effective and punishing. This is the one single element that makes a country great are good strong Laws.
d) educated people
So whats the problem with South Africa?
Your complicated history between English and Afrikaans and then Afrikaans and Blacks.
Unfortunitly the black south africans do feel its there civil duty to stay with the ANC which lead them to there freedom its encoded in there DNA. Because to not vote for ANC is to betray the struggle heros and that message is so wrong. Your struggle heros fought to be free. Free to choose who you want as your president free to choose what school to go to free to choose what career you want to follow and yes even free to vote for whoever and whatever you want.
Zuma lets be honest and im speaking direct to the ANC members in the STates if Zuma was running for president of the USA. He would of been nailed to the cross before he even started running for the first state.
This is what you need to understand the whole world knows about Zuma, they know he is tanted. How is he going to get investors to trust him? South Africa needs those investors to make the economy grow.
Here is your first test for him. he went to the US to have photos taken. NOT one single member of the bush and obama administration took photos with him. that has got to tell you something?
If Zuma truly loved this country. lets think about this if he truly loved this country and the ANC he would step down heal the rapture that has taking place in the ANC and allow this country to be led by a crediable person who has no clouds over his head.
I am afriad Africa treats democracy as a demo
@MDU
SA is full of mostly racist Justices and Magistrates, look at the Meyerton Magistrate who is protecting a racist farmer and the Scott-crossly case to metion but a few
Ok but I can through this one back at you. what about Advocate Nona Goso
heres a question for you how many heads of court divisions are black and how many white?
sorry there is two sides to the coin.
So Prof you see we also have public morality and we are not to be duped into thinking we are inferior by the likes of you and by the way conggratuletion,
No one says your inferior this is your problem you carry such a chip on your shoulder and have an inferior complex get over it!! Move on!
This is exactly the mentality why South Africa will remain stagnant
African and South African for that matter and compare our politics with theirs you then will never understand why we love Zuma, Winnie, Yengeni
Yengeni has a convection yet the ANC policys says any MP that has a criminal record can not be an MP so how can you promote Yengeni to MP. See this the problem what kind of message does this send to the public. Oh its ok to drink and drive.
How can you support Zuma? Im sorry the guy has no respect towards woman a complete sexiest. corrupt hides from the courts lets face it has he really had his day in court to clear his name in the Arms deal? No he has been ducking and diving. is afriad to debate. sings about kill the boer and sings about bring me my machine gun.
Honestly what message is this sending. you got malema shouting out kill for Zuma. next minute you got anc shouting Kill Leketo. You got taxi’s saying kill the police.
How can you justify your ANC and its members for acting like this? this is not civil.
what message does it send that if a girl wears a mini skirt it is your duty to satisfy her? what utter disrespect towards woman. I know in zulu customary marraiges you can have a number of wives but goes and sleeps with a young girl. He simply has no respect towards his wivies or to the idea of marraige.
Im sorry i dont understand how you can love Zuma? maybe you got the same mentality as him? who knows
Chris Mcdaniel
I would like to refer you to an article by Heidi Holland in yesterdays’ Pretoria News to understand what I am talking about.
I see you select certain portion of my post, just answer me this why did the NPA never charge Die Groot Krokodil, hmm?
And why should we then trust them?
To everyone, help!
What is a one-party-State?
What is your conceptualisation of public morality?
Should we reinstate a person who stepped down pending a hearing upon being found not guilty?
You are all raising good points heh!
This is not a race issue. It is about public morality. In other words, the overriding morals and values of the society in which we live.
The sad truth is that we live (currently) in a dominant party state (NOT a one-party state!), where the ANC effectively controls the discourse, and shuts down any and all attempts to debate the issues. I can speak from personal experience at a municipal council level.
Pierre’s point remains: should a politician alleged to have commited a morally questionable act be permitted to remain in office, or indeed be eligible for higher office? Most societies with high moral standards would argue NO. (I know someone will argue that Italy has permitted Silvio Berlusconi to be repeatedly elected as prime minister despite many alleged criminal activities. I am not convinced that Italy is the best example of a country with high public morality – as compared to, say, the UK).
Public representatives are enTRUSTed with representing the values, morals and concerns of the people who elected them. If we permit morally dubious persons to be public representatives, what are we saying about ourselves as a nation?
One last point: surely our public representatives should be the best among us? Surely we should select people for higher office who have the skills, education, morals, values and passion to not only represent our best interests, but also to effectively and efficiently manage our country? The beauty pageant popularity contests common to many political parties in their selection of their public representatives leaves much to be desired!
Good point Lipdem,
Do we have to consider reinstatement upon being cleared by courts!
Libdem
When you say you know would argue about Italy, I know you are talking about me because I preempted this and made it as a European country an example.
Why do you say this is about public morality and about race, do you know that the likes of white South Africans who repeatedly voted in Botha and his Nats had public morality,go figure and not just dish out your emotions wothout analysis!
good point Mdu!
Is there an agreed mould of public morality to which our society subscribes?
MDU
I see you select certain portion of my post,
Yip im allowed to do that
just answer me this why did the NPA never charge Die Groot Krokodil, hmm?
well why dont you ask the NPA last time i checked the NPA was headed by a black person?
answer me this then, Yengeni’s why is a convected felon an MP?
@Ishmael
To everyone, help!
What is a one-party-State?
a state were one party feels it is intitled to rule until jesus returns and has been ruling for 14yrs another example is Zanu-PF Zim a one party state.
ANC represents one race we need a parties to represent alll race
What is your conceptualisation of public morality?
Allowing our judiciary to be bullyed and politically tanted. Lowering ourselfs to believe that all south africa has to offer is an uninspiring leader who cant move forward than a struggle front and allowing race to be an issue
Should we reinstate a person who stepped down pending a hearing upon being found not guilty?
Yes it is the moral and right thing to do as our leaders are the face of our nation and need to represent us to our standerds and to gain international respect
MDU
Libdem
When you say you know would argue about Italy, I know you are talking about me because I preempted this and made it as a European country an example.
Why do you say this is about public morality and about race, do you know that the likes of white South Africans who repeatedly voted in Botha and his Nats had public morality,go figure and not just dish out your emotions wothout analysis!
Do you know most white people dont really care of the color or gender of the person who runs the country? Do you know white poeple love mandela? why? cos he has earned respect to a high degree and he is humble and could see past black and white.
Do u know must white people would vote for a black person if that person represented himself to high morals and had the best at heart.
do you know white people actually want Motlanthe to run for presidnt for the next 5yrs?
Good point chris,
I wish to thank you for a judgment that sealed the debateon the othet blog yerderday. But today you seem not very charged, you are not energetic!
Try answering again with a theoritical proposition of a one party state and public morality and then interperse your good examples!
Mdu, PW Botha was not prosecuted because this was part of the informal deal reached between the ANC and the National Party before the election. Even Barend Strydom received amnesty along McBride and others. Now we have a new democracy, almost 50% of judges are black and all heads of court are black. Yet we do not seem to trust the justice system to deliver justice – especially when one of our own are charged. This seems to point to a very weak sense of public morality. Just like white people still think Hansie Cronje is a hero (even after he had confessed on national TV!) so many people think Yengeni is a hero (despite serving a jail sentence for corruption.
I am pleading for a way out of this stinking cesspit in which we have sunk. We have to start somewhere. If we continue to justify the corruption and maleficence of those we support by pointing to bad things done by others, we really sell ourselves short as a nation. To me this looks like a kind of racism as inherent in this attitude is an assumption that “things are done differently in Africa” and hence that we as Africans have lower standards. I do not buy that. Our politicians just get away with these lower standards because we let them bamboozle us with petty hatreds about the past. We must never forget the past injustices, but we must stop using those injustices as an excuse for perpetrating new kinds of injustice against our continent and against our brothers and sisters.
It is moral for a lawyer to defend a client who in fact told him during consultation that he had killed ?
it is immoral to keep silent when society is impoverished and subjugated by the privileged few?
@Ishmael
I wish to thank you for a judgment that sealed the debateon the othet blog yerderday. But today you seem not very charged, you are not energetic!
thats because i only got to bed at 4:00 this morning to with 3 hrs sleep hang over from hell my man thats why im digging this talk its easy going.
but thanks to you to yesterday was a nice change to speak to level headed people. The problem i think that black people have with white people over the ANC is this, we really dont have a problem with the ANC as an entity we should be proud to have an entity like the ANC in south africa the problem is just some of the leaders and the things they say. White people in south africa are very proud people all we want is someone who is not going to embarrass us at the end of the day and move the country forward and push for its best potential. Really it doesnt matter about skin color.
Mdu // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:28 am
I specifically prefaced my post by saying that this discussion had NOTHING to do with race. I firmly believe that public morality can (and has) change over time.
Your point about the white voters supporting the Nats (whose senior members are now almost all in the ANC) is well made, and I note that I have never claimed that the Nats had higher public morality than the current ANC government. That said, over time peoples’ values have changed, permitting the negotiated settlement of the early nineties, and the 85% “YES” vote in the 1992 referendum which asked white South Africans “Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on February 2, 1990, and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?” In the 1960′s, 70;s and 80′s such a result woul;d have been unthinkable.
I don’t think your last sentence contributes to meaningful debate, as I have, as far as possible, tried to present this opinion as rationally and emotionlessly as I am able.
Ishmael Malale // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:25 am
Should a person who is cleared by the courts be permitted to stand for office? My mind says yes, my heart says no.
A person who gets themselves into a situation that raises question marks over their ability to comport themselves ethically and with integrity should not receive the support of his/her party and/or the electorate. There have to be better choices available.
A lot of stock is placed in education and I would just like to point out that George Dubya is a Yale graduate, so clearly education is no guarantee. A good leader should have a number of attributes and education certainly does help because it teaches one to think and to question but of course these skills may be acquired through other means. The most important attribute I would submit is integrity. And sadly Zuma has none. Ignoring the corruption and sex scandals for the moment, the mere fact that he changes his viewpoints depending on his audience is proof enough that he has no integrity.
Is carrying a comrade into jail on your shoulders a cultural thing? From the outside it just seems that lack of integrity is being celebrated through that act and if that is indicative of the state of public morality it is very disheartening indeed.
I wouldn’t have an issue with someone being reinstated if he/she is found not guilty. But I certainly think that person should step down until such time as their name is cleared. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but this is about perceptions and one can’t have a stable environment where there are question marks over prominent leaders’ heads.
I caught an interview with Barack on the Tyra show yesterday (I know, right??) and he was commenting on how he would stay the course by always focusing on why he got into politics in the first place and not just do whatever needs to be done to stay in office as is the case in the USA. It seems some ANC members have the same mentality (i.e. focusing on the liberation), except that it is being perverted and used as an excuse to condone bad behaviour. In fact, it is not even being used as condonation, there isn’t even an admittance that the behaviour is bad. The war is over. There is no place for songs about machine guns, etc. It is now time to stop using liberation rhetoric and to start governing. And successful governance requires integrity and a high level of public morality. But how one agrees on what public morality is in such a plural society, I just don’t know.
Thank you Prof and Libdem for your responses and may be I overreacted Libdem with the last sentence but I stand by my conviction that what is immoral to the West like Yengeni’s poking of a cow with a spear is perfectly moral and compulsory that he should do so to us, as Black Africans.
Mdu
No one here has said that such an action by Yengeni is immoral. What I’d like to know is is it moral for him to accept bribes and drive while drunk? In what way are these actions culturally acceptable to Black Africans?
Mdu // Dec 11, 2008 at 11:33 am
I think we can agree on, and even accept, cultural differences between the various racial/ethnic/language groups (e.g. Yengeni’s slaughter of the cow). That, however, does not excuse the other elements of his behaviour – namely the fact that he defrauded parliament.
It is the latter type of behaviour, which is so prevalent among our political leadership (see, for example, Neliswa Peggy Nkonyeni’s arrest and trial for alleged corruption), supported by unwavering loyalty from party supporter, that truly depresses me. Pierre made the point that such behaviour would not be tolerated in the USA out of self interest – and that the ANC’s dominance is what permits such arrogant behaviour on the part of its public representatives and members.
@ Heidi
You see the song about a machine gun will never go away as it reminds us of where we come from and must not be taken literally, to illustrate this point our national anthem says ” let us stand and fight for freedom”, this does not mean that we should take up arms and fight, met ander woorde you should not take it literally and in fact this line was composed by a minority govt to maintain oppression but we have adapted it to our current milieu!
So please understand, we will be singing uMshini Wami at the polling stations next year not to intimidate you but as jubilant ANC supporters to vote Zuma in!
Libdem and Sarah
Corruption, acceptance of bribes and driving under the influence is unacceptable to Black Africans as well but mind you Guys Zuma hasn’t been charged nor convicted of any offences as we speak.
Mdu
‘Let us live and strive for freedom’ are the actual words in the new anthem. Note that Die Stem was written in 1918 by CJ Langenhoven and was not composed by a minority government to maintain oppression.
Zuma hasn’t been charged nor convicted of any offences as we speak.
um yes he has been charged but that got throwen out on a techicality and will soon be recharged as we speak
You see the song about a machine gun will never go away as it reminds us of where we come from
and were is that exactly? vietnam?
So please understand, we will be singing uMshini Wami
No there is no understanding about singing about weapons sorry
Chris mcdaniel Sarah, Lol!
point taken Sarah but the fact, how were they to strive for freedom, by fighting for it, and it was a minority govt striving for freedom from the Brits and natives!
Do you really need a song to remind you where you come from? Aren’t there other non-violent songs that can be employed for this purpose.
We could always ask Steve Hofmeyr to compose a nice tibute song to Zuma.
@ Sarah
I have just had the luxury of having the concise Oxford Dictionary on my desk and it defines the word strive thus:
‘make great efforts or fight vigorously against”
So there you have it intepreted by the English, albeit the above first but also correct intepretation mine! though
Mdu // Dec 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The point of Pierre’s original post is that America holds its politicians to a higher standard of morality than we do. That a person (who has not been charged or tried – such as the Governor of Illinois) is expected to resign from public office (or refrain from seeking public office – e.g. John Edwards) because of the taint of POSSIBLE immorality.
strive also means to endeavor: to devote serious effort or energy in our case to freedom and also in peaceful terms
Machine gun: means a fully-automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine, typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute
not very peaceful now is it?
agreed, Mdu. I was being pedantic. I know that strive means fight, but the point is that Langenhoven’s words were written long before the Nats came into power and – I stand corrected – were about a nation fighting for its identity and independence. Generally, national anthems are uniting and patriotic and their rhetoric about fighting is outward looking to foreign enemies – rather than divisive and about enemies within. I would think that this is the meaning of the words incorporated in the new anthem!
I agree that the white minority Nat party adapted it to their own purposes, but it wasn’t written by them. Why sing ‘uMshini Wami’ when you could be singing the beautiful words of Nkosi Sikelele?
Libdem I agree but may be the problem with us here in SA is that we vote for a party and not a person like in the USA, MAY IF WE WERE VOTING FOR A PARTY WE WOULD DO THE SAME, BUT I STRESS MAYBE.
Chris Mcdaniel, i like your point in defining a machine gun and it’s really not peaceful but as said before nobody gives Zuma any machine gun when he is singing about it precisely because he is not literally asking for it.
Sarar, let’s ask Steve Hofmeyer to compose a less threatning song for Zuma!
I know what would be apt! “Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man’s world…”
Mdu // Dec 11, 2008 at 1:48 pm
From my first post in this thread:
[S]urely our public representatives should be the best among us? Surely we should select people for higher office who have the skills, education, morals, values and passion to not only represent our best interests, but also to effectively and efficiently manage our country? The beauty pageant popularity contests common to many political parties in their selection of their public representatives leaves much to be desired!
Essentially, what I am saying is that if the PARTY chooses flawed individuals, then the party is at fault. We, as the electorate, should not support that kinding of thinking.
On a totally separate line of thinking, the Van Zyl Slabbert report, COPE and the DA have all, over the years, called for a mixed proportional representation/constituency-based electoral system that would largely address what you perceive to be the problem. Can anyone provide a reason why we should not elect the president (and the premiers and the mayors) directly?
Hey, if the health inspector gave you clearance and if you have a valid licence, you can spear a whale in your backyard if you wanted to. You can club baby seals for all I care. And I’m a vegetarian.
Yengeni is a crook. I don’t hate him because he is black, I hate him because he is a scumbag. I don’t hate him because he wants to have his version of the Jabulani Woza Woza one and all-African braai in his backyard, as long as he doesn’t mind my version on the same theme. I’ll burn a cross on my lawn if I wanted. With an effigy of Yengeni on it. He can hate me for it, but this does not make me guilty of fraud.
I think that Zuma is a scumbag. I don’t hate him because he is black, I hate him because I think he is a scumbag. If he weren’t a scumbag, he would not have even been charged with rape. I’ll gladly hand him his machine gun with the wrong end pointing towards him. Not because he is black, but because he’s a scumbag and I’ll be doing my country a favour.
I’ve been rooting for Pikoli on this forum for a while now. Not because he is black soos ek, but because in my mind he is right and he’s getting shafted by the scumbags in the ruling party (who may or may not be black? I’m not sure, I haven’t done a pencil test on them and I don’t really care for one).
How many fine upstanding citizens do you know who have been charged with rape and who even made it to the courts?
How many other countries that are functional can you mention where a serious charge such as fraud, corruption and rape would not have ended your political career? Regardless of your skin colour? I can think of Italy and France, perhaps? But like Frank Zappa once said, there is no hell, there is only France.
How wrong do you have to be before you pull a race card? It’s disgusting, because racism does still exist and every time you whimsically pull a race card in conversation you cheapen the very real occurrences of racism like the Skielik shooting and the black police officers who refused to help white victims of crime.
@ chris mcdaniel //Dec 11,2008 at 9:44
Were has JZ ever sang about “killing the boer”?
@ Mdu & Sarah
As a matter of fact, that line in the anthem was composed from whole cloth by the new regime. That line does not appear in the original version of The Call of South Africa:
http://www.anc.org.za/misc/call.html
@ Garg Unzola
I thought, at first , of not answering your patent racist comments but on second thought you deserve to be educated..
Your examples scares me-they remind me of Mississippi Burning, are you a Ku Klux Klan member? Then if not wht such a gruesome example on Yengeni?
Zuma went to trial and was acquitted of a rape charge, what part of this do you misunderstand, or may be you dont understand a distinction between a charge and a conviction.
Should you continue to spew more bile I will no longer revere such vitriol drool with a response!
Another part of the problem is a feeling that because many who fought apartheid lost so much they should now be rewarded for their sacrifice in the past–this results in an attitude that the state and state offices are an appropriate reward for past actions–people DESERVE a position for what they did back then….
Of course, this creates huge problems for the present–people should be put in place for what they will do now and in the future. State office should never be a reward for past actions. This happens allover the world, of course, not just in SA–but I think that it tends to happen more in SA, probably because more suffered in the past fighting for justice, and there is more of a feeling that it is necessary to reward them. Of course, this results in feelings of entitlement among those who are rewarded with govt posts, as opposed to a feeling of duty or service to the people.
Thanks Owen for that erudutely apt lesson in eradicating ignorance.
@ PM, I cannot agree more.
I agree with Proff Devos that as society we really need to look at our public morality which seem to be at its lowest ebb, nations that respects themselves cannot agree to be led by leaders with dubious trac records, we need to do a lot of soul searching with regard to the kind of community we would want to build,the kind of acceptable standards we reguire and above all the calibre of leadership we need.
finally i suggest that we should not be too hard on ourselves and may be the comparison of USA and SA might be wrong in the sense that USA evolved over a particular time and we are a nation in making.
@Mdu:
I have not made any racist comments. If you see racism in my comments, you are projecting your own racism.
Thanks, Owen
I should have done my research properly. I was actually wondering why I couldn’t find those words in the original (translation, that is). I assumed they were an adaptation for the new inclusive anthem, but didn’t look into it properly.
Sorry about that.
Mdu – “I see you select certain portion of my post, just answer me this why did the NPA never charge Die Groot Krokodil, hmm?”
Well, perhaps because none of the post-1994 Presidents cared to influence the NPA politically to do so. … Remember that PW Botha was once prosecuted because he refused to heed a sub-poena. And he was eventually acquitted.
Ishmael Malale (to Chris) – “I wish to thank you for a judgment that sealed the debateon the othet blog yerderday.”
That debate is not closed – go look see?!
Yengeni is a convicted criminal.
Die Groot Krokkodil has not been charged with anything. He’s thus legally less guilty than Yengeni, regardless of what your value judgement tells you.
In Japan, politicians RESIGN when they make a cock-up, never mind get implicated in fraud. That’s right, they don’t even step down, they just plain take responsibility for their area of government and say “Bollocks, I should have stopped it from happening, don’t bother with the suspension and investigation, I’m out.”
And that’s not a “western” and/or “white” country.
In the States, people don’t stand for that sort of rubbish either. Elliot Spitzer got caught with a hooker, and he resigned – no fraud, no abuse of trust or neglect of fiduciary duties as governor of New York. He simply got caught doing something illegal, and resigned.
There are plenty other examples from around the world like this, whether the issue was fraud, illegal activities or simply making a big mistake. Our politicians just don’t give a damn. JZ, Yengeni, McBride, Selebi, Mbeki, who cares. Our judges drive drunk and instead of quitting start contesting the evidence, instead of admitting what is obvious to everyone. Politicians get caught defrauding parliment and strike plea bargains so that they can continue to serve in parliment (and then still have the gall to stand up later and proclaim their innocence). The MEC of health is implicated in a fraud scandal, and the ANC simly stands up and claims it is political, and leaves her to carry on.
When will enough people get sick of their elected leaders making fools of them? When JZ got elected president of the ANC, he must have had a good chuckle over his glass of expensive whisky (or whatever he drinks – guranteed it’s not black label quarts), because he knew that only in South Africa would a man with so many glaring moral faults (and I’ll even exclude his corruption charges on this one, before people start shouting about innocent until proven guilty – there are enough other faults to carry the point) still become the leader of a continental powerhouse of a country.
I believe this to be a spot-on post, why do we keep discussing the matter?
PM // Dec 11, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Another part of the problem is a feeling that because many who fought apartheid lost so much they should now be rewarded for their sacrifice in the past–this results in an attitude that the state and state offices are an appropriate reward for past actions–people DESERVE a position for what they did back then….
Who can argue with The Big Slipper?
Before you do – do something important. THINK!
Oi people!!
What happened to Tim the troll slayer?
Tim, if you are out there, enlighten us on your views when it comes to morality. I am sure you have some decent views and I would be heartily disappointed if you remain just, isiwengu.
knosi, waarheen de hel wil jy hierdie debad stuur?
koos – “debad” word eintlik “debat” gespel – Grappie!!
Why is it that corruption when perpetrated by a person of darker completion is much more pronounced that when committed by a person of lighter completion. Who remembers a certain hotel mogul who bribed his way in bantustants and scoundrels who defrauded the poor by fixing the price of bread and other staple. Are blue collar criminal less reprehensible? In my book they zuma much more.
Talking about grappies!
“I decided to take up a life of crime, but can’t decide which party to join.” – Roy Chubby Brown
Cheney accused of corporate fraud
Cheney ran Halliburton oil company for five years
A US pressure group has filed a lawsuit against Vice-President Dick Cheney, accusing him of defrauding shareholders in a company he used to run.
Judicial Watch, based in Washington DC, says Mr Cheney artificially boosted the share price of the Halliburton energy company during the time he was chief executive in the 1990s.
The claims in this lawsuit are untrue, unsupported and unfounded
Doug Foshee
Halliburton
The White House has dismissed the lawsuit as “without merit”.
In another development, it has emerged that Mr Cheney took part in a promotional video for the disgraced accounting firm Andersen.
The lawsuit was filed at a court in Dallas, Texas, where Halliburton is based.
It came a day after President George W Bush called for tougher penalties to fight the type of corporate corruption that has engulfed several high-profile companies in recent months.
Investors ‘misled’
Judicial Watch alleges that Halliburton overstated profits to the tune of $445m during the period 1999 to 2001, resulting in some investors “suffering huge losses”.
Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, said the case should demonstrate that even the richest and most powerful could not flout the law.
“It is very important to hold high public officials accountable under the rule of law, and Vice-President Cheney obviously is the second-most powerful man in the world.
“As we allege in the complaint, he participated in a securities fraud, a stock fraud, and we can hold him accountable.
“We are going to set an example for others that they are held accountable as well.”
Mr Cheney was the company’s chief executive from 1995 until 2000, when he left to become US vice-president.
Larry Klayman, of Judicial Watch, says profits were overstated
Halliburton announced in May that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – a government watchdog – was investigating its accounting practices over how it reported cost overruns on construction jobs.
The SEC has not filed any charges against the company.
Judicial Watch claims that those accounting methods led to the overvaluation of shares.
Doug Foshee, Halliburton’s chief financial officer, said in a statement issued by the company: “The claims in this lawsuit are untrue, unsupported and unfounded.
“We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company’s accounting procedures.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that he had talked to the vice-president’s staff and “they believe the suit is without merit and that is where it stands”.
The BBC’s Justin Webb, in Washington, says that for Mr Cheney, the case probably amounts to nothing more than an embarrassing irritation.
But the legal challenge highlights a change in the political atmosphere surrounding corporate fraud.
Andersen video
Our correspondent says that, almost as embarrassing for Mr Cheney is a promotional videotape he made praising the now disgraced accounting firm Andersen.
The video, which fell into the hands of the Wall Street Journal, was made in 1996 when Mr Cheney was at Halliburton and showed his personal relationship with Andersen.
In it, he describes how Andersen gave advice “over and above” what would normally be expected from auditors.
In a short section of the video, Mr Cheney says: “I get good advice, if you will, from their people, based upon how we are doing business and how we are operating, over and above the normal, by-the-books auditing arrangement.”
Last month, Andersen was convicted of obstructing justice by shredding documents relating to the failed US energy giant Enron.
Bush has faced questions over his business past
Enron has admitted to grossly exaggerating its profits to attract investors.
Mr Bush made a speech in New York’s financial district on Tuesday, in which he said he wanted to tighten measures against corporate fraud.
He announced a doubling – to 10 years – of the maximum prison sentence, and the formation of a special investigative task force.
But Judicial Watch said that Mr Bush’s rush to crack down on corporate fraud seemed intended to deflect attention away from his and Mr Cheney’s own business practices.
Mr Bush has already faced questions about his work as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy Corp a decade ago, when the firm faced an inquiry for masking huge losses
The Veep’s Pipeline Push
By Michael Isikoff and Tony Hopfinger | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 23, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Sep 1, 2008
Type Size Print
Email
Social Networks
Links to this article
Sponsored by Email To A Friend Please fill in the following information and we’ll email this link.
Your Email Address Recipient’s Email Address
Separate multiple addresses with commas
A two-year-old letter by Vice President Dick Cheney that pushed a controversial Alaska natural-gas pipeline bill is getting renewed scrutiny because of recently disclosed evidence in the Justice Department’s corruption case against Sen. Ted Stevens. In a conversation secretly tape-recorded by the FBI on June 25, 2006, Stevens discussed ways to get a pipeline bill through the Alaska Legislature with Bill Allen, an oil-services executive accused of providing the senator with about $250,000 in undisclosed financial benefits. According to a Justice motion, Stevens told Allen, “I’m gonna try to see if I can get some bigwigs from back here and say, ‘Look … you gotta get this done’.” Two days later, Cheney wrote a letter to the Alaska Legislature urging members to “promptly enact” a bill to build the pipeline. The letter was considered unusual because the White House rarely contacts state lawmakers about pending legislative matters. It also angered state Democrats, who accused Cheney of pushing oil-company interests. The former executive director of Cheney’s energy task force had gone to work as a lobbyist for British Petroleum, one of three firms slated to build the pipeline.
Stevens confirmed to NEWSWEEK last week that he asked Cheney to write the letter. “We wanted the federal government to tell the state to act quickly on it,” he said. (A spokesman for Alaska’s other senator, Lisa Murkowski, said her office also had contacts with Cheney’s office.) A Cheney spokeswoman said his office does not comment on pending legal matters.
In the motion, prosecutors said they want to show that Stevens, who has pleaded not guilty, used his political clout to benefit Allen’s business interests while the oil exec was paying for renovations on the senator’s home. As an example, the motion points out that Stevens discussed contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about the pipeline; soon after, FERC issued a report on the project “similar to the message delivered by Stevens.” But the Justice motion made no mention of Cheney’s letter. A department spokesman did not respond to requests for comment about why prosecutors did not also include the letter or whether they expect Cheney to come up at Stevens’s trial, now slated to begin next month.
The ANC lost to COPE at the Pretoria High Court. Anyone got the Judgement?
@Khosi:
When you say ‘criminal’ then ‘dominant ideology’, are you referring to the bona-fide people who fought for our liberation. If so, how can one refer to these people as criminals, at this stage of our democracy, without being nostalgic of the past.
Because at that stage, they were criminals. They were breaking the law. That’s precisely my point. An unfortunate side-effect of the struggle is that the majority of South Africans do not take the law seriously. If struggle heroes were criminals in the technical sense, then how can criminals like Yengeni be viewed in a bad light, as they should be?
They’re all criminals in the technical sense, yet there’s a huge difference between a freedom fighter and someone like Yengeni who committed fraud. Whether Yengeni was a freedom fighter or not is immaterial, he is still a convicted criminal today and it can’t be claimed that he defrauded us for the sake of our freedom or that he did not have a fair trial.
If not, and are you then referring to the thieves and murderers who committed these acts, in gay and selfish abandon, I can tell you that these people possessed no dominant ideology and were mostly shunned by society.
That’s great news. However, in my view, people who are currently thieves or alleged criminals like Yengeni and Zuma are not being shunned by society. It would appear that the opposite rings true: they are being glorified all the way to prison and back.
Somewhere between the times of the struggle, where a criminal could’ve been a criminal for merely being in the wrong colour-coded neighbourhood, and thus not really guilty of anything serious, and our current mode, we lost the plot. It’s a near Shakespearian inversion of values, where fair is foul and foul is fair.
Someone who is charged with rape is facing a serious charge. Decent people do not get charged with rape because they keep out of those situations. Decent people could possibly be charged with sexual harassment, and then be acquitted, but with rape? I doubt it.
Decent people do not prevent people from casting their vote. This is what the apartheid regime did, and this is what the ANC currently did in the Western Cape. It is thus clear that the ANC has lost contact with the ideals of Nelson Mandela, who wanted equality and freedom for all and not just for members of the ANC. The ANC equates democracy with rule by the ANC and not with us voting for our leaders.
So I do not get your reasoning for trying to equate uneducated people with immorality and our struggle heroes with criminals. I fiercely contest that aspersion.
You misunderstood my reasoning. I was not equating struggle heroes with criminals, I was merely pointing out that technically they were criminals because they did break the law. Someone who hijacks a car is also a criminal who is breaking the law. It is not me who is equating the two kinds of criminals with each other, it is our current society who do not regard an act of criminality as a significant indication of character.
This is precisely the problem. People do not respect the law, because in general, no distinction between struggle heroes and hijackers exists in the minds of our society.
We need to address this and return to the point where someone who is facing serious charges like fraud or rape allegations would view the situation with enough seriousness that they would step down or at the least go on suspension pending the outcome of an investigation, regardless of whether they are guilty or not. We deserve to expect them to step down, because that’s the way it is done in the private sector. Why should we settle for second best in the public sector, where we are all shareholders?
If you were looking for an accountant, would you hire someone who was charged and acquitted on charges of fraud? Would you leave your daughter alone in the company of someone who’s been charged but acquitted on charges of rape? If the answer is no, why should we settle for second best and hire these guys to rule our country? Is that really the kind of image we want to project to the world? That we are a haven for almost-but-not-quite-criminals?
“The ANC equates democracy with rule by the ANC …”
“We didn’t lose the by-elections in the Western Cape. It was the judge who voted on behalf of the people of the Western Cape against the ANC. That was an undemocratic process.” (Julius Malema)
Garg Unzola’s points are very good, and difficult to refute methinks…
This fearlessness of the law is something which, to an extent, has it’s roots in the apartheid years, there can be no doubt.
However, it cannot be the sole reason why our politicians philander so brazenly. This, I believe, is actually mainly because they know that, if push comes to shove, they will get away scot free. The pres or premier or somebody will do something about it. When a motorist in KZN filmed his speedometer at 160km/h while following a blue light brigade, the MEC stood up and threatened the motorist with arrest, and threatened the Natal Witness with a lawsuit if they didn’t divulge their source. Not a damn word about the madman driving big-chief-hotshot-politician, who is forcing people off the road and generally being a hazard to law abiding citizens.
JZ says that politicians should be kept separate from tenders, because that is where the fraud happens. But then, ironically, the KZN MEC gets arrested for…TENDER FRAUD!!! So while JZ says one thing, the ANC then says it’s a political arrest (whatever those are post-1994), and she’s staying in her post. Huh? So much for sending a message.
I think the problem is a fundamental lack of understanding of what the law is there for (which is as a result of politicians in the ANC never actually feeling the effect of the law when they break it). The ANC tried to register candidates for the recent by-elections in the Cape, but it was late, so the IEC refused them entry, in terms of the law. The ANC went to court, and lost. Old Julius stands up and tells everyone that the judge made a mistake, and effecetively voted for the people (if so, (a) good judge, and (b) what’s wrong with reflecting the will of the people?). Not a mention about the fact that the ANC did not comply with the law, and therefore the IEC was within it’s rights to disallow them to stand for election.
There is no understanding. Without understanding, there can be no respect. Without respect, the ANC will continue to do what it wants, and protect its own. As long as people keep voting them into power, this will be the case.
Garg’s last paragraph above is pretty thought-provoking. Some people here should read it a few times and let it sink in.
And one more thing @thenative earlier….
Fraud is reprehensible regardless of who commits it. However, when politicians commit fraud, they rob the people who elected them, as well as the people who didn’t…which makes it worse. It’s called fiduciary duty.
The fact is that most of our politicians today in SA in government are black. Therefore when there is uproar about a politician stealing money it is statistically more likely that more often than not it will relate to a black politician.
If Helen Zille, Tony Leon, or any white politician was caught defrauding parliment, I’m fairly certain that people would still be up in arms.
The pretended distinction between (a) the “moral majority’s” response (so far ineffectual, it must be said) to the latest allegations of political chicanery in the USA and (b) the adulation of dirty rotten “scoundrels” in South Africa, can never be made good upon the back of a single – and singularly unconvincing – example from the perma-tainted American political system. [In Illinois! Gee, would you credit it!]
If a certain person must ventilate his prejudices, he should have the courage of his convictions and go bald-headed at the objects of his disdain. The Blagojevich case proves nothing either way, except that money talks dirty. The real issue isn’t so much what the chattering classes say about political immorality, but the fact that it has always been ingrained in American politics since (and notwithstanding the demise of) Tamanny Hall.
A criminal conviction (even on a charge of corruption) does not disqualify a U.S. Senator from office. How is that for political morality? What does it tell you about the chances that the judicial system in the US is as likely to be tainted as the political one?
A criminal conviction (even on a charge of corruption) does not disqualify a U.S. Senator from office.
Um, yeah. That’s precisely the point. The Senator can still legally run for office after being charged or convicted, but he public won’t allow it. Nobody would vote for such a Senator.
Think of how Bill Clinton’s house of cards came tumbling down. All he did was have an extra-marital affair. He wasn’t charged with rape. He wasn’t charged with polygamy. He wasn’t charged with fraud. The public basically threw him out because he was an embarrassment to his country.
The problem is thus not really our dodgy politicians, but it is us who vote for them! Which, if you read the article, was the point.
Is polygamy a crime? If not, can we please stop trying to impose our value systems on others!
Hi I’m new to this site but like what I see. I totally agree. I also don’t like the Americans to much, but when it comes to democracy we can sure learn a few things from them. I also agree that the stranglehold of the ANC on power is destroyning our democracy. They have become arrogant and a law unto themselves. Now with a new generation of leaders like the “rocket scientist” Malema one can only shake your head in disbelief. As long as we do not have a serious challenger to the ANC, I cannot see any positive change comming anytime soon.
Actually, yes. Polygamy is a crime in America.
Most western countries do not recognize polygamous marriages, and consider bigamy a crime. Several countries also prohibit people living a polygamous lifestyle.
In some States of the United States, the criminalization of a polygamous lifestyle originated as anti-Mormon laws, although they are rarely enforced.
I was using the example of Bill Clinton. I was not attacking polygamy at all. Try some reading comprehension and try to stick to the topic, please.
Noted….
…but wait! stop the horses! ram the brakes! something is had to, as the contributor say ‘comprehend’…
If the contributor is using Bill Clinton as an example, was what Bill Clinton did an act of polygamy or just infidelity? I would understand the use of fraud cause Bill Clinton lied to conceal his infidelity, which, immoral as it may be, according to USA law, is not a crime at all.
Hmmm, using my limited comprehension it is clear to me that a contributor on this blog incorrectly tried to use Bill Clinton’s infidelity to angle at JZ’s polygamy and the rape charge(for which he was cleared). And polygamy, I would have all know, is legal in the whole of South Africa and not in just some provinces.
@Anonymouse
Was it ever decided if the name was Garg, Garb or Ga(r)ba(g)e?
had = hard
@Cosh-i:
Yep, infidelity. Make that infidelity. Which is, last time I checked, legal grounds for divorce in SA too?
According to our law, both Jacob Zuma and his alleged rape victim are guilty of adultery.
Thanks for correcting me and finding one more flaw in Zuma’s character, as last time I checked, he was not married to his alleged rape victim. Nor did he have any intention of marrying her, and he did not use a condom. No lobola, no condom. That certainly helped to correct the image of us Africans as licentious Aids mongers.
Let me try to be more clear:
Scenario A: Country A has a civil servant. This civil servant is accused of things which are considered immoral in the eyes of his voters. He ends up losing his job.
Senario B: Country B has a civil servant. This civil servant is accused of things which are considered immoral in the eyes of his voters. Regardless, he gets re-elected.
Which country do you think is more politically mature?
Dear Garg,
“Scenario A: Country A has a civil servant. This civil servant is accused of things which are considered immoral in the eyes of his voters. He ends up losing his job.”
You are not, of course, referring to Clinton who left office when his term expired and was ineligible for re-election.
If there was a drift, I lost it.
So far as “public morals” are concerned, the USA has absolutely nothing to teach South Africa. The phoney distinctions and contrasts can stop right here . . they proceed from an insecure grasp of the realities.
Professors of law are not professors of government, or professors of moral philosophy, or professors of history; and the lessons they try to draw from the field of their professed competence are frequently skewed, partial and inadequately grounded.
This blog will benefit from a reduction in the “spot on, prof!” type comments which advance discussion not an inch.
@dontgetmestarted:
You need a lesson in intellectually honest debate. Stick to the facts and the logic. Furthermore, your homework assignment:
Look up the following terms: thought experiment, metaphor and example. Then try to figure out whether I was referring to Clinton when I used the term ‘public servant’. I know that you are under the impression that all spheres of government are from the same cookie cutter, but ‘public servant’ need not refer to the president.
Judging by the topic at hand, perhaps I may have been referring to Governor Rod R. Blagojevich? Or perhaps I used the terms Scenario A and Scenario B in a broad sense to give some objectivity? I apologise if that went over your head. Next time I’ll use more obvious examples so we can keep everyone up to speed.
Speaking of the topic, you did not specify whether you chose Scenario A or Scenario B. Clinton or not, USA OK or not. Instead, you chose to change the subject, cite irrelevant facts and logic, state false premises, rejected facts and logic as opinion, bordered on a straw man argument, resorted to name calling, cited opinion as fact and whimsically tried argument from intimidation.
In short, most of what you did is not considered to advance any discussion. Those who live in glass houses..
Automatic “You’re speaking tosh, prof!” reflexes are not really contributing to the debate either. At least do your bit and ensure that you actually have a foot to stand on before making such allegations.
For your further elucidation, when you are done with your homework assignment, here is a quiz for you:
A professor in constitutional law would be an expert in:
A: Constitutional law.
B: Constitutional law.
C: Constitutional law.
I made it easy for you, because clearly you are not a professor of constitutional law.
Khosi
“This blog will benefit from a reduction in the “spot on, prof!” type comments which advance discussion not an inch.”
And spot on Zuma does?
Spot off, Khosi!
Tatera // Dec 14, 2008 at 6:18 am
What are you going on about?
So far as I can understand the latest outburst by a certain person reviling South Africa’s “public morality”, it was premissed on the fact that when a corruption charge is levelled against a prominent US politician, the “developed sense of public morality” in that country (oh! it’s a developmental issue?) operates to ensure that the object of the allegations prudently resigns.
I think that is the point of the article above: in South africa people “tough it out”, in the US they are pressured into stepping back, aside, or down.
Needless to say, Governor Blagojevich shows no sign of resigning to suit a certain pundit’s scheme, but even if he did that would prove very little. The man has been the object of credible allegations of corruption since 2005.
An article by Kate Zernike in the New York Times of yesterday (Dec. 13) further informs us:-
“If indicted, Mr. Blagojevich would be the fifth of the last eight elected Illinois governors to be charged with a crime; if he is sent to jail, the fourth to serve time.”
As Oscar Wilde might have said, to elect one corrupt governor may be a misfortune, but to elect four in under half a century seems like carelessness.
Illinois political morality offering lessons to South Africa?
Yet another turkey flapping around in constitutionallyspeaking, more like.
Garg // Dec 12, 2008 @2.24 pm
“How many other countries that are functional can you mention where a serious charge such as fraud, corruption and rape would not have ended your political career?”
Garg // Dec 13, 2008 @10.33 am
“The public basically threw [Clinton] out because he was an embarrassment to his country.”
Garg // Dec 13, 2008 @12:32 pm
“I was using the example of Bill Clinton. I was not attacking polygamy at all. Try some reading comprehension and try to stick to the topic, please.”
Garg // Dec 13, 2008 @9.23 pm
Your scenario A reads:-
“Country A has a civil servant. This civil servant is accused of things which are considered immoral in the eyes of his voters. He ends up losing his job.”
Now, Gov. Blagojevich has not lost his job, neither did Clinton (although that is what you wrote). So I was being kind when I gave you credit for having a drift.
Your outburst, by the way, is comically inept, but I am flattered you have been studying my posts in order to freshen up your invective.
Have a nice turkey!
DontGetMeStarted: “…You are not, of course, referring to Clinton who left office when his term expired and was ineligible for re-election. …”
Without taking anything away from the Garg’s absolutely good response, here are some facts and consequences of Bill Clinton’s actions:
• Al Gore, who did not publicly rebuke Clinton’s actions suffered as a result. Gore lost in some States that Clinton had won because according to those voters, Al Gore failed to distance himself from the ‘immoral’ Clinton.
• In the recent Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton was also punished for the sins of her husband. Some voters, especially women, were still disappointed that Hillary did not dump him for committing ‘adultery’.
• Bill Clinton was impeached and George W. Bush had to pardon him to avoid a jail term. (South Africans are going to reward Zuma)
You can imagine what the voters would have done to Bill Clinton if he were eligible for a third term.
In short, in these USA (this topic is USA vs SA …) Zuma would have long been relegated to the political dustbin of history. Period.
Dear Tony,
“Bill Clinton was impeached and George W. Bush had to pardon him to avoid a jail term.”
You are incorrect. The House impeached Clinton and the Senate acquitted him: there is a two-stage process for removing a sitting president. Bush was not involved in the Clinton business, whether by granting a pardon or otherwise.
He left office in 2000 with an approval rating (as measured by gallop) of 65%. In 2006, a Quinnipac University poll put him second to Reagan as the best US post-war president (25% to Reagan’s 28%). You can check all this in wikipedia [I know, I know, but it's a good place to start].
DontGetMeStarted,
Here’s the deal:
Bush may not have officially pardoned Clinton – Presidential pardon; but a deal was struck with prosecutors and supported by top Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee to avoid Clinton being indicted. Most importantly it was to avoid a possibility of George W. Bush having to to offer an official Presidential pardon. Bush himself had said that it won’t make sense to pardon someone who was not indicted. Politics.
This deal (there were a lot of behind the scenes activities) to avoid indictment is one way of getting a pardon. (Maybe not official).
Bush subsequently called Clinton a friend of the family after he appointed Clinton to work with father on some humanitarian projects. In public eyes, it was an apology.
… The bottom line is that, even with high rating, Clinton would not have gotten a third-term even if he were eligible.
Dear Tony,
The article by a certain person reviling South Africa’s “public morality” presumes that when a corruption charge is levelled against a prominent US politician, the “developed sense of public morality” in that country (oh! it’s a developmental issue?) operates to ensure that the accused prudently resigns.
I think that is the point of it: in South Africa politicians “tough it out”, in the US they are pressured into stepping back, aside, or down.
Needless to say, Governor Blagojevich shows no sign of resigning to suit a certain pundit’s scheme, but even if he did that would prove little. The man has been the object of credible allegations of corruption since 2005.
Kate Zernike in the NY Times of yesterday (Dec. 13) informs us:-
“If indicted, Mr. Blagojevich would be the fifth of the last eight elected Illinois governors to be charged with a crime; if he is sent to jail, the fourth to serve time.”
As Oscar Wilde might have said, to elect one corrupt governor may be a misfortune, but to elect four in under fifty years seems like carelessness.
Illinois political morality offering lessons to South Africa?
Another turkey flapping around in constitutionallyspeaking, more like.
Surely the issue at hand is the morality of OUR politicians. I’m not that interested in the odd American governor or senator who is guilty of fraud or other crimes. (I am, however, interested in South Africans who return here from the US to take up high-profile posts while still facing charges of fraud in the USA.)
You could equally compare our politicians’ morality or lack thereof with public morality in the UK:
Profumo – resigned.
Edwina Currie – resigned (now, how about that one – a junior minister of health resigning over a shocking mistake that didn’t lead to one death? Unless a farmer or two committed suicide over their lost revenue. Compare that to Manto blithely staying on for years as Min of Health.)
Cash for questions – Tim Smith resigned.
Taxigate – David McLetchie resigned. (Cf Travelgate or shopping trips to Dubai to get perspective on this one.)
Peter Mandelson – two resignations and a third on the way?
And many more.
OK, so all this shows that there is as much corruption and sleaze and immorality in British politics as elsewhere. Power corrupts. But in the UK there is accountability and politicians are forced to face enquiries or even inquiries. Some of them, like Mandelson or Archer, never learn, and they come back for a second or third bite at the cherry, but the system deals with misdemeanours or crimes and the public figure either resigns or is forced to do so.
They then become successful tv quiz show hosts or guests, or are invited to participate in celebrity reality tv shows. Perhaps we could persuade some of our politicians to follow suit:
‘I’d even kill for Zuma’ – a reality tv show where guests such as Julius Malema and Zwelinzima Vavi strive to outdo each other by swallowing live worms, biting the tails off scorpions and killing cockroaches in an attempt to impress genial host, Jacob Zuma.
Getting to Yes – a show with star contestantsThabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma and co-hosted by a panel of South Africa’s top judges. The judges fire questions in rapid succession at the two contestants in an effort to get either of them to say ‘yes’. The winner is the one who manages to deny everything longest.
SAWE Smackdown – light Sunday afternoon entertainment. Has-been politicians with ridiculous nommes de guerre such as Blades, Terror Machine Gun, Julius ‘The Exterminator’ Malema, Die Groot Krokodil and Godzilla, dress up in wrestling gear and go wild in the ring. Anyone able to execute a half nelson is usually deemed the winner. The only wrestler to achieve a full nelson retired as world champion a few years back.
Would have been a kind of convincing argument if it wasn’t for the fact that Bill Clinton got elected as president of the United States despite the Whitewater scandal not to mention Tony Blair in the UK simply squashing the investigation into the corrupt BAE/Saudi Arabia arms deals because it was “against the public interest”.
Noone (to the best of my knowledge) has ever claimed that politicians (anywhere!) are perfect. They are self-serving, dishonest, and unethical (in fact, just like most human beings!). That does not, in any way, mean that we cannot EXPECT more from them.
The argument at this point is that South Africans generally have LOWER expectations of their politicians than other (developed?) countries. If we take the USA as an example, every detail of a candidate’s life (whether s/he be standing for president, councillor or city dogcatcher) is subject to public scrutiny AND IS OPEN FOR DEBATE. The latter is particularly important: anyone who stands for public office cannot expect a veil to be drawn over their private life. Any comments that they make, regardless of whether they are “in their personal capacity” or not, reflect on their ability to do the job.
As South Africans, we should demand better from our political parties. In the municipality in which I reside, four of eighteen councillors cannot read and have no secondary school education, yet are expected to wade through a 500-1000 page agenda, and be able to contribute meaningfully to issues such as the municipality’s budget (approx. R150 million per annum). Are they the best their parties can offer? Surely not!
Public morality should require that politicians:
1) be capable of doing the job;
2) be ethical and conscientious in doing the job; and
3) resign/be “recalled” if they fail at (1) and (2).
@ Sarah: OMG! You should totally go into broadcasting. Shows like that may make it worthwhile to pay our tv licences.
@dontgetmestarted: Yes, I do believe it is a developmental issue. Are you familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? Unfortunately the majority of South Africans are not able to fulfill their physiological needs, the most primitive of needs. It is therefor no wonder that morality, which forms part of self-actualization, the highest need, is nowhere near where it needs to be.
Libdem
I can’t agree with you. JZ, our former deputy president’s personal life has been scrutinized and debated to the point where the public has assumed a rather perverted voyeuristic obsession with the tiniest details of his sex life including but not limited to his shower habits.
In the UK I haven’t seen any public protests because Blair squashed the investigations into the corrupt Saudi arms deal – now imagine the outcry if Zuma simply ordered the Scorpions or NPA to drop the investigations into the arms deal because of it was “against the public interest”. Using the UK as an example my personal opinion is that we have submitted our government to such high levels of scrutiny and transparency that doesn’t exist in the “developed world”.
@ozoneblue
I agree with you that certain aspects of Zuma’s personal life have received a lot of attention. Has that changed the opinion of the majority of his supporters? No! They prattle on about his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, blithely ignoring the fact that corruption is a bilateral crime, of which Schabir Shaik has already been found guilty.
The point I was making is that we (all South Africans, regardless of who we support) should DEMAND better politicians. When you hire someone for a job, you look at their qualifications to deliver on that job, not on how popular they are with the other workers. It should be the same for politicians.
Zuma has famously said that the ANC is more important than the Constitution. Is that the kind of politician we want leading our country? Where party is more important than state? Or is he just conflating party and state to such an extent that the ANC is the State, and no further debate is permitted?
Clinton was never even accused of fraud, and as far as I’m aware, Tony Blair wasn’t implicated in any wrongdoing either (I may be wrong there).
Shagging an intern may be ethically suspect (although, again, JZ and the masses seem to think this sort of behaviour is fine), but it’s not exactly the same as ripping off an entire country in broad daylight.
the big slipper
Then you must be living in a tiny little world.
Bill and Hilary Clinton – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)
Interesting if not funny – Robert Ray sounding like Bulelani Nguca: “This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct.”
In South Africa that would be enough to smear Clinton for the rest of his political career.
How anybody can think it is OK for Tony Blair to simply squash the BAE/Saudi corruption investigations is totally beyond me.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A668494
The Big Slipper // Dec 17, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Clinton was never even accused of fraud, and as far as I’m aware, Tony Blair wasn’t implicated in any wrongdoing either (I may be wrong there).
Well, there was the little matter of Cherie Blair (a lawyer, we might add) and the real estate scandal involving a convicted fraudster. I don’t think it was ever proved that Blair himself was directly involved but he was certainly tainted by it.
Its not my first time to pay a visit this web site, i am visiting this site dailly and get good information
from here every day.
Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in
accession capital to assert that I acquire actually enjoyed
account your blog posts. Any way I will be subscribing to your feeds and even
I achievement you access consistently quickly.