In your blog “Are we becoming the worst we can be?” you had this to say :

“Under Thabo Mbeki and Nelson Mandela politics and leadership within the African National Congress and South Africa were exercised in a deliberately sober and cautious manner. Anti-populism and concerns to downplay any ‘cult of the personality’ were always high on the agenda.

“These were hidden virtues that only become apparent now, in the moment of crescendo of the new ANC’s campaign of evangelical political razzmatazz focussed on the rural poor. ”

In “Do you remember the Broederbond?” you say :

“The fundamental nature of Menzi Simelane , down in his bones and in his genetic code, is to do what he is told by the president and the party. As director general of Justice he attempted to instruct the prosecuting authority to desist from prosecuting Jackie Selebi, he lied for Mbeki,”

If I understand correctly Simelane was appointed by Mbeki as DG for Justice.

How is the appointment of a person with such a flawed “genetic code” then supportive of your view that politics and leadership was “exercised in a deliberately sober and cautious manner”?

Off the top of my head, limiting myself to the worst offenders:

1) Alcoholic incompetent AIDS denialist thief
2) ‘We did not take up the struggle to remain poor’
3) ‘It is OK for politicians to lie to the public’
4) Coega magnate – overnight

Really, Gwebecimele, this is too easy!

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-01-presidency-upset-after-zuma-called-a-gangster

Now they are after your blood.

“just the sort of action that is being proposed in SA for some sectors of our economy (mining, banking) by those well known capitalists the ANCYL and YCL!”

I strongly suspect that the nationalisation debate is being driven by some outside the ANCYL with commercial agendas.

It makes neither political nor economic sense in the way that it has been tabled.

I would speculate that it is an extremely attractive prospect for corporations that own mines with vastly diminished or diminishing mineral reserves.

“Beneficiation” has become a popular buzzword, without consideration in any meaningful way of the impact of the fundamentals to go with that, like education and training as well as the industrial policy.

That’s just my point – I would not want this organisation to be a “front” for anyone.

In the economic discussion papers that I have read (source: ANCtoday website), the ANC espouses a “mixed” economy, not a pure socialist or pure capitalist system.

By the way, I am a keen supporter of a genuine mixed economy (not the selective crony capitalism that we have in SA) – my ancestry is Scandinavian, and countries like Denmark and Norway have achieved very high standards of living, high quality lof life, low Gini co-efficient, zero poverty, high transparency and the lowest levels of corruption in the world (a neccessary but not sufficient requirement for sustainable development).

To be honest, the distinction (capitalist versus socialist) is far from clear – for example, the USA, which you might classify as “capitalist” has just effectively nationalised large parts of its financial services and banking sector- just the sort of action that is being proposed in SA for some sectors of our economy (mining, banking) by those well known capitalists the ANCYL and YCL!

Innuendos and accusations with zero facts and evidence to back them up are the stock in trade of bloggers on sites like Timeslive – I think that your contribution would be more at home there.

Come on Peter, we all know that this “organisation” would be a front for counterrevolutionary forces allied with the DA.

The latter supports CAPITALISM. By contrast, the ANC. including Cmd Simelane, is dedicated to SOCIALISM!

I hope that distinction is clear to everyone.

“there would be a need for some form of external symbol of protest, and a clear target for the protest, so that it was not the ANC or Mr Zuma per se (or black people) but rather excesses and abuses of power that were in focus”.

I yearn for the formation of such a (civic?) formation / pressure group that cuts across cultural, party political party, racial and religious identity – a sort of latter day UDM?

Come on, Sirjay, Miike, Maggs and Leigh (I am nominating you for spokesperson – your writing is a pleasure to read – so eloquent and articulate).- how about it?

I am ready to sign up!

There is also a need for taxpayers to take a more active role in how their tax money is spent (mis-spent?).

These high profile criminal cases involving ANC politicians and officials accused of wrongoing boggle the mind of ordinary taxpayers, who foot the bill for the prosecution team, and the defendant’s (normally very expensive) legal team.

If you or I were to appear in court, we would have to fund our own defence – my legal team would be a rather small team of 1 (two, actually, I suppose – an instructing attorney and an advocate).

I dont so much worry about Zuma as about his advisors. Persons like Mo Shaik, Radebe & Co. will not hesitate to use whatever means possible to advance their interests and/or negatively affect that of any potential political opponents. Especially means they can get legally away with. Unfortunately, Zuma has shown to be easily influenced by others (he agrees just as much as with Afrikaners as with Azapo even though their arguments are diametrically opposites). But it is his close advisors that will have the greatest/lasting influence on what he may decide.

Personally, I would like the persons involved in the drafting of the Constitution to start speaking up in favour of the Constitution, especially those within the ANC (e.g. Cyril Ramaphosa & co.). They should decry the double meaning the current ANC is attaching to specific clauses such as Radebe & Simelane do. (These double meanings sounds similar to the Executive directives the Bush WH published that tried to legalise torture & Guantanamo Bay.)