We probably do not want to go back to the imperial Presidency of President Thabo Mbeki. In any case, as a matter of ANC and alliance politics it is probably impossible for our President to take on the dictatorial management style of Mbeki, who branded Cosatu as the ultra-left and tried to silence his critics outside the cabinet with threats and plots. Consultation and consensus is the name of the game as that is the only way to survive politically in the snake pit of tri-partite alliance politics.
One also does not want to find fault with everything our President does and one does not wish to be seen to try and tell President Zuma or his advisors what to do – that would be arrogant and patronising.
However, from a purely constitutional law perspective, the tension in the cabinet and between the ANC government and Cosatu about the role of former finance minister, Trevor Manuel, raises an important question: where is President Jacob Zuma and why is he not leading as he is empowered and required to do by the Constitution?
Judging not only from media reports but also from statements made by various alliance leaders, a clash is building up between the ANC and Cosatu about the powers held by Trevor Manuel, Minister in the Presidency, and Ebrahim Patel, Minister of Economic Development. Cosatu maintains that Manuel’s Green Paper on national planning makes him a “super-minister”, to whom Patel will be subordinate. At its Midrand conference Cosatu consequently launched a vicious attack on the former confidants of ex-President Thabo Mbeki.
Cosatu had, of course, called for a complete overhaul of the content of the National Planning Commission for a “vigorous” engagement on the alliance’s green paper. To ensure that there was no confusion, Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi referred to the green paper as representing “a massive turf battle in cabinet”. He indicated that certain ministers – most notably Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel – were being sidelined while Manuel had been positioned at the centre of processes.
Even if one has regard for the intricacies of alliance politics, there seems to be no need for all this tension. The President has both the power and the duty to address the tension and to ensure that his cabinet operates optimally. (If Cosatu does not like this they can complain, but Cosatu has no constitutional powers to run the country.) It is time to lead. We should expect nothing less from our President whom a majority of voters have entrusted with the power to lead us. Now he should do exactly that and lead – as required by the voters and the Constitution.
President Zuma clearly wishes to lead in a more conciliatory and consensus-building style, which is a welcome departure from the previous nine years of Mbeki rule. But this does not mean our President does not have a duty to make difficult decisions once all the consulting has been done. When one is President one cannot please all the people all the time and if one tries to do that one will be perceived to be weak and ineffectual and it won’t be long before the vultures swoop and one will end up like former President Thabo Mbeki – with lots of time on your hands to write your memoirs.
Worse, the cabinet will not be able to do its work properly because of all the suspicion and infighting and ordinary people who have pinned their hopes on the government to provide a “better life for all” will suffer.
Of course, the President should not make the mistake to micromanage his cabinet. Helen Zille seems to have a tendency to do exactly that and in the Afrikaans press one hears the first rumblings from her provincial MEC’s about her dictatorial style. She seems not to have learnt anything from the Thabo Mbeki fiasco, but perhaps she is bargaining on the fact that the Democratic Alliance does not have the same kind of appetite for democracy and constestation as the ANC. (Or maybe, like Margareth Thatcher, she will also leave her job in tears one day, still unable to understand how her minions who had always feared – if not respected – her could have stabbed her in the back.)
In any case, section 92 of the Constitution states that the “Deputy President and Ministers are responsible for the powers and functions of the executive assigned to them by the President”. This means that ordinary executive powers not dealt with by legislation can and must be delegated by the President to his or her various Ministers.
Constitutionally the President has a very broad discretion to decide how his cabinet will operate, how many members must serve in the cabinet and exactly what each cabinet minister will be responsible for. The current tension about the role of the Planning Minister vis-à-vis the Economic Development Minister can – from a legal perspective – thus only be solved by the President.
This does not mean that he should not consult and discuss the difficult issues raised by Coastu and others, but the buck stops with him and at some point he will have to do what he is paid to do and what he was elected to do – lead and make decisions.
Even where legislation originally bestwowed powers on one minister, the President has the power to change this. Section 97 of the Constitution states that the President by proclamation may transfer to a member of the cabinet the adminsitration of any legislation entrusted to another cabinet member. He may also transfer to a member of the cabinet any other power or function entrusted by legislation to another member of the cabinet.
So, its is fine to travel the globe, to cut ribbons opening hospitals and schools and half built roads, to smile and laugh and tell jokes, to inspire us ordinary South Africans with nice warm-hearted stories and gestures, to threaten criminals with execution (well, maybe not that last one) and to meet with opposition parties, but in the end the buck stops with the President.
It is time for him to start making the difficult decisions as there are more important things in South Africa for a politician than being loved by all. There is a country to run, poverty to address, houses to build, children to feed and an economy to transform. Only the President has the constitutional power to guide this process via his cabinet. Gwede Mantashe might think this is up to him, but the Constitution is silent on the role of the Secretary General of the ANC in the running of the country. President Zuma is the elected leader, not Mantashe, and it is therefore Zuma who has the constitutional duty to lead.
“Judging not only from media reports but also from statements made by various alliance leaders, a clash is building up between the ANC and Cosatu about the powers held by Trevor Manuel, Minister in the Presidency, and Ebrahim Patel, Minister of Economic Development. Cosatu maintains that Manuel’s Green Paper on national planning makes him a ‘super-minister’, to whom Patel will be subordinate.”
——————————————————————————————————
“The idea of a Council of State made up of ‘Super Ministers’ was first mooted by the SACP two months ago. SACP deputy secretary Jeremy Cronin said this ‘Super Cabinet’ was likely to be made up of the President, Deputy President and several senior Cabinet Ministers” – http://allafrica.com/stories/200809250225.html
It amazes me how you are incapable of making an analysis without first seeking the presently PC tactic of shielding yourself by criticizing Mbeki. It is as cowardly strategy as using the race card.
Vuyo, it amazes me how you are incapable of dealing with my assertions, and how you chose rather to launch a personal attack and to impugn my integrity. I suspect the reason for this is that even you would not be able to argue that Mbeki did not brand Cosatu leaders as ultra-leftists (after all, a quick search on Google will prove my assertion to be correct), but you do not like to be reminded of this unpalatable fact, so you attack the messenger for reminding readers of this incontrovertible fact. Facts remain facts though, no matter what you say. Just because you do not want to face facts is not my problem or issue. It is yours.
Prof, you have said what a lot of people thinks.
There seems to be a power vacuum at the top. I had some high hopes for President Zuma. For one he is not Mbeki and I really thought he’s going to take the bull by the horns and lead. Yet it seems we are still waiting. The only voice the ANC seems to have is Julius Malema and that is basically a scary lot of shit coming from him.
I have yet to see any concrete policy decisions or government direction. So far it seems there are a lot of flashy press conferences but very little action.
To think, we are in the middle of a world recession, South Africa’s HIV infection rate stays high and crime is barely going down.
Does this sound like a government in control? Hardly!
They can’t even decide who is responsible for macro-economic policy… there are some serious issues out there and the government is dithering with a complete lack of interest in governing our country.
Pierre, you are the one who is incapable of dealing with my assertion. Lets look at the content of your posting: for example the use of rethorically appealing terms such as “imperial presidency” (an undefined term used narratively by the journalist Brian Pottinger) that do not help any of us to understand better the present trajectory of RSA. Using Mbeki as a shield also does not change the facts.
To give you a brief incontrovertible lesson that factually denudes the weight of your tendency: The Presidency was given large co-coordinative powers by a resolution of the ANC in the 1997, democratically. This resolution was afterwards implemented by the ANC, which included in its leadership Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma (dead of deployment), Nelson Mandela (then an active ex officio member of the NEC) and many of the leaders who dominate Zuma’s cabinet. The difference between Mbeki and the rest (Zuma, Mnadela, Radebe, etc) is that he has taken responsibility of the collective decisions that led to the centralization of power in the presidency as was unanimously determined in an ANC conference. Interestingly, we have not seen lesser centralization of power post Polokwane but MORE centralization (in the planning commission housed in the presidency). How therefore could you bluntly state “We probably do not want to go back to the imperial Presidency of President Thabo Mbeki. … take on the dictatorial management style of Mbeki, who branded Coastu as the ultra-left and tried to silence his critics outside the cabinet with threats and plots”. In fact the very SACP and Cosatu are brazenly labeling people they disagree with (including cabinet ministers) with epitaphs that put the terms “ultra-leftist” to shame (and are unprecedentan even in the Mbeki era) . Nzimande is chief amongst those who label those within and outside the ANC who disagree with the policy trajectory yet the press and commentators such as yourself Zackie Achmat are conspicuously silent because to criticize such utterances will serve only to show that nothing has changed in the ANC but for the leading lights. In fact a new phenomenon transpires, in the past those who lost out on senior state positions or were opposed to the then leadership where able to choose business, the state bureaucracy and academia, these days you will not get nice things (as so eloquently stated by Malema). We are daily informed of one side of the story by the Polokwane victors and commentators accept it without question. The reality is that words like ”imperial presidency”, “dictatorial”, “silencing of debate”, “appointment of yes man”, etc, are bandied about without questioning the absurd foundations. In a cabinet full of people who openly state that they hate Thabo Mbeki and who have openly tried to find and publish evidence of his evil, no single fact has been revealed to show he was any of these things. This becomes all the more amazing when a glaring fact stares at us, i.e. the man was booted out of the presidency ingloriously without any anti-democratic counteraction from his side, through an internal party process, therefore is it conceivable that he was as powerful as he was in the past because (lo and behold!) the democratically elected majority in his party supported him and approved democratically of his implementation of ANC policy? Is it possible that his utterances about “ultra-leftist” were as mandated by the majority of his party? Is it possible that his tendency towards an ANC with an independent identity to the alliance was mandated by the majority of Party representatives? Lo and behold, is it possible that Ramaphosa, Sexwale and others who were “sidelined” simply did not have the confidence of the majority ANC members at the time and therefore left active participation in politics? Is it possible that those who claim that there was no debate within the ANC, simply lost debates? Is it possible that Thabo Mbeki simply won the debate about GEAR? Etc. Is it possible that, for whatever reason the appetite for his leadership simply soured and those that were a majority became a minority? One thing is quite clear, not once has evidence been provided of a deviation from ANC policy in the course of his presidency. Not one shred of evidence has been provided of Mbeki using his position to bulldoze policy undemocratically (not one shred of evidence however circumstantial has been adduced). As to the use of state organs to silence critics, this cant be squared with facts. It is now clear that Mbeki had very little control of the security organs of coercion. In fact, most of the senior functionaries of these organs were Zuma supporters and loyalists, as shown by their re-ascendancy post-Polokwane as well as their unlawful tapping of even the then President’s conversations and confidential cabinet communications. In fact, the present Zuma administration seems to be packed by more loyalists (“sycophants”?) than Mbeki’s administration and is characterized by the homogeneity of constitution than could be said of Mbeki’s security cluster. Whilst the dictator included non-loyalists to key state institutions (who later mechanized against him) Zuma brooks no dissenter, only loyalists occupy positions of power, and those who dissent are howled to certain poverty by Malema, Nzimande, Mantashe, Vavi, whilst the president breaks bread with Afrikaner grannies and cuts more ribbons!
We’re just observing the cracks on the surface. Of the inevitable and looming BIG ANC split. It’s the African way. Just look at the churches. A major split every time a new “archbishop” has to be chosen.
But that being so, it is actually in a way fascinating to see how history is evolving. One thing is for sure – Malema is wrong. The ANC wo’nt rule till JC returns.
So its also important for the CC not to take constitutional sides between the socialist or capitalist factions/interpretations.
I recall that much analysis and commentary post-Polokwane has suggested that President Zuma is a puppet leader, that it is ANC policy he follows, not so much his own opinions. Why then are we surprised there is confusion about his lack of dynamic direction? Does anyone know who is really calling the shots? I think what we are experiencing is the confusion of many voices struggling to be fronted by Zuma.
It is apparently his style which I suppose we must get used to. If he’s to mature as a truely effective president, it will likely take years; however, its possible he lacks the capability. Considering the many outlandish statements and behaviors in his past, perhaps its for the best.
Once the men and women behind the throne have established who’s really who while consolidating the power mix, will strong and even censoring direction come from JZ.
Vuyo, first, your response makes an argument not made in your original post which accused me of being dishonest and cowardly by criticising Mbeki to shield myself from criticism and attack. Now you walk away from that assertion (wisely so, as even a cursory search on this Blog would show I have been a consistent critic of Mbeki long before it was fashionable). I take your response as an admission that your original point is not sustainable.
Second, your version of history is rather peculiar. President Mbeki’s “dictatorial ways” are well documented and not only by Pottinger. Just to remind you: (a) When the SACP’s Jeremy Cronin warned against the “Zanufication” of the ANC under Mbeki, he was forced to apologise. (b) The “ultra-left” were repeatedly targeted. Archbishop Emiritus Desmond Tutu was attacked in an unseemly way after he had criticised Mbeki. (c) There was Mbeki’s claim he was the target of a massive counter-intelligence campaign by the pharmaceutical industry and the CIA. (d) There was the disgraceful public announcement that the state was investigating a coup plot by the very leaders Mbeki viewed as rivals: Cyril Ramaphosa, Tokyo Sexwale and Matthews Phosa. Read Feinstein and Pregs Govender who both left Parliament in disgust.
Third when GEAR was implemented it had not been endorsed by the ANC at a national conference. No ANC policy documents have branded Cosatu or the SACP as “ultra-leftists” so it was not official ANC policy but an invention of Mbeki. Under Mbeki the Landless People’s Movement, the Social Movements Indaba and others were viciously attacked. I have found no ANC document endorsing this view. (I concede that what is happening now with the Kennedy Road residents and members of Abahlali baseMjondolo is disgraceful, but that was not the point of my post – see Seminar Room http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/abahlali-basemjondolo-our-movement-is-under-attack/ for more on this.)
Of course, there are tendencies in the ANC under Zuma that are worrying – as you point out and as I have pointed out. But that is not the point. I contrasted the management styles of Mbeki and Zuma. Style is not necessarily substance. One has to be very blind not to see the difference in leadership styles between the two men.
Henri, there you go again with the “African way”. This kind of generalisation is truly unhelpful. To me it is also offensive.
Vuyo, a last point. To argue that the ANC endorsed the centralisation of power in the hands of Mbeki as proof that Mbeki was not dictatorial is not convincing. The national Socialists endorsed the power grab by Hitler but that did not make Hitler a democrat (I am not equating Mbeki with Hitler, of course, but you get my drift).
sirjay jonson says:
October 12, 2009 at 14:02 pm
“I recall that much analysis and commentary post-Polokwane has suggested that President Zuma is a puppet leader, that it is ANC policy he follows, not so much his own opinions.”
That was also my impression. Even now I get the impression that the NEC makes the decisions, and the President just receives the orders and has a choice – obey or resign. Not really in line with the Constitution, in my humble opnion.
I do think that Zuma is concerned about trying to please as opposed to making tough decisions that could end up being fairly unpopular.
I will of course concede that it would be unwise for anyone in politics to disregard the import of popularity. But the desirability of popularity cannot be the overarching concern as a matter of course. That is, some times tough and unattractive decisions have to be made.
I think that one can possibly infer that the recent Constitutional Court appointments further sustain the view that Zuma is a pleaser who is loath to making tougher calls.
Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng was appointed. Justice Davis did not even make the short list of seven. Mogoeng Mogoeng apparently has little constitutional law experience – he conceded as much at his interview. Davis is a world renowned expert. To my mind, one very relevant question is: which of the two would add immediate jurisprudential value to the bench? The answer here is remarkable only insofar as it is so obvious: Davis would add value at once whereas Mogoeng Mogoeng would need a jurisprudential minute to find his consitutional law feet.
Now there are already fine jurists on that bench who happen to be black. And while I mean no disrespect to Mogoeng Mogoeng J, the question here is: why would Zuma overlook lawyers with much in the way of relevant exerience especially when the Constitutional Court bench is, speaking numerically, hardly in need of racial transformation? Could some people reasonably infer that he was trying to please those people in our society that he thinks it prudent to try to please? I certainly think so.
As the Professor makes out, leaders may welcome commendation and popular support. But they must sometimes make difficult decisions which may detract from their popular appeal. Zuma seems to offer much in the way of pretty speech. But many citizens of this country do not want his prose. Many want sound leadership. Some people may doubt whether they are receiving it.
Don’t be fooled Zuma is in charge. He might be avoiding certain issues but I have been told he cracks the whip behind the curtains.
Gwebecimele says:
October 12, 2009 at 15:38 pm
If having risen to the highest office in the land despite the enormous political and legal challenges that he faced is not enough to convince some people that Zuma is a formidable politician, nothing will.
There’s not a single politician who is presently able to challenge him politically and “survive”.
That he does not micro manage is an indication of strength, not weakness as some surmise.
Maggs, there is a difference between being a good politician and being a good President. It is one thing not to micro manage. Its another avoiding making the difficult decisions required for the smooth running of the country
I actually get a little tired of this constant need of some commentors to have to keep pschyco-analysing Pierre, coming to their conclusons of his subjectivity and then debating that with themselves. Can’t we for once just get to the meat of the debate and leave out who hates Mbeki/Zuma/Zille, who is anti-black, anti-white, anti-men, anti-women, anti-semetic, anti-”the West”, anti-capitalist ad nauseaum.
To be fair, the President has only just gotten back from taking one of his women to the US and then onto South America for a jol with our Latino trade partners. No time to worry about the Unionists flexing their muscles at Minister Muscle himself, Manuel.
I don’t think there is any doubt he’s a formidable ‘politician’. The thing is Maggs, formidable politicians come in all stripes, take different approaches, and have various intentions and loyalties. Perhaps to be kind one could think of him as an enigma. The nature of an enigma is that it leaves one confused and uncertain.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 15:36 pm
Did Zuma have the discretion to override the JSC nominations?
Mpho, thank you for that. It is, with respect, a constant struggle to press home to some people that one cannot make headway in a discussion unless irrelevant or peripheral issues are suspended.
The issue here is exceedingly clear: deos the Professor offer an arguable point when he makes out that Zuma is failing to extinguish his presidential function to make tough calls and thereby lead? Thus any points that do not (a) agree (b) disagree or (c) proffer qualified agreement or disgareement are guilty of (i) departing from that which is at issue and (ii) introducing irrelevant material which hinders the debate that the Professor has introduced.
And to be fair, one cannot blame the Professor for this. The piece which he wrote is very clear. That is to say, one can tell at almost a glance what position the Professor aims to defend. What we need is a little maturity and analytical discipline from bloggers.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 12, 2009 at 15:51 pm
My comment was in relation to some of the comments, not so much what you wrote.
However my take is that Zuma is in charge (albeit quietly).
The unruly soldiers are extremely quiet, as are the taxi bosses.
Teachers, policepersons, municipal workers have been pulled into line.
The community uprisings have been quelled.
Even Zimbabwe seems to be taking some shape.
There’s a lot happening – just cos JZ is not deriving publicity (yet) from this does not mean that he is not in charge.
The scale of what needs to be done is more than most of us will see resolved in our lifetimes.
That said, I am pondering how some decisions are arrived at – http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091012035805882C998136
Maggs, take a look, if you will, at section 174 (4) (b) of the Constitution.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 16:09 pm
It seems that he did not think that any “any of the nominees are
unacceptable”.
Maggs, my point is that had Zuma (a) applied his mind and (b)been prepared to take the tough, unpopular call on the strength of that application, he would have questioned that acceptability.
Most of the judges on the Constitutional Court bench are black. Thus one might reasonably conclude that the racial transformation of that particular bench was not so pressing a concern. And with that particular concern neatly out of the way, some may well argue that the consideration of relevant experience should have been elevated in import. And in terms of experience and knowledge (and with great respect), it seems one cannot compare Mogoeng Mogoeng with Davis or even Gauntlett for that matter.
In addition to having published in constitutional law and having presided over matters in which constitutional issues were before the court, I gather that Davis J lectures in constitutional litigation – perhaps the Professor will confirm this last point. In short, he is exceptionally experinced and knowledgeable and if given the racial composition of the Constitutional Court bench race was diminished as a concern, experience should have been the decisive factor and Zuma should have made the tough call. He did not. And that brings up a question: is his failure to do so consistent with the Professor’s assertion that Zuma is rather soft when it comes to making hard decisions? That position is certainly not unarguable.
sirjay jonson says:
October 12, 2009 at 15:54 pm
The only tangible issue that I have extracted from Pierre’s piece is “a clash is building up between the ANC and Cosatu about the powers held by Trevor Manuel, Minister in the Presidency, and Ebrahim Patel, Minister of Economic Development.”
I read that there’s an alliance meeting today – maybe that issue will be resolved then.
In any event I do not understand why different formations should not be aggressively engaging for what they believe is appropriate – many of us did after all want to revert to a society of open and easy debate.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 16:33 pm
It seems similar to the Louis Luyt argument that the then President Mandela did not apply his mind.
Maggs, the potential for superficial similarity aside, what do you say as regards the substance of the stance which the Professor advances and with which I respectfully agree? That stance is that there is a basis for the view that Zuma is a pleaser who seems loath to taking tough calls that could impact adversely on his popularity.
Ad profs admonition 14:15.
No need to get so easily offended. Anyway no offence intended.
All I point out is a wide, general, human observation that as a people they tend not to stand together. Not for long. [ The Boere for that matter is the same - they allways "stry" and "stig af"]. Not in churches, clubs, soccer or anything.
Prove me wrong.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 16:41 pm
I think that Pierre and you are wrong.
What of what I said (October 12, 2009 at 16:06) pm do you disagree with?
Maggs, before I turn to your point, would you please offer a reason as why you think the Professor and I are wrong? With respect, unsubstantiated rejections lend themselves to swift dismissal. And in addition, they’re no fun.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 17:37 pm
This Maggs Naidu says:October 12, 2009 at 16:06 pm
and this Maggs Naidu says:October 12, 2009 at 16:34 pm
about covers it.
Maggs, you are right to make out that the Professor’s piece discloses that there is a measure of tension netween the cabinet and Cosatu. But your analysis at October 12 16:34pm does not pick up on the further point that the Professor clearly made: Zuma has not stepped in with decisive leadership to do something about that tension.
And your comments at 16:06pm do not aver that Zuma took the calls that led to the desirable results which you allege took place. So with respect Maggs, it seems you have not addressed the Professor’s point (and mine) that Zuma has demonstrated a propensity for shying away from tough calls.
This is the problem with Zuma as president – he courted many different political mistresses in his campaigning, and now they all want him to put a ring on their finger.
Although the word enigma (used earlier) is a good one. On one hand, we have these stories that Zuma is definitely in control, behind the scenes, making sure that things are done. On the other, it appears as if nothing is really being done. There are some local level corrupt civil servants being ejected (while convicted thieves sitting for the ANC in Parly are protected), there are the right movements and things being said by Zuma, while Malema is allowed to run his mouth off as he wishes without censure, and so forth.
So what is really happening?
I don’t know if the situation is exactly what it looks like, but I also don’t think that we’re only seeing smoke and mirrors – there is some truth in what we see. It will come to a point, I think, where eventually the ANC will either need to give in to Cosatu and the SACP totally, which will be the death warrant for SA, or it will have to split from those two parties, umm, ,I mean organisations. That is where Zuma’s leadership will be most interesting to watch methinks.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 17:50 pm
There are two points in my remarks I made to Sirjay.
One is that the “tension” is the subject of an alliance meeting today http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article146688.ece – we may or may not get to hear the outcome of that meeting but let’s see what happens.
The second is that I see no reason why there should not be aggressive debate in society and, if I may add, why Zuma should intervene to stop that.
I think it will be wrong for Zuma to attempt to shape the nature of debate.
“And your comments at 16:06pm do not aver that Zuma took the calls that led to the desirable results which you allege took place” – I don’t understand what you mean.
If you’re suggesting that each time that some progress is shown or some positive outcome is achieved then the Zuma administration will be credited with sensible governance only if there is some kind of public announcement that “President Zuma gave direction” then I plead no contest.
White people are so tedious… the only reason I vote for the ANC is to piss them off for another 5 years.
When will Julius Malema finally run for ANC president and hopefully allow JP Hlophe a good run at the Chief Justice seat. (possibly amend the constitution to abolish term limits). White land finally redistributed in the best Mugabe-sque traditions, nationalised mines, re-education camps for social “undesirables”…
Until then I whistle “Umshini wam” in the shower every morning…
I ask respectfully, what ‘tough call’ decisions the president has made to date? Not to be flippant but perhaps we are expecting too high a standard. Isn’t it pretty much accepted that ANC appointments are loyal cadre placements.
Have we not been talking for years now, questioning Zuma’s commitment to the Constitution? Are we wrong to question that, or do the facts speak for themselves.
I’m beginning to think we are unrealistic in our expectations now that he is president.
Surely with hindsight, we shouldn’t be surprised.
And Juju is at it untethered it seems.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/local/article147970.ece
For reasons that seem to be understood better by these hacks http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-09-inside-the-malema-machine
Speaking on decisions, I assume its open news that the President’s new tough love, in the vein of shoot to kill, has resulted in innocents being shot today by over zealous police. Combine that with the Kennedy Road horror and its obvious to me we’ve entered an entirely new era.
Maggs, I agree with you (and Michael) that there is nothing inherently wrong with vigorous debate and contestation between the ANC and Cosatu and it might actually be a benefit for democracy. Given the one party dominance of the ANC, the debate amongst alliance partners must be welcomed as it deepens democracy. But this issue is about who in the cabinet should be responsible for what. After the debate, the President must decide this issue – at least that is what the Constitution requires. If he fails to do that, he would not be leading as he should and would not be fulfilling his constitutional duty.
I tend to agree with
Maggs Naidu: October 12, 2009 at 15:45 pm
If there is one thing JZ has proved so far, he is a master at using the forces in play.
I think to understand the current play, one should not linger on TM at all, but rather look at the history and influence of Trevor Manuel. Trevor’s power in the marketplace is already well proven. But he is also used to doing as he pleases. His unilateral change to the SDL threshold (a DoL territory) as an example of his style and power to get away with murder shall be remembered by the labour movement for years to come still, I think.
Trevor Manuel needed to be retained, but how to manage him? It would be foolish of JZ to try to slip a leash on Trevor himself when there are forces that will do the job for him.
Now, when the time is right, he just needs to make sure the collar isn’t too tight.
Black Star is right.
Except in one respect:
Why this talk of Hlophe JP as CJ? Yes, he is a good man. But
he has now shown himself willing to bow and scrape before the white liberals and their “house nigger” cronies.
I say Motata J. for CJ! He will stand up against the Boere. Smash the white suburban walls of racism!
Black Star, truly mate it seems clear that you are bored. But if you are going to treat this blog as a means to get your rocks off, at least try to be interesting. Or in addition to your lack of regard for your fellow bloggers, can we also count on you to be unoriginal?
Dave A says:
October 12, 2009 at 21:42 pm
Too much has been made of Manuel.
He was inspiring and effective as Minister of Trade and Industries – the policy making processes then were inspiring.
As Minister of Finance the early years were great. Thereafter it went awry.
How was it possible for billions of rand to have disappeared/squandered from public coffers under his watch if he is anywhere as near as effective has been made out?
It certainly seems that his ego got the better of him as well – remember his comment “Just who is the Dalai Lama”?
I think that Zuma handled the “lateral” movement of Manuel out of Finance with a masterstroke – there was not a ripple afterward.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 12, 2009 at 18:46 pm
If I understand it properly, the debate is around the extent to which the Planning function is encroaching on even curtailing the Economic Development functions.
I suspect that Zuma will intervene if it is necessary for him to do so, but it’s very unlikely that he will not fulfill his constitutional obligations.
We can all rest assured. Cosatu and Zuma have the same interest. They both realize the creeping dissatisfaction amongst the masses. Cosatu is steadily losing the grip of its foot soldiers. It would be foolhardy to assume that some of the people involved in the recent uprisings (Sakhile etc) are not COSATU by day and angry residents by night.
One of the first acts the government did was to depoliticise the masses. They knew an organized citizenry was a threat. This Mbeki continued with great zeal. This was done through name changes (Sharpville, June 16- Thus removing any rallying points), the abysmal functioning of SANCO etc.
Zuma is distinctly aware of this. His route to perpetuate this is different. Whilst COSATU wants to appease the masses by being involved in legislation, Zuma knows that the current wave calls for increased securitisation. Thus the talk of RICA (registering all cellphones), Freeway Management plans (effectively installing cameras along freeways) number-plate recognition; chip ID, single police force, military rankings, installing cameras on Trains and BRT busses.
It is inevitable at some point that there will be civil society clashes. Cosatu is not in position to recall Patel. He has to live with the empty shell of his ministry. I don’t see the need for zuma to exercise his constitutional perogative. He just has to duck all our questions with his laughter until his ready.
Maggs Naidu: Too much has been made of Manuel.
Perhaps. But I would be cautious about celebrating yet another case of the systematic dismantling of interdependant relationships in the governance of our country.
Maggs, what is your position on the centralisation of power we have been witnessing over the years?
Dave A says:
October 13, 2009 at 10:15 am
“what is your position on the centralisation of power we have been witnessing over the years?”
I am not sure that there is a right model.
I would go for a single public service for example.
Stronger (and more accountable) local governments and the elimination of provinces, in my view, would better meet service delivery needs.
I think it’s unfortunate that functional relationships between municipalities and say schools, police stations and state hospitals in their areas is at best an informal one.
I am ok with centralisation of power as long as we have sufficient checks and balances to ensure that we do not end up with a dictatorship and that the centralisation advances rather than retards development.
But given that we have such weak opposition parties, I suspect that we will be worse off.
“The meeting went very well,” Vavi told Business Day. Dlamini was more upbeat, saying: “We arrived at the meeting smiling, and we left the meeting smiling.”
To some of us, who have always contended (and still do) that Zuma is not presidential material; this state of affairs comes as no surprise at all.
@ Dumisani Mkhize
Interesting contention you got there. Kindly define ‘presidential material’ for me.
Mkhize. Will you kindly let us know who is Presidential Material.
Maggs Naidu, October 12, 2009 at 16:06 pm says:
“Even Zimbabwe seems to be taking some shape”.
I am curious to know which shape Zimbabwe is taking. What is it that Msholozi did to date to influence it to take such a shape? When and how did he perform such an act?
Maggs Naidu says: October 12, 2009 at 16:06 pm
“Even Zimbabwe seems to be taking some shape”.
I am curious to know what shape Zimbabwe is taking? How can one see the shape you are observing that the country is taking? What is it that Msholozi did to date to influence Zimbabwe to take such a shape? When and how did he perform such an act?
mayimele says:
October 13, 2009 at 13:48 pm
Presidential material is being a leader especially when circumstances dictate.
Some of the traits of good leaders are
• Possession of visions of their own. They know where they are leading (or want to lead) their people.
• Being decisive – they put their foot down in moments of conflicts.
• Do not make conflicting promises depending on who the audience is at the time.
Examples of leaders
• Muhammad the prophet
• Moses (in the Bible)
• And to some extent, Rolihlahla Mandela, Bantu Biko and Mangaliso Sobukwe.
• One can add uShaka to this list
Dumisane Mkhize. Who else other than Zuma should have been our President or is presidential material.
Preferable those who are living and are in South Africa.
Welcome back Mayimele. Good to have you on this blog.
Gwebecimele says:
October 13, 2009 at 14:50 pm
“Preferable those who are living and are in South Africa”
Note that Juju did not make the list but Moses did.
Talking about Moses I read that when he commanded all the creatures to “go forth and multiply” a pair of snakes refused to budge from the Ark declaring “We are Adders”.
But Moses’ special advisor (must have been a lawyer) saved the day, by placing the adders on a wooden table and setting them eagerly afloat, declaring “Anybody can multiply on a log table”.
Dumisani Mkhize I like your list of attributes and who you include. I would add two further attributes though:
(1) The ability to listen to people and take advice.
(2) A keen understanding that one is fallible and does not know everything, but is willing to learn (also from one’s mistakes).
Dumisani, I can respect your list of attributes. If I may, I would like to add a further trait to the pool of attributes which you and the Professor have provided: the willingness to put duty before friendship.
I would add the ability to put duty before personal interest when the occassion demands.
Dumisani Mkhize says:
October 13, 2009 at 14:32 pm
I like your list of attributes and that of Prof’s. However, both of you seems to have forgotten that you’re dealing here not with spiritual leaders but political leaders. Being President is not a spiritual position but a political one. I will tackle your bullet points but will use numbers for each respective point that you and Prof. made;
1. It would be difficult for a President to know where he’s leading his people as the concept of leadership in the South African context on its own is collective unlike that of Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, (Thabo Mbeki?) etc. It is basically the party which is leading and not a leader but the latter is just there to put a face to the government. Once he starts to act like a leader and leads people in a particular direction, then he’s labelled as a dictator and not a leader.
2. In politics most decisions are made in order to fit a particular instance at a particular time; flexibility as opposed to rigidity is the name of the game. Rigidity may be what caused people to stop supporting COPE. Remember their ‘rigidity’ or decisiveness on the issue of Affirmative Action?
3. That is exactly what a political leader must do in order to garner more votes and support. If this were the case then we would not have any politicians but priests.
On your list of people I can say this;
3.1 I do not know much about him so I will remain mute as far as he is concerned. However, he was never a politician and being a President is a political post.
3.2 Never a politician as well. I wonder why he needed his brother Aaron though if he had all the attributes you have listed above.
3.3 Mandela; They say a leader in whose absence the job cannot be done is a stupid leader. I need not say more about him.
3.4 Bantu Biko (May his soul rest in peace); his inflexibility cost him his life. He was more of a martyr than a leader. Where did he lead people to, death?
3.5 Sobukwe; I do not even have to remind you of what he did which resulted in the Sharpeville Massacre after he high jacked an idea from the ANC and did it days just before the ANC planned peaceful march. Moreover, the main reason why he broke from the ANC to form his own party, PAC, is because of the deeply-held prejudice against white people. Remember he was objecting to the line that ‘South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black or white.’
3.6 Shaka; I do not know why you even consider him a leader. The man does not fit the attributes you have listed above. He was just a man whose heart was filled with vengeance against those who persecuted him in his youth and his mother, Nandi, and had an unquenchable thirst and insatiable appetite for power. He terrorised other tribes without any particular reason. He is the main reason why today there are Ndebele’s in Zimbabwe.
4. Prof.; your first point is not synonymous with acting upon the advice that a person receives from others. If that were the case, then there would be no need to have a leader but to decide everything in a referendum since we can all make decisions.
5. Good point Prof.
6. Leigh; remember a President does not get to be a President entirely through his own means. His friends help him along the way. Now for one to ignore those friends after one becomes President may result in a speech on tv to the effect that he was put there by the party and must obey the party when it wants him to step down as a President (sounds familiar?).
Sne says:
October 13, 2009 at 17:00 pm
I always thought that Presidential material is defined by our constitution chapters 47 and 86 I think.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 12, 2009 at 18:46 pm
“this issue is about who in the cabinet should be responsible for what. After the debate, the President must decide this issue – at least that is what the Constitution requires. If he fails to do that, he would not be leading as he should and would not be fulfilling his constitutional duty”.
———————————————————————————————————
It seems that the right things have been done.
“It was the ANC’s task as alliance leader to ensure it remained intact, and it was the role of the alliance’s leaders to ‘keep the ANC strong and united so that it can lead the alliance and the country effectively, Zuma said.
“At its ordinary meeting on Monday, the alliance’ political council reconfirmed that it respected ‘the right of individual alliance partners to discuss and arrive at their own decisions on how they seek to pursue their strategic objectives’.
“‘Consistent with this principle, the ANC will continue to determine, in its own structures and processes, how best to advance its own strategic objectives,’ it resolved.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/local/article149612.ece
Maggs Naidu says:
October 13, 2009 at 17:25 pm
Those are the legal requirements Maggs. However, it goes well beyond that. If we were to use the legal requirements only then we would end up with morally bankrupt individuals as Presidents. The moment we start to look to the law to define everything that we ought to do or not do is the moment we will lose all our values. It is the moment we will appoint an acquited man who was charged with molesting kids to be pre-school teacher; an atheist to be a Sunday School teacher; an acquited man who was charged with rape to be in charge of a female correctional service facility; a drunkard to be in charge of Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. I am sure you catch my drift so I will stop.
The fact that there are no legal prohibitions against the above individuals does not mean we cannot object to them holding these positions on moral or other grounds. The law does not regulate everything…
Sne says:
October 13, 2009 at 17:42 pm
LOL!
Our parliament has some people with interesting histories but who meet the legal requirement.
Hey even our judiciary has more than tea drinkers.
Fortunately (or unfortunately) it’s X marks the spot, everything else is purely emotional.
If we allow or entertain that which is not defined in law, then we get all kinds of different criteria, some crankier than others.
Sne says: October 13, 2009 at 17:00 pm
After years of following this blog. You comment is the most unfortunate, i have come across, as it shows that people like the owner of this blog are succeeding in bamboozling Africans into identifying their heroes as worthless villains.
Of course, I am making this comment in the assumption that your name is of African descent given to a child of African descent.
Vuyo et al,
Our work is really cut out here. But let stick to the truth. If we do that, our history will not be distorted.
And our president was supposed to make decisions, that impacted on our safety, based on this crap:-
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-13-agliotti-i-do-lie-from-time-to
Nx!
Khosi, what happens if people find reasonable grounds for doubting their heroes? Can they then regard people who do villainous things as villains? Or, should African people idolise African icons as a matter of course without any independent thought?
Khosi, who are your heroes? Tony Yengeni, who was convicted of fraud and carried to jail like a king of old on the shoulders of his fellow cadres? JZ, who it has been proven took money from a convicted fraudster for favours? Who mysteriously paroled said fraudster suddenly? Perhaps Jackie Selebi, who is up for fraud and corruption? Maybe the Travelgate MPs, who still sit in Parliment, ashamed only that they were caught, not that they violated the trust of the South African people? Perhaps Hlophe, who understands as much about ethics and integrity as the aforementioned luminaries?
@Leigh,
Sne is not raising doubt, Sne is saying that these people were not proper leaders and by inference, they are not heroes. There is a huge difference there. Sne seems to be totally ignorant of the context in which these people operated, I would assume because contextualizing African leadership in an African setting is of a lesser merit than leadership in a different context. And to Sne, it seems, that differing context would yield unquestionable leaders and by extension heroes. Sne calls these people less than leaders and in so doing tries to dim the light that these people left so that we Africans can see where we are going. I do not need to tell you the consequences for people languishing in the dark.
Africans walking in darkness, is exactly the ultimate goal of blogs like constitutionallyspeaking.
@the bigger sleeper,
Yours is not worthy of much of a response. So there you go!
Thanks Khosi.
I did not know how to respond to Sne; mainly due to disbelief.
@ Professor de Vos
Some of the contributions above provide the perfect contextual reference for my criticisms relating to your Selebi-post. Should your posts, and subsequent comments, not unequivocally demonstrate an opposition to the brand of thinking displayed by ‘The Big Slipper’s and the ‘ Sne’s of this world? Sure, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion; but your posts should surely set useful parameters to the nature of debate?? I can find NO merit in tolerating the views as expressed by ‘The Big Slipper’ above, and believe that the attitude on display causes more damage to a prospect of a stable future society that is safely ensconced within a rule of law… than any academically-dispassionate ‘monitoring’ of the machinations within the judicial system could resolve – UNLESS you would be willing to provide a more enlightened focus to the topics that you introduce, and also show a willingness to expose the reactionary nature of some of the comments above.
George, I obviously do not subscribe to the views expressed by Big Slipper or Sne above. A cursory reading of any number of posts on this Blog would confirm that. I have often railed against racial generalisations, Afro-pessimism and the like. This is also a Blog where people can freely express their views. I do not censor anyone. I “tolerate” the wild rantings of people who call me a racist, attack all whites for this or that or make generalisations about black people as I happen to believe in freedom of expression on this forum (although in other contexts do not support an absolute theory of freedom of expression). My problem with your criticism of my Selebi post is that it comes perilously close to suggesting that any statement by a white person who might be taken by any black person (or anyone else for that matter) as racist (no matter how absurd or over-sensitive it might be) should be avoided. As we live in a society permeated by race (as I have often written) that would in effect mean that any criticism of any black person and any statement pointing out the foibles, hypocrisies and prejudices of a black individual must be avoided. As I have often written, I do not subscribe to that view because it buy into the racist discourse of some whites, a discourse that says the actions of one individual represent the actions of the whole race of that individual. When one criticise one black person one criticises the race as a whole. This is nonsense. This kind of race-essentialism is deeply reactionary – whether perpetrated by white or black. I have also written about the need to be sensitive to context and how one speaks, as I believe we should be aware of the power differentials in society and the historical race-oppression context from which we are emerging. But I insist that this cannot and should not prevent one from mocking an individual or organisations for their hypocrisy. That would insulate all black individuals from any criticism and would treat black people not as individual human beings but as representatives of their race without any agency of their own and that is demeaning to us all.
George, you seem to take fairly strong exception to the Big Slipper’s views. With respect mate, it strikes me that if any views are deserving of reproach, those views are yours.
I am going to touch on two features of your views which I think merit criticism. In the first place, whether you find no ‘merit’ in tolerating the Big Slipper’s views is largely irrelevant. The Big Slipper enjoys a right to freedom of expression. Thus speaking constitutionally, you are obliged to grudgingly countenance views which are not constitutionally impermissible. Or to couch the same sentiment somewhat differently: I am sure the Big Slipper realises that she (or possibly he) will just have to brook the hogwash that Jules Malema often communicates. The up side to that is that people who take issue with her (or his) views will have to do the same.
The second grievance that I have with your objection to the Big Slipper’s post is, by my reckoning, the more alarming of the two. The content of the Big Slipper’s post is largely factual. And even where she/he offers a bit in the way of analysis, in the language of delict it seems that her/his communications could very well amount to fair comment. So it seems that to a not insignificant extent, you are essentially suggesting that the Professor ought to censor facts and fair comment that you do not like reading about. With all respect, that is, in addition to a few other things, mightily presumptuous. As the Professor has often had to explain – and with a fair measure of restraint I might add – facts remain facts whether we like them or not. And I would add that the censorship of fair comment in a constitutional democracy that purports to recognise freedom of expression is untenable.
George is right.
Pierre and Leigh, it causes me great pain to see you resorting to the old liberal excuse of “free speech” in defending Big Slipper and Sne. You come across as human rights fundamentalists when you pretend that free speech is some kind of absolute, a trump card to be pulled whenever bigoted discourse bordering on hate speech is challenged. As George so eloquently points out, it is all a matter of CONTEXT.
What grates me is that he Big Slipper’s racist discourse animates all the familiar racist tropes that nourish and sustain white domination. Why does his list of names of people who have supposedly acted unlawfully contain not a single “white” name? Coincidence? I think not.
Then Big Slipper disrespeks our President and General Selebi, neither of whom have been convicted of anything. (Perhaps the Big Slipper has never heard of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”)
Worst of all, Big Slipper sarcastically attacks Judge President Hlophe. Is he aware that our JP has never been convicted of anything? Is he aware that he has been exonerated by the JSC? Is there no room in the Big Skipper’s tiny bigoted world for the undisputable fact that Judge President Hlophe is one of the finest legal scholars in the world today, and perhaps of all time? Does he even know of John Hlophe’s magnificent contributions to the struggle, that he drives a shiny black Porsche, and of the fact that he has been known to enjoy fine red wines, and hunting?
All of these things the Big Slipper chooses to ignore in his single-minded zeal to degrade all that is black. Shame on you, so-called Big Slipper! Shame on you!
Leigh says:
October 14, 2009 at 6:35 am
We either rely on the constitution or we don’t – the “presidential material” attributes that some have suggested is nowhere in our constitution and serves only to highlight what some think is good or not good (as they see it) about Zuma or Mbeki.
Relying or not relying on our constitution is an interesting way to push particular points of view but ultimately has only entertainment value.
While I think that Sne’s views on the Dumisani’s heroes is almost completely off the mark, Sne is entitled to that.
Khosi is correct, in my view, that it’s easy to be influenced (particularly with regard to African people who materially shaped and continue to shape society) by those with nefarious agendas and we should be cautious when considering their opinions.
As an example, for while I was of the opinion that Chris Hani was a power crazed extremist who was intent on violent overthrow and destruction – based on what I read and heard on various media at the time. That was until I started reading the full text of his speeches or listening to him speak – it was very different to the media sound bites which were designed to portray him in the way that shaped my early opinions. While I don’t have personal heroes Chris Hani (and Stephen Hawkins) are as close as it comes.
I do however think Khosi is wrong by assuming that singular thinking about heroes/heroines (or anything for that matter) can be found along racial or ethnic lines.
The Big Slipper is completely off the mark, but George is wrong that Pierre should have headmaster, prefect, bouncer status. Whatever needs to be challenged, unpacked, interrogated, denigrated, humoured, dismissed, laughed at, ignored or whatever needs to be done right here by everyone who feels the need to (and that includes Pierre).
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 14, 2009 at 8:35 am
Hey Dworky, happy Wednesday.
Please tell me what I mean by my earlier comments – without your generous guidance I am in null space about it.
Oh Leigh – I forgot to add that Dwork is my hero!
Maggs, I have a lot to do this morning, so I cannot furnish a full analysis right now. Can it wait? (Sorry!)
Prof, it appears there is something wrong either with the functioning of this blog or my laptop and the internet facility am using. Since last week I have been unable to view recent posts on any topic you posted. When I log in it does show how many comments have been posted under the topic but when I click on the comment it always show less posts than the number indicated and the old ones for that matter making it impossible for me to follow the proceedings of the discussions or contribute. For instance, under this post on my side it indicates that since yesterday in the afternoon only 59 comments have been posted but when I click on the comments I only view less than 40. I have posted a comment I think early yesterday under this topic but I cannot see it and am not sure if there was any response from the blogger it was addressed to that required my response or not. Am I the only one experiencing this problem?
mayimele,
try scrolling down to the end of the messages and clicking on “Older Comments’
Mikhail, thank you for the post. And I will add also that it certainly brings up questions that I hope you will consider for me.
One, let us say for argument sake that some black politicians spend lavishly on luxuries such as fancy cars. And let us say also that these big spenders claim to understand the needs of impoverished black people in our country. The question is: are these two points reconcilable by your reckoning? That is, can one at once (a) spend freely on luxuries and still (b) reasonably claim to understand the needs of impoverished people?
Two, if a white person were to say that the two foregoing points are not reconcilable, would that amount to racism?
And three, if your answer to question two is yes, would you kindly say why?
You see, my tiny, bigoted outlook has this nasty habit of obscuring answers that should be obvious. And in addition, I am rendered all the more incapable of seeing the logic here because I am only now overcoming a virulent and persistent bout of Hlophephobia.
So any help which you might provide would be greatly appreciated.
Dumi, I have always tried that option many a times but in vain. To see your response now I had to open this blog and leave it open from around 9h00 to now which is more than what you can experience with a slow computer system. But thanks for your effort to assist.
mayimele says:
October 14, 2009 at 11:14 am
Seems more like a technical issue.
If you’re using firefox, firetune may help.
There are tweaks for Internet explorer as well, but for the more technically inclined.
Khosi, sorry to repond to your post so belatedly.
I appreciate the content of your post. But, with respect, I am not altogether clear as to whether it answered my questions.
Let me just add that I am not unaware of the possibility that your culture is very dear to you. If that is so – and that does happen to be my guess – then I apologise for any discomfort which my questions may have caused.
But in case you (or anyone else) is interested, the reformulated question is: should an African person embrace African values and icons as a matter of course and thus deny herself the opportunity to choose which values to observe and which people to admire?
Maggs, based upon the advice you have given Mayimele, it appears to be you may be quite a cyber-fundi yourself!
I usually use Firefox. Do you think if I fit Firetune it may lessen the odd misunderstandings that keep cropping up on this blog, wherein you think I am disagreeing with or contradicting your views?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 14, 2009 at 12:42 pm
No it won’t.
It’s that cyber lesion thingy that is the root of all evil.
Maybe you need to get a dose of ccleaner.
Methinks your registry is messed up and buffers full of outdated files.
@Leigh
Sne is not choosing a value system. Sne is distorting history.
Sne can choose whatever value system that Sne feels make Sne happy. What I, for one, will not allow her to do is equate prominent African lights with the worst that West has offered. Sne is tacitly saying that the worst the West can offer is the best African can offer. And that is just out of line.
Maggs. Is not suprising that not a single name has come up as an alternative to JZ as presidential material. What the fuss is all about?
Et al
LOL! It makes me laugh to read all the personal attacks against me. Note; against me and not against my views. I provided bases for opining that the people I have quoted above do not qualify as leaders to ME. However, those who are against my opinions have merely attacked me and not my post. This is most unfortunate as what I have said still remains and will continue to cause Africans to “walk in the dark”. Oh, Khosi, I am not a ‘she’ but a ‘he’. I am a black man who is proud of having differing views.
I am tired of this ‘victim’ mentality and low standards that black South Africans often display and apply when it comes to facing the facts involving other black Africans. I am disappointed in people who shout on rooftops that the white judges who were judges during the Apartheid era should have resigned whilst we have judges in the Constitutional dispensation who find it difficult to divorce their deeply held prejudices (Motata J?), to obey the law (Motata J?) and to behave in an ethical manner that we demand Apartheid judges should have behaved (Hlophe?). I am tired of people who propose that the Apartheid govt. was bad whilst the current govt. is walking right in the footsteps of its predecessor!
I cannot countenance the idea of forcing my fellow white compatriots to adhere to high standards whilst I cannot apply those standards to my black compatriots’. I cannot rally behind Zuma and Hlophe just because I believe their sins are brought to light just because they are black whilst there are white people perpetrating the same sins who are not brought to light. That argument is a disaster and will lead us nowhere. I cannot accept these low standards! I cannot live my entire life being ethical and obeying the law and still be expected to rally behind unethical and criminal leaders just because they are black!
Khosi this has nothing to do with white or black not with West and Africa. The moment we stop looking to the West when carrying on with our activities is the moment we will stop being paranoid. The likes of Mandela, Biko, Hani, Lembede, etc worked hard their entire lives to give us the life that we are living today. I cannot think of any reason why I would want to throw that away by settling for low standards or being expected to keep quiet just because the person who is committing the injustice to me is black! That is complete crap! I admire your affection for the former President Mbeki but he was no saint just like the ones before him. Admitting that does not mean black leaders or African leaders are failures but it just means we need to improve on what we came up with and demand more from our leaders and not less. I cannot keep quiet and pretend that I am content with our current and previous leaders while I am not. By so doing I would be like white South Africans who are being forced to carry the sins of their grandparents by being told to shut up or being accused of being racists. That will not happen to me!
I write what I like…
Sne, very cool post mate. You seem to have embraced something which many black South Africans appear to struggle with: one can at once (i) embrace the admirable products of one’s culture and (ii) reproach the less savory attributes thereof.
With all respect, the advocacy of communitarianism which many black South Africans tacitly communicate looses sight of the possibility that such advocacy can easily lead to the suppression of individuality. That is, people could, in a sense, end up being enslaved by culture.
Personally I think that the dictates of reason ought to trump the dictates of culture at every turn. That is, where cultural directives are consistent with the best available conclusions, those cultural dictates should stand until better conclusions are determined. And if it all boils down to a tension between an indefensible cultural practice on the one hand, and a tenable conclusion on the other which happens to run contrary to the cultural demands, well then culture ought to gracely make its way of screen.
@Sne
I am glad that you have responded and you have also watered down considerable on your rather unfortunate posting from yesterday. I have read your postings many times before and many times I had thought of you as an ally. Hence, I was shocked and disappointed that you chose to represent African leaders in such an unbalanced manner. People like Pierre and Tony Leon must have been rejoicing.
I have noticed that you have now introduced the word ‘standard’ into your unfortunate argument. But Sne, that is the whole point of our rage. You are seemingly trying to judge African on a standard that no one else has adhered to. I would agree that we should hold ourselves to a high standard, but the context that our leaders operate makes such a standard an unachievable ideal. I do not think we, as Africans, should be hard on ourselves about this since other people with more forgiving operating contexts have also failed to attain such a standard.
But to entertain you further, I would request that you forward us a name of one leader, in the world, who has led flawlessly and like a ‘saint’ until the end. And if you fail to do so, I would like for you to tell us, why it is you only chose to rant against Africans as opposed to leaders in general.
Let us not fall into a trap of raising the bar(standard) too high so that everyone who comes along fails. Just because we are human all of us will have our faults but there are non-negotiables though. This trick is being used especially against Black leaders and executives. All current and past leaders have their shortcomings Blair, Brown, Putin, Obama, Museveni, Mugabe, Morkel, Chavez etc. Having said that we must continue demanding the best from our leaders.
@ Khosi, Sne and Gwebecimele:
I think Gwebecimele makes a very fair point here. It seems one could unpack Khosi’s central submission thus: one should not be over critical of black leaders. And Sne’s point seems to be that people are not obliged to overlook unsatisfactory governance that is provided by black people.
As mentioned earlier, Gwebecimele’s analysis seems reasonable: do not be too harsh. But very importantly, do not be too kind. This position seems to amount to a pretty comfortable reconciliation of the principal contentions put forward by Khosi and Sne.
@Leigh,
I think you need to familiarize yourself with what I have said. At no point do I say that we need to be kind to African leaders. All I have said is that we cannot judge African leaders using a standard that has never been met, especially given the context of African leadership.
I find it vile and condescending when people try to accommodate flawed points of view, like Sne’s, by elevating themselves to the ones who offer the middle way.
Gwebecimele says:
October 14, 2009 at 15:09 pm
“Let us not fall into a trap of raising the bar(standard) too high so that everyone who comes along fails”.
Kinda like the attributes of “Presidential material” being those things that are liked or not liked about presidents depending on how one wants to massage the outcome and lean it in a particular way?
Khosi,I said that one way in which to unpack your submission is that one should not be over critical of black leaders.
You said the following to Sne at 14:55pm:
‘You are seemingly trying to judge African on a standard that no one else has adhered to. I would agree that we should hold ourselves to a high standard, but the context that our leaders operate makes such a standard an unachievable ideal. I do not think we, as Africans, should be hard on ourselves about this since other people with more forgiving operating contexts have also failed to attain such a standard.’
Do you dispute that a reasonable inference to be drawn from this quote is that you think Sne is holding ‘African’ to an unreasonably high standard? In other words, that She is being over critical? If you do, then on what grounds do you dispute that this inference is reasonable?
Moreover, when I spoke of harshness and kindness, I sought to suggest a middle ground between unfair criticism (which I think you would condemn) and over tolerance (which I think Sne would condemn). At no point do I say or suggest that you believe we ough to be kind to Africam leaders. Rather, I made out that on your view we should not be too harsh – and there is, I think, a marked difference between not being too harsh on the one hand, and being kind on the other. And that on Sne’s view we should not be too kind. And that the position which I suggested could potentially represent a stance which both you and Sne could find agreeable.
As for Sne’s views, it seems you and I are going to have to disagree on that score. With respect, I think that there is much of value in what Sne says. I am also much impressed by his determination to draw independent conclusions.
Gwebecimele says:
October 14, 2009 at 14:11 pm
“Is not suprising that not a single name has come up as an alternative to JZ as presidential material. What the fuss is all about?”
It’s far nicer to pretend that there objective and rational reasons for undermining the oke.
Leigh says:
October 14, 2009 at 16:11 pm
“In other words, that She is being over critical?”
———————————————————————————————————
“3.4 Bantu Biko (May his soul rest in peace); his inflexibility cost him his life. He was more of a martyr than a leader. Where did he lead people to, death?”
Biko was murdered!
Since you are well heeded to qouting me on what I said at 14:55 pm, could you please provide me with an answer on the following
At 14:55 pm, I said:- “But to entertain you further, I would request that you forward us a name of one leader, in the world, who has led flawlessly and like a ’saint’ until the end.”
————————————————————————–
Also, you then say:- “I am also much impressed by his determination to draw independent conclusions.”
Can one thus infer that it is the showmanship that ‘draws independent conclusions’ that seduces you and not the credibility of the conclusion. Cause I will further suggest fault at that, because Sne’s so called ‘independent conclusions’ are not independent at all. Many white people who want to see African fail think that way and many Africans who have been bamboozled into seeing themselves as of a less worth, seem to think that way too.
Khosi, this additional quote which you ask me to entertain lends itself to the same inference as the quote reflected in my post at 14:55pm. That is, by asking Sne to forward the name of a political paragon, you aim to press home that (a) such people do not exist and that (b), Sne has been over critical of African people.
You seem to make out that Sne’s conclusions are not independent but the consequence of having been bamboozled (lovely word by the by
). I will not dispute that it is possible for people to be influenced to accept views. But reading Sne’s post at 14:15pm, I must say that he does not strike me as someone who has been bamboozled. That is, he demostrates both the resolve and the capacity to draw his own conclusions. So on this score, I will agree with you in principle that people can be bamboozled. But I shall part ways with you on the facts insofar as I absolutely do not think that Sne fits that bill.
@Leigh
On being bamboozled, and at 14:15pm, the subject says:-
‘I cannot countenance the idea of forcing my fellow white compatriots to adhere to high standards whilst I cannot apply those standards to my black compatriots’.’
But if you follow the subjects line of argument, the subject seems quit willing to reverse that argument. Would you not call that being ‘bamboozled’?
Khosi, please indicate where and also how Sne shows any willingness to reverse the following stance which he advanced: he is not willing to tolerate the questionable behaviour of black public figures just because they are black.
Leigh says:
October 14, 2009 at 14:34 pm
Thanks Leigh. I agree with your post. You have nicely summed up my feelings when it comes to my culture. I have always believed that my culture does not bind me but merely serves as a guideline to my life. I have a choice of what aspects of my culture I will follow and those I will not follow.
khosi says:
October 14, 2009 at 14:55 pm
Bro, it is most unfortunate that you have been considering me as your ally. That explains why you have been blindly defending Mbeki on this blog. I expect you to associate yourself with what I say at best and not with me as a person. Following me would make it difficult for you to admit when I am heading astray just like you cannot tell (or admit) when Mbeki is wrong or misguided. I find it difficult to accept the flaws of my leaders (breaking the country’s laws, defrauding Parliament and tax payers, sleeping with HIV positive people and taking a shower, being showered with love after being convicted of fraud and corruption, etc) which I do not commit myself. Maybe we who need to check ourselves as maybe the leaders we elect reflect us as the people who have elected same.
I do not understand why we should allow ourselves to fail just because others have failed. If we were to do that then we would never improve. I cannot believe that you’re suggesting since a certain point has never, in your opinion, been reached before then we should all stop striving to reach it and accept that it is unachievable. That is very pathetic bro. This is an opportunity for the ‘Africans’ to produce a leader of such a calibre.
Chief Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo… you said one so I will stop here. You see, I did not even need to look abroad.
Gwebecimele says:
October 14, 2009 at 15:09 pm
Good post.
@ Leigh and Khosi
I am gonna let you two argue it out…
Sne, no worries brother. I am sure I do not need to remind you: be the best possible ‘you’
@Sne,
If this were a private conversation, I would contest the sainthood of the name you have just put forward in response to my question. But to do that, in this forum, would certainly lead me back to where you started, when you referred to our fallen heroes as vindictive, deeply prejudicial, inflexible and unilateral in their dealings. Because you miss the context, you will also miss the point.
The problem here, is that you are conflating peoples personal flaws with African leadership flaws. I agree with you, there has been some great African leadership mistakes, but Africans leaders are by no means alone in making such mistakes.
So please humor me, go abroad. then I can engage you fearless of entrenching your inherited prejudices
On ‘following’ you, obviously I am doing none of the sort now. So that whole summon about me ‘blindly’ defending TM, is quite mute.
@Leigh,
His intolerance is not just because the leaders are black. His intolerance is precisely because the leaders are black. And my dear, that’s the problem.
hosi says:
October 14, 2009 at 18:34 pm
“If this were a private conversation, I would contest the sainthood of the name you have just put forward in response to my question. But to do that, in this forum, would certainly lead me back to where you started, when you referred to our fallen heroes as vindictive, deeply prejudicial, inflexible and unilateral in their dealings”.
Is that the same as saying that it’s ok to hold the views, but it’s not ok to say so not in the open?
@Maggs Naidu,
The primary issue is context.
@ Maggs: I believe that Khosi is entirely justified in choosing to avoid further critical dissection, (relating to – inter alia – the leadership-attributes of the various African individuals listed), in this forum. It would, (as I interpret Khosi’s reaction), merely provide further sustenance for reactionary glee amongst the scavengers on this blog.
@ Leigh: The predominant reason for my comments on this blog, (and you would find that reflected as consistent theme, if you were to bother looking at all my posts), is a weariness with the ‘talking-heads’ syndrome – which in your rarefied circles of South African ‘debate’ tends to reflect mere mental- masturbation, whilst pretending to take an ‘objective’ view of things. I certainly do not expect Professor de Vos to play the role of Headmaster, or ‘censor-in-chief’. But, as you can see under PdV’s ‘water’- posting, I am not the only one that feels a deep-seated aversion to views that CANNOT provide constructive engagement; (in that instance PdV is in fact asked whether it would not be possible to remove DwarfWhisper32 from this blog). I made no such call – for censorship – I asked that PdV set the tone for debate and provide that focus which would, hopefully, a) stimulate constructive contributions, and b) cause those still committed to the dissemination of reactionary views to feel as unwelcome as possible. Those sentiments don’t (necessarily) stem from an intolerance that is born from being “presumptuous” — as you suggest — they primarily stem from the fact that 90% of those contributions that do use varying degrees of subterfuge to disguise an ‘establishment-agenda’, are merely echoing the dull drumbeats of the DOMINANT-view. Those Dominant-views are regurgitated, day-in and day-out in the mass media; kept alive by a reactionary establishment that is constantly, feverishly trying to point out how the introduction of “African values” are a de facto indication of a future “drop in standards” in this country. How disappointing, therefore, to find this site occasionally held to ransom by much the same attitudes. ‘The Big Slipper’, (and many others), have a DOMINANT mass media proclaiming their views at every conceivable opportunity. Why should a site of this nature – one that surely aspires to constructive and well-considered analysis – be invaded and distorted by those who are already dictating the public perceptions of an enthusiastic reactionary-sector in the ‘real world’??
You obviously feel less concerned about the ideological context of the contributions on this site —- being devoted to ” the language of delict” and the legal definition of “fair comment”, and so “impressed” by any African who shows that rare “determination to draw independent conclusions”; (shades of that old successful formula, ‘divide and rule’, as basis of your “admiration” ??). You state that “facts will remain facts whether we like them or not”. Are you suggesting that ‘The Big Slipper’s’ dissing of African individuals is inspired by ‘facts’?? Please excuse my sensitivity in that case; the underlying tone of contempt in his little contribution must have clouded my appreciation of the relevant ‘facts’? If one objectively analyzes his so-called “fair comment”, it represents a familiar brew of fact, half-truths, insinuation, speculation, stale assumptions and media-driven character- assassination. However, the ‘integrity-rating’ of those specific individuals are NOT the central issue at stake. I am concerned by the ideologically-driven agenda, and ignorance, which dares to suggest that a) those individuals would necessarily feature on ‘Khosi’s’ list of ‘heroes’; and, by logical extension b) imply that any other African individual – whoever ‘Khosi’ would care to mention – could only be considered less worthy than those individuals so sneeringly nominated by ‘The Big Slipper’.
But as you would apparently prefer that I respond to ‘factual’ drivel at that same level of mediocrity, here goes: Who are ‘The Big Slipper’s’ heroes?—- Jan van Riebeeck … van der Stel? — both recalled by their superiors following corrupt and / or incompetent terms of office at the Cape; The Voortrekkers? — long on racist obstinacy and short on brains; Piet Retief? — a colonizer and mass-murderer, too dumb to realize that Dingaan was trapping him with the oldest trick in the book; Paul Kruger? — who hid in Europe, with his stash, when the Boer War became a little too hot for his liking; Langenhoven? — who used a tide of Afrikaner self-determination to have Afrikaans installed as official language, when there was no logical or moral precept for doing so; Hendrik Verwoerd? — a foreigner, from Europe, installing his version of the Nazi-project in Africa; Owen Horwood, Connie Mulder, Louis Luyt?– talk about fraud and corruption!; P.W. Botha? — a megalomaniac with the (very) common touch; Anton Rupert? — who built an empire by having next-week’s newspaper delivered to him … today, by the Broederbond; Harry Oppenheimer? — ditto; Magnus Malan, Wouter Basson? — talk about murder and mayhem!; F.W. de Klerk? — a smooth-talking two-face who only remains in South Africa because technology now allows him to access foreign bank-accounts without having to literally follow in Kruger’s footsteps; Pik Botha? — an opportunist grease-ball who surely thanks his lucky TRC-stars every night before going to bed; the majority of MP’s that ‘represented’ their minority constituencies for close on 50 years until 1992? — must surely, (to paraphrase ‘The Big Slipper’), be both ashamed and relieved that they were not caught for violating the trust of the South African people.
Your heroes Leigh?? I suspect those would resort more under the category of ‘King and country’ — stiff upper-lip and all that.
When you state that “the dictates of reason ought to trump the dictates of culture at every turn”, you seem oblivious to the fact that your very definition of ‘reason’ is a cultural construction!! The fact that Western ideology has so swamped every nook and cranny of cultural diversity, (in ALL contexts, unfortunately), should not excuse either your ignorance, or your unwillingness to acknowledge the ideological foundation that supports both the origins and the intent of your much-trumpeted ‘reason’. Your statement that “the advocacy of communitarianism… can easily lead to the suppression of individuality…people could, in a sense, end up being enslaved by culture” , (African Philosophy 101, by the way), is pretty ironic within the South African context — So the fact that ‘Khosi’ might be willing to excuse President Mbeki’s failings must logically be ascribed to the all-consuming enslavement by communitarianism… whilst your possible inclination to excuse Helen Zille’s failings would be attributable only to your powers of reasoning? — Have you ever paused to consider the HUMAN dynamics that are unleashed when an ‘all-knowing’ and vindictive establishment persists in its attempts at occupying a (deeply flawed) moral high-ground, by pointing out the failings and shortcomings of a new order… not in the spirit of co-citizenship, (although that is a popular alibi), but with the desperate intent to prove one of the central tenets of the old establishment-ideology; i.e. : ” You guys are inherently incapable of making this work”. Leigh, don’t run to the safe, (but dishonest), haven of academic- sidetracking, by patronizingly equating valid human concerns and perceptions with a supposedly blind adherence to communitarianism.
Your eagerness, in (deliberately?) misinterpreting, (and then misrepresenting), some of the comments above, suggests a typical predilection for ‘legal-speak’… that ‘noble’ language of jurisprudence, which prizes an endless, dispassionate massaging of ‘facts’ – without any regard for ‘truth’ and even less respect for ‘justice’. To paraphrase another well-known slogan: ‘the medium has become the verdict’… within the consistent practice of obfuscation and sophistry that passes for legal- deliberation in the modern era. You condescendingly misrepresent ‘Khosi’s’ views, by stating that “Khosi’s central submission being ‘one should not be over-critical of black leaders’ ” — whilst I had no difficulty in interpreting ‘Khosi’s’ views in the manner that he had apparently intended. Your attempts to later demonstrate ‘room for misunderstanding’ are totally unconvincing. Does this indicate my superior skills in interpretation… or your determination to obviate the central gist conveyed in ‘Khosi’s’ views? (I fear your ‘misinterpretation’ might be of more shallow origin: if your opportunistic rephrasing, that ‘ one should not be over-critical of black leaders’ was not challenged, it would provide the ideal springboard for further generalizations and your brand of liberal ‘understanding’ … a la legalese 101).
Yes, I do, as you point out “take fairly strong exception to ‘The Big Slipper’s’ views”; simply because I consider those views to represent a greater threat to the prospect of future stability in this country, (when seen within the context of that establishment which is nourished and supported by views of that nature), than the (reported) views of a Julius Malema.
Does your constant usage of the word “mate” — and the phrase “…no worries brother…” — represent Freudian Slips, indicating an imminent downward hop to happier climes; or does it merely mark a personal stand against any form of communitarianism? Either way – whether your personal coaching is sourced from an African-Colonial or Oz- worldview, (or from Oprah?) – I would find it difficult to believe that ‘Sne’ would not cringe upon receiving your patronizing little gem of ‘encouragement’, that: “…brother, I am sure that I do not need to remind you: be the best possible ‘you’ “. Good God!
@ Professor de Vos: My criticism, regarding your ‘aside’ on the ‘Selebi’-post, certainly was not intended to legitimize the “discourse that says the actions of one individual represent the actions of the whole race”. I was also not suggesting that you “insulate all black individuals from any criticism”. I was however of the opinion, (and still am), that your bandwagon of choice in that ‘aside’ reflected poorly on your undoubted insight – and that I had not expected someone of your stature to stoop to the level of distributing racially- tinged fodder for mass consumption.
@ Dwork: Your sarcasm is hilarious and genuinely appreciated as light relief!! I am just a little uncertain which approach, (in South African context), is the most dangerous: Leigh’s brand of earnest, well-intentioned clichés…….. or your brand of iconoclastic sabotage.
george says:
October 15, 2009 at 7:04 am
@ Maggs: I believe that Khosi is entirely justified in choosing to avoid further critical dissection, (relating to – inter alia – the leadership-attributes of the various African individuals listed), in this forum. It would, (as I interpret Khosi’s reaction), merely provide further sustenance for reactionary glee amongst the scavengers on this blog.
———————————————————————————————————-
Sne seems to be laying the blame for much of the wrong that is happening today on those who have gone before. That cannot be correct.
I think I understand and appreciate Khosi’s and you response, however not unpacking Sne’s points of view may well let it fester and grow. On the other hand Sne may well be able to convince those of who have a different view, from that which I think he is saying, otherwise.
I am not sure which is the lesser of the evils – avoiding critical dissection or providing”further sustenance for reactionary glee amongst the scavengers on this blog”.
I assume that the scavengers that you refer to are not dungwhisperer and alibaba.
@ George
@ Maggs
Yes. We progressives must indeed temper our debates, lest in our candour we feed the appetites of the racists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries and liberals that lurk amongst us.
(We recall that one of the reasons the Hlophe JP matter had to be dropped was because it would be just too upsetting to have pillars of the black elite hacking each other in public. People would lose respect.)
Pierre, would it be possible to set up a separate and more “exclusive” blog, wherin those of us genuinely committed to Transformation may freely express our progressive views, out of the hearing of the unreconstructed Carrion-Eaters?
Hey Dwork,
Thanks for telling me what I meant (I though it was something else).
Is the PHD thesis interesting reading?
@ Maggs
Actually, I did not know that was what you meant.
What I intended to do was to make a suggestion that I thought extended (and NOT merely reiterated), a very fine idea that George and you seemed to be developing.
I am always confident that if you think my proposed so-called “extension” goes too far, or is just plain crazy, you will tell me so, and explain why!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 16, 2009 at 9:09 am
“Actually, I did not know that was what you meant.”
Damn – now both of us don’t know what I meant.
Nevermind.
Share Alibaba’s thesis, that is probably more interesting.
@ Maggs
I have not had the pleasure of reading Ali’s Phd draft. You will be the first to have my thoughts once I have.
I am confident that Ali’s masterwork will be very nuanced, yet also provide incontrovertible evidence for a thesis that is hardly controversial: The Bantu Tend To Overflush.
@ Khosi
“…Africans leaders are by no means alone in making such mistakes.”
——————————————————————-
Exactly the kind of attitude I do not like and the line of argument that was used to support the causes of Zuma, Hlophe, and now (though apparently to a lesser extent) Selebi.
The fact that a mistake is universal does not deprive that mistake of its identity or substance of being a mistake. Instead of pointing faults in the people pointing out the mistakes in us, we should be looking for means to obviate those mistakes. This is the only way we will become better people. By criticising (black) Africans leaders I am not pointing out their inability to become good leaders but I am making them aware of their shortcomings so that they can use the room for improvement and improve their leadership.
Moreover, I am disposing of this syndrome of blindly following leaders without question or utilising our own thinking. Leaders are exactly that, leaders and not bosses. They are human and do make mistakes but if they cannot admit same then they are elevating themselves to demi-gods and that I cannot accept. We live in the Constitutional dispensation now and we ought to utilise that to demand better for ourselves. This will keep our democracy alive even when we are no more. Letting leaders rule without question and not pointing out their flaws will be tantamount to elevating them to demi-gods incapable of making mistakes and by so doing we will be eroding the principle of accountability and thereby groom dictators not leaders. I cannot tolerate that!
PS: Maggs you can read this and understand the intention behind my earlier submissions herein.
Sne, I agree with you.
Asked to justify Pres Zuma’s visit to the autocratic regime in Angola, Pallo Jordan repied by saying something to the effect: “Well, Hillary Clinton also went to Luanda.”)
The logical form of this brilliant syllogism:
1. Premise 1: The SA govt is accused of doing bad thing X.
2. Premise 2: The USA (or the apartheid govt), also did bad thing X.
3. Therefore, it is OK for the SA govt to do bad thing X.
Very nice work.
Khosi, it seems to me that Sne makes a convincing argument. And if Sne will forgive me if the content of this post is at all presumptuous, I will respectfully state what I read as being the core thrust of that argument below. The reason as to why I will do so is this: Sne and I appear to agree in principle. And I think we would agree further that the position upon which we concur is hardly contentious. I would like to determine whether you would contest that position and if so, the subsequent query would concern the grounds upon which you would do so.
The argument is this: saying that a shortcoming is universal or at least prevalent does not relieve it of its nature. That is, a shortcoming, however wide spread it may be, is still a shortcoming. If we want conditions to improve, we ought to suspend our fascination with trying to determine the flaws of the people who underscore the shortcomings of our leaders. Whether they are motivated by noble intentions or malice is in many material respects irrelevant. And we should, for at least the most part, confine our inquiries to the business of holding our leaders accountable for their failures and transgressions. Moreover, if we fail to hold our leaders accountable, we merely encourage lacklustre performances.
Leigh, agreed.
People who push this “everybody-does-it” type defense probably do not see an acute historical irony.
Condemned by India at the UN, South African’s man in New York would reply – “but look at your caste system, just as bad as apartheid!”
This was a seductive argument. Countries like India were indeed astonishingly hypocritical in their targeting of apartheid SA. Quite often, national guilt is sublimated by accusing others of the very sin that most blights one’s own state.
The problem is that there is a complete logical disconnect at work here. The fact that he who points the finger is himself a revolting hypocrite has nothing at all to do with the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
Sne says:
October 16, 2009 at 10:22 am
I am fully behind that some of our leaders leave a heck of lot to be desired – as I said elsewhere, it often seems that the ANC is scraping the bottom of the barrel with some of the deployees while it has a wealth of really good people.
That however cannot be the blamed on the the likes of Nelson Mandela, Albert Luthuli and Steve Biko even if there are some aspects of their lives that may not be entirely acceptable.
I agree fully with “(l)etting leaders rule without question and not pointing out their flaws will be tantamount to elevating them to demi-gods incapable of making mistakes and by so doing we will be eroding the principle of accountability and thereby groom dictators not leaders.”
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 16, 2009 at 9:50 am
“I am confident that Ali’s masterwork will be very nuanced, yet also provide incontrovertible evidence for a thesis that is hardly controversial: The Bantu Tend To Overflush”.
Seems Alibaba has found the solution to overflusing – he swallows.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 16, 2009 at 11:34 am
“That however cannot be the blamed on the the [sic] likes of Nelson Mandela, Albert Luthuli and Steve Biko even if there are some aspects of their lives that may not be entirely acceptable.”
……………………………………………………………..
I do not know where you and Khosi got the idea expressed in the quote above from. Apart from pointing out flaws in the leaders which were provided by Dumisani Mkhize, I did not anywhere in my post say that these leaders are responsible.
The only exception is in respect of former President Nelson Mandela. I harbour great admiration for the man for being a man of principles and for what he has achieved at a personal level and for our country. However, that does not mean I should not point out the fact that he did not raise or groom a leader who was going to continue where Mandela left off or who was going to lead us into a different but correct path. This, needless to say, was a failure on the part of Mandela. Then I opined that a leader in whose absence the job cannot be done is a stupid leader. I did not proffer this opinion in order to blemish Mandela or to prove that (black) Africans cannot lead us properly but I did it because we all know that regimes the world over came to an end or were weakened by the failure on those who were leading before to ensure that there is a proper succession plan or another leader who will lead after the current one. The ANC provides a quintessential example of this when it was time for Mbeki to leave the Presidency. Kingdoms, empires (Roman Empire), chiefdoms (Xhosa King Phalo’s sons Gcaleka (he subsequently formed Transkei) and Rharhabe (he subsequently formed Ciskei) who fought over who shall lead after their father, deeply divided the Xhosa chief/kingdom. Remember Dingani and Mhlangani after the death of the aggressive King Shaka?)
For their failure to foresee and pre-empt such an eventuality, these leaders (Mandela, King Phalo, etc. had flaws and I will not overlook those flaws just because they are (black) African leaders or just because apart from the above, they were good leaders. After all, they were human and not beyond reproach.
PS: Next time please both you and Khosi should try to submit a post which will go against my main submissions as I am against proliferation or multiplicity of side issues with the resultant clouding of substantive and real issues.
Sne, well put.
@ Michael Osborne and Leigh
Thanks very much for summarising my posts so eloquently. I do not understand why Khosi, Maggs (though to a lesser degree) et al find it difficult (perhaps impracticable) to understand the gists of my posts. I am very close to concluding that they do not have anything substantive to say as a response to my posts and that is why they just attack the side issues and accuse me of a variety of things which are incongruous or irreconcilable with my submissions.
@Sne, Leigh et al…
I do not much remember who but someone once said ‘Beware of the Mother Colonialism, it presents its cannibalism as nurture’.
Let me remind you where we started with all of this. You (Sne), rubbished the leadership of Mandela, Biko, Sobukwe and Shaka. And I then put it to you that such belligerence is uncalled for because the standard that you seemingly want to use, is a standard that has not even been achieved even in societies that have more forgiving contextual realities than the African reality.
I asked you provide Western examples of flawless and ‘saintly’ leaders, you have failed. Then to plug holes in your leaking defence, you then drag in Zuma, Hlophe and Selebi into your argument. But Sne, the later individuals are not even a shadow of the luminaries that you have rubbished. You are lavishly misrepresenting African leadership by 1.) rubbishing great African lights 2.) Making use of lesser individuals to support the first mistep.
I used the mother colonialism quote, to illustrate to you that:-
1.) either you are being mischievous by telling us that you want Africans to be the best they can be; while forwarding, in disguise, an argument that tells us that there is not much good about being African.
2.) You absolutely have no grasp in the bigoted foolishness of your argument, hence people like Leigh will cheer you on until they get across their own prejudices.
As a fellow African, I again suggest you personalize the following quote:- ‘Beware of the Mother Colonialism, it presents its cannibalism as nurture.’
Sne, October 16, 2009 at 12:24 pm
While you are at it, could you please tell us how a ‘succession plan’ would work in a context where people, not the current leader, choose their leaders?
Michael, thank you for your contibution. You rightly make out that the identification of hypocrisy, however logically disconnected from the true issue of possible guilt it happens to be, is a seductive line of argument. It is seductive because it relieves those who are partisan to the accused party of having to acknowledge that party’s potential culpability.
I do not think any debater – be she a professional such as a barrister, or even a dinner table gladiator – relishes making uncomfortable concessions. But the appropriate sympathies aside, it bothers me that many people who are seduced by the cack-handed reasoning which you eloquently reject do not seem to appreciate the inherent cowardice in responding to accusations in that way.
@ Khosi
“Beware of the Mother Colonialism, it presents its cannibalism as nurture.”
Reminds me of something Malcom X once said:
“Kittens may be born in the oven. But that does not make them bread.”
Khosi, I expect that most people have their prejudices. And I expect also that it would take either an exceptionally accomplised or an exceptionally ignorant person to claim that she is completely free thereof.
I am very curious though as to what prejudices you think I have – at least those prejudices for which the current discussion discloses a basis.
To revisit the stances that I have defended during the course of the present discussion: I advanced that people ought to strive to enjoy the intellectual and personal freedom to criticise their cultures if they identify tenable grounds for doing so. I said also that I agreed with Michael that identifying an accuser’s hypocrisy is readily distinguishable from the consideration of the accused party’s potential guilt. And I also commended Sne for having the resolve to resist letting his culture suppress his individuality. And I would add here that I would commend anyone else, of whatever race, creed or persuasion, for doing the same.
My question to you is: exactly what prejudice does any of the foregoing disclose?
@Leigh,
“Beware of the Mother Colonialism, it presents its cannibalism as nurture.”
Khosi, it seems clear that this quote is dear to you. But if you would kindly identify the prejudices that my views demonstrate…
Or couched differently: if you mean for this quote to indicate any prejudices which you think my sentiments denote, what prejudices are we dealing with?
@ Khosi:
Nice quote on cannibalistic colonialism.
What do you say about this quote:
“The national bourgeoisie steps into the shoes of the former European settlement(…)its mission has nothing to do with transforming the nation; it consists prosaically of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged, which today puts on the masque of neo-colonialism. What becomes apparent is that all that has been won through the anti-colonial struggle is a new national bourgeoisie which is no different than any other bourgeoisie.”
- Fanon.
It is my understanding that you Leigh, has not put forward a view. You have merely acted as a cheerleader, guardian, praise singer, foster, cultivator and basically mothered and nurtured Sne’s unfortunate point of view. All this because you are impressed by this African’s (Sne) willingness to, as you put it, ‘draw independent conclusions’. As if any opposing conclusion is devoid of independence and it only exists because of the African ‘culture’.
Surely you can see the prejudice in that. Stop pleading ignorance.
@ Khosi
Pertaining to the opening and closing quotes of your post submitted at 12:35 pm, I am sorry bro but I am immune to emotional blackmail. However, challenging you to substantiate the gist of your quotes would be doing exactly what I do not like; entertainment of side issues and clouding of real issues. Therefore, as tempting as it is, I will not explore this avenue.
Firstly, this did not start with me rubbishing the ‘leadership’ of the quoted individuals. It started with me asking for the attributes of a person I consider a leader. I did not rubbish the quoted leaders’ leadership skills but I merely pointed at flaws, something the advent of the Constitutional dispensation rightly allows me to do. I will not entertain the obviously misguided submission that we should not strive to achieve a standard that has never been achieved before. This is more like saying just because no South African cricketer has ever scored a triple century in test cricket, all SA cricketers should not strive to achieve this! Complete rubbish. Now that is an argument I am rubbishing bro.
The fact that you want me to provide you with Western flawless and saintly leaders despite having provided you with (black) African ones, is indicative of your propensity to always look to the West as the authority for what you must or must not do and what standards you must or must not use. It pains me to see that you have political power and to a limited extent economic power but yet you are still subject to your (ex?) colonial Masters. You will only become really free of colonialism once you start living as a South African independent of the West. You constant attempts to undermine the West are like those of blacks who speak English to each other in the presence of white (Afrikaans-speaking) people to ‘show’ them that they are erudite! Pathetic really.
We were discussing (black) leaders and Zuma, Hlophe and Selebi are (black) leaders. There is absolutely all the reasons for me to “drag” them into this discussion especially Zuma who is the President of RSA. Your argument in this regard is also ill-founded. Once again I am not rubbishing African leadership but merely expressing my opinion as a free thinking South African citizen. Why dont you do likewise? Therefore, your submission in this regard is ill-conceived as well.
The points you have raised below merely indicate the abundant insecurity that many young (black) South Africans have. We tend to be defensive in everything with the unfortunate result that we end up failing to do an introspection and ameliorate ourselves and our lives. Do away with this bro otherwise one day you will feed your kids racist garbage!
Pertaining to the succession plan. I have two options; I can either think for you as the ANC by giving a succession plan or I can tell you that the ANC leadership has centralized power so it can discuss and agree on who the next leader will be. I choose the second one.
Khosi, this last post of yours is completely off the mark. I have obviously put forward a view. The view which I have advanced happens to coincide with views expressed by Sne, Michael and also much of what Maggs said at 11:34am. But it remains a view which I have advanced and defended nonetheless.
I must say that there is an element of your posts that I find extremely disquieting: you seem to be trying to take ownership of Sne. You want his loyalty. You also want to hold sway over his thoughts. And the most alarming point of all is that you accuse me of trying to aim at gaining clout over his thoughts and thus remain unmindful of the increasingly likely possibility that it is in fact you who are doing so.
I agree with what Sne says as regards his views about (a) the best conception of culture’s significance and (b) the import of drawing an intelligible distinction between hypocrisy and potential culpability. Had a Swedish person, whiter than the driven snow, presented the same views, I would have agreed. Had a Chinese person done so, I would have lauded the logic. Or had a Russian tendered the same discourse, I would have been equally impressed.
Perhaps you really ought to check your views for questionable content. Khosi, as difficult as it might be for you to accept this: African people, like any other people, can think for themselves.
@Sne,
1.) On ‘Western flawless and saintly leaders’ as against the ‘(black) African ones’ that you provided.
Sne, I have addressed the reasons for my preferences here:- khosi @
October 14, 2009 at 18:34 pm. I am not going to address this again, so far as to say my choice on whether to accept or reject the African names that you put forward has nothing to do with my need to use the West as an authority. Because if you were to crudely follow my submissions, I would not have to tell you that the crux of my argument is that the West has no authority at all, especially when it comes to African contexts. I am then putting it to you that, your repeated failure to provide me with such names, from the West, stems from the fact behind my argument and that is, there no such thing as a flawless and ‘saintly’ leader, anywhere in the world. And you merely put forward the African names so that any dispute, on my part, would have lead to a form of discovery on the names you provided. And that would have gone further to substantiate your unfortunate view.
Which then brings me to the cricketing analogy:-
2.) Firstly the ‘advent of the Constitutional dispensation’ does not render any point of view bigotry proof nor does it render any point of view safe from critical probing. If your cricketing analogy, in the context of leadership, stands to say that as Africans we should strive and be the first ‘to achieve a standard that has never been achieved before’, that would mean such a standard, in the context of leadership, has never been reached before and you were just selling a dummie or, at the least, being disingenuous in giving me the names Luthuli and Tambo.
3.) On the insecurities of black South Africans. I totally agree with you that such exists. But that is not the subject, we are talking about African leadership and not people who, their whole lives, were/are told that they are worth less than others.
4.) On succession. Mandela simple did not have the power to make the call on who was to succeed him. And I, for one, am thrilled that he did not.
@Leigh,
Rubbish man. The very reason of that what I said @13:58 pm, was to put it across to you that just because a particular view is held by an African, that does not necessarily mean that point of view has a burden of culture on it shoulders. So do not tell me that ‘African can think for themselves’ and than imply that such is only possible if that African holds a view critical of Africans. That view is classic Mother Colonialism view. (take note that I always refer to Mother Colonialism in capital letters)
than = then
Khosi, one can only think for herself if she is willing to think critically. And that involves being willing to be critical of her culture and of people of shared ethnicity. She may be African, Greek, German or whatever.
I will use extreme examples here to further clarify what is actually quite straightforward in principle: should a modern day Italians excuse slavery just because Romans once recognised it? Should a Chinese man who loves Chinese history and many Chinese values excuse footbinding just because it was once practiced in China? Should a Columbian forgive the cocain trade just because his countryman might have grown the dope? Of course not. So why should an African person overlook transgressions or errors just because Africans may have committed them?
Yes Africans can and should be fairly and reasonably critical of Africans. Greeks should not be afraid to tender fair criticism of Greeks and so on.
@Leigh,
Your last post is at least, utter nonsense…. and at best, mute. Maybe you should revert to cheerleading Sne.
khosi says:
October 16, 2009 at 14:58 pm
…………………………………………
It is (un)comforting to note that this post of yours, although it ostensibly sought to reply to my post, contains nothing which negates nor slightly refutes what I said. Until you provide me with a reply which damages the substance of my posts (as opposed to side issues), I will refrain from engaging you any more on this score. Clearly, we are going around in circles here.
@Sne,
No, we are not going around in circles here. Wena Sne, you are failing to defend the indefensible and you have caught yourself in a spaghetti of narrow-mindedness.
As Africans we cannot and do not have the luxury to be content with saying we are thinking independently, when such thoughts and views only serve to entrench prejudices about ourselves. I, for one, will never tolerate such even when I am labeled as one drowning in insecurities.
Sne
I did not respond earlier on not because I couldn’t but because I thought it would be a waste of my time; but I have since changed my mind. Here are my responses to your responses – which I restate for the sake of convenience:
Sne said: “It would be difficult for a President to know where he’s leading his people as the concept of leadership in the South African context on its own is collective … It is basically the party which is leading and not a leader but the latter is just there to put a face to the government. Once he starts to act like a leader and leads people in a particular direction, then he’s labelled as a dictator and not a leader.”
I say: “A president, even in this context, is still a leader. He has to understand the mission of his party and be willing to lead the party towards the achievement of that mission. If we put a person as a president just to put a face in government, why should we be surprised at the mediocre level of delivery? By the way, leadership and dictatorship are not synonymous terms.”
Sne said: “In politics most decisions are made in order to fit a particular instance at a particular time; flexibility as opposed to rigidity is the name of the game.”
I say: “Flexibility and conflicting promises are not the same thing. Also, a leader does not have to be exercise flexibility in an irrational manner. There is a big difference between decisiveness and rigidity. Leaders should be decisive yet not necessarily rigid. Even flexibility involves decisiveness. Decisiveness implies knowing and be willing to do what has to be done in order to achieve a desired outcome.”
Sne said: “That is exactly what a political leader must do in order to garner more votes and support. If this were the case then we would not have any politicians but priests.”
I say: “I would agree with you if the aim of running for political office is to get votes – of course it would seem to be the case judging by the selfishness of those in power. I would argue that the purpose of running for office is to serve the people. Winning votes and ultimately winning the election is just means to and end and not an end itself. The end is taking care of the well-being of those who are supposed to be served.”
Sne said: “Once again I am not rubbishing African leadership but merely expressing my opinion as a free thinking South African citizen.”
I say: “Your response to me suggests the exact opposite. I agree with khosi. Take a look at your response and my comments below:”
Sne: “Mandela; They say a leader in whose absence the job cannot be done is a stupid leader. I need not say more about him.”
I ask: “Aren’t you insinuating Mandela is stupid? Some people, especially millions around the world who revere the man, will see this as rubbishing Madiba. I do.”
Sne: “Bantu Biko (May his soul rest in peace); his inflexibility cost him his life. …. Where did he lead people to, death?
I say: “A person who leads his people to death is an irresponsible leader. Any other person who was inspired by Biko, and those who still draw inspiration and guidance from his writings, will take issue with your statement. You are in fact calling Steve Biko irresponsible, yet you claim not to rubbish the man. I ask you, why would an oppressor want to murder an irresponsible leader who, for all intents and purposes make their mission easier?”
Sne: “Sobukwe; I do not even have to remind you of what he did which resulted in the Sharpeville Massacre …. Moreover, the main reason why he broke from the ANC to form his own party, PAC, is because of the deeply-held prejudice against white people. Remember he was objecting to the line that ‘South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black or white.’
I ask: “Didn’t Sobukwe subscribe to the idea that an African is one who owes allegiance only to Africa? A far as I can read this line, it makes no reference to the colour of a person. In your later post you claim not to have said these leaders are responsible; yet here you are holding Sobukwe responsible for the Sharpeville massacre instead of putting the blame on the perpetrators of that dastardly deed.
Sne: “Shaka; I do not know why you even consider him a leader. …. He was just a man whose heart was filled with vengeance against those who persecuted him in his youth and his mother, Nandi, and had an unquenchable thirst and insatiable appetite for power.”
I say: “Some of us are proud members of that proud Zulu nation; thanks to the bravery and insights of a man they called “Ilembe eleqa amanye amalembe ngokukhalipha”. I hope you know that many people around the world, including African-Americans, hold him to very high esteem. In fact they identify with him. I don’t have to tell you that your comments about him tantamount to rubbishing him.”
You are entitled to your views, but don’t claim not to have rubbished our esteemed leaders because you have just done that; even though you are “merely expressing my opinion as a free thinking South African citizen.”
Dumisani Mkhize says:
October 17, 2009 at 1:39 am
Thanks for your response bro. I will respond to your post using numbers to refer to the points you have raised in their order.
NB: My failure to respond to each allegation in your post should not be construed as an admission of the veracity thereof. I have already made my opinions known in respect of your other points and therefore deem it unnecessary to reiterate same herein. Had I had sufficient time to respond to your post I would refer you to each relevant para in each relevant post which addresses same. I respond as follows;
1. Thanks very much for restating my posts as that has made it quite easy to respond to yours.
2. If you look closely into the ANC leadership, which, needless to say, is the ruling party, you will understand my concerns. The recent events, which include the political assassination of Mbeki, will reveal that as long as we don’t question the leadership and expect them to adhere to high standards, they will start taking the electorate for granted. This is especially true in the context of our country where the Apartheid is still fresh in our minds and the ruling party emotionally blackmails people to force them to vote in its favour. To substantiate my argument, have you ever checked how much the state broadcaster (as opposed to public broadcaster) called SABC plays the Apartheid movies and documentaries just before elections? Pertaining to leadership and dictatorship not being synonymous, tell that to the members of the ruling party who don’t need qualifications to hold posts in Govt but only need to become card carrying members of the ANC.
3. This does not negate my points here but merely introduces new allegations, marshals same as mine and refutes them. Basically, no need for a response.
4. Good points but you need to relay same to the likes of Nathi Mthethwa, Fikile Mbalula, etc. who are busy spending our taxes. Quintessential examples of the fundamentally flawed “leaders” I am talking about.
5. I reiterate, I am merely expressing my opinion which you may differ with instead of attacking me or the intention behind what I say;
5.1 The fact that millions around the world revere the man does not mean I am not entitled to have my own opinion about the man or take issue with one of his leadership flaws. Lenon (a member of The Beetles) who was revered around the world, made a statement to the fact that the Beetles were more famous than Jesus Christ. Does the number of people who revered him and/or The Beetles mean I must not take issue with his utterances? To me it does not!
5.2 Of course it is their prerogative to take issue with any of my statements and I must respect their rights to do so. However, you need to afford me the same rights that you are exercising against me even by posting this post I am responding to. You need to allow me the right to say what I feel. I view him in my own way and I am legally entitled to do so.
5.3 Sharpeville Massacre – It is a fact that the march against the pass laws was an idea conceived and was to be carried out by the ANC. It is another fact that the PAC under the leadership of Sibukwe high jacked this idea and 10 days before the march planned by the ANC, the PAC marched and its march resulted in the Sharpeville Massacre. It is another fact that during the material times the PAC was under the leadership of Sobukwe. White prejudice – It is a fact that the PAC broke out of the ANC due to its rejection of the relevant line in the declaration. It is another fact that it was Sobukwe who was the leader of the break-away faction. Now, can you come up with ‘facts’ which will rejects my facts?
5.4 This has nothing to do with Zulu people. I must however hasten to express my disappointment in your statement about the Zulu nation. I thought we had one nation called South Africa – the land of diversity. What is next, Xhosa nation, Pedi nation, etc? Shaka may have been brave but that does not refute the fact of his desire for absolute power by eliminating those who were opposing him and the neighbouring tribes he viewed as threats to his intended dominance and his desire for revenge against those who persecuted him and his mother in his youth. Both these resulted in the Mfecane or Difaqane which cost many (black) African lives and for which I still hold him personally liable! These are facts and no amount of admiration from the African-Americans will change these!
5.5 If I have rubbished these leaders by pointing out their obvious flaws then you are welcome to “un-rubbish” them by defending them. So far you have dismally failed. I consider a failure to objectively look at oneself and honestly comment on what one sees as the worst kind of treatment one can dish for himself. I will continue to “rubbish” our leaders in an attempt to groom better ones especially in view of the apparent mixture of crappy leaders who are after tax-payers money that the ruling party seems eager to produce! This is my opinion as well…
And yet I am expected to give praise to my “leaders”!
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article163096.ece
Sorry for the diversion from the topic at hand…
Fidel Castro would always be an icon of history evethough he is against the U.S.”‘;
@ Maria Howard
“Fidel Castro still have some good legacies despite his not so good repuation”
Yes, and apartheid still have some good legacies despite its not so good repuation.
Fidel Castro may not be a hero for western countries but he did a good job in providing subsidized medical care in Cuba’*`