A news report this morning sadly reminded me of the novel, The White Tiger, in which Arivind Adiga provides a cunning and often brutal depiction of India’s class struggles. The fortunes of the main character, Balram Halwai, a cynical, foul-mouthed, but witty narrator, rise after he murders his boss.
In the novel Balram, a chauffeur, recounts his transformation from an honest, hardworking boy growing up in “the Darkness” – those areas of rural India where education and electricity are equally scarce, and where villagers banter about local elections “like eunuchs discussing the Kama Sutra” – to a determined killer. He places the blame for his rage squarely on the avarice of the Indian élite, among whom bribes are commonplace, and who perpetuate a system in which many are sacrificed to the whims of a few.
As in India, most South African politicians claim to care about the poor and to promote “pro-poor” policies while acting in naked and often corrupt self-interest. Surely, only the utterly naive or blind can still believe that the South African elite – of which politicians form a part - care at all for the poor and destitute who they see as useful idiots who will act as rent-a-crowds at election rallies and other glorious celebrations of the struggle (and of other events valorising our new democracy) while remaining no more than voting fodder to legitimise the elite’s relentless accumulation of wealth through corrupt tender practices and and other nefarious activities.
According to the Azanian People’s Organisation (Azapo) some residents of Itireleng near Laudium, west of Pretoria, were evicted recently without the relevant court order required by the Constitution and the law. “This refers to evictions carried out in portion 25 of the farm Mooiplaats in Ward 61, Tshwane,” Azapo’s Gauteng chairperson Samore Herbstein said in a statement.
The Anti-Privatisation Forum was on Thursday meeting with lawyers to draft an urgent application to the North Gauteng High Court, in a bid to force the government to provide housing to those evicted. The application would be filed at a later stage, not on Thursday, as reported earlier. Herbstein claimed the sheriff of the court, the City of Tshwane, police and Tshwane metro police at the scene refused or failed, since Tuesday, to supply a copy of the court order to either Azapo or the attorney hired by Itireleng residents.
This kind of thing is not new. A report drafted by the Centre on Housing Rights and evictions (COHRE) and recently submitted to the Constitutional Court in the KwaZulu/Natal Slums Act case, claims that the City of Durban almost never acquires the requisite court order before evicting poor people who live in informal settlements from their homes, quoting Mahendra Chetty of the Legal Resources Centre in Durban who told them:
The City, as a matter of regular and consistent practice, acts in flagrant breach of the law. I have never come across one incident where the City has acted in accordance with the law in terms of Section 21 of the Constitution and the PIE Act. I do not know of one instance where the City has carried out an eviction with a court order.
In terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution “no one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances”. The section also prohibits arbitrary evictions. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (no. 19 of 1998) (called PIE) gives legal effect to this provision.
The Act requires that a court must consider the rights and needs of certain vulnerable groups of unlawful occupiers, including the elderly, children, women-headed households and the disabled. If the unlawful occupier(s) have been in occupation of the property for longer than six months, the Act requires that the court must consider whether land is available, or can reasonably be made available, by the owner or the local municipality to which the unlawful occupier(s) can be relocated. The Constitutional Court has also said that before a legal eviction can take place the Municipality, Provincial or National Government must engage in a meaningful way with those affected in order to try and find an amicable solution.
This is the main reason, I suspect, why Municipalities evict people without obtaining a court order: they do not want to take any responsibility for having to engage with the poor – who they see as a dirty, selfish bunch of people standing in the way of realising lucrative tenders for them and their friends. And - god forbid - they obviously do not want to have to be forced by a court actually to have to provide poor people with alternative accommodation when they are forced from their homes.
Poor people often do not have access to lawyers and cannot resist such flagrantly unlawful actions by our new tenderpreneurial class. Where poor people are organised – often under the auspices of the Landless People’s Movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo, the Anti-Privatisation Forum or other social movements – they resist such blatantly unlawful action by politicians and the officials. No wonder the leader of Abahlali is in hiding after members of his movement was attacked and drove from their houses near Durban: these social movements stand in the way of the brutal and selfish accumulation of wealth by the new political elite and their cronies. (After all, as Smuts Ngonyame once said: “I did not struggle to be poor”.)
Some of the social movements have an ambivalent view about the law and about the principle of the Rule of Law. They point out that the law often criminalise poverty and are often used by the elite to victimise the poor. The use of loitering by-laws and trespass laws to lock up “undesirable elements” (also called political opponents) are good examples of this.
But, I am with the late British Marxist historian, E.P. Thompson who said that the Rule of Law is indeed an unqualified human good. As we have seen in Durban and now apparently again in Itireleng, where the law provides protection for the poor and such a law is blatantly ignored, the poor will suffer.
The law is not always just and it surely does not always serve the interests of the poor, but it does provide an important tool that can be used in the struggle against the heartless and corrupt political elites and their cronies. The law can also be used to help mobilise people and to help them to resist the actions of officials and politicians who have one eye on a Porsche and another on a bottle of Johnny Walker Black Label.
A very sad spectacle for our country. As time goes by the more we sink into lawlessness and exploitation of the poor. I guess the question now is;
how long are the masses gonna take to decide enough is enough and start seeing the current laws in the same light as those that were promulgated in the Apartheid era?
I cannot help to wonder to what extent the courts are responsible for the situation. Perhaps if the judges dished out a couple of de bonis propriis cost orders in the past things would have looked different today
Quick question – if I go out for the evening, and come home and there is someone in my backyard who has set up a temporary structure in which they now ‘live’, am I obliged to go to Court to evict them, or can the police simply remove them on the basis that they are trespassing?
Where do you draw the line? When does someone become an occupier as opposed to an intruder/trespasser?
Provisions of s4(6) of PIE
“If an unlawful occupier has occupied the land in question for less than six months at the time when the proceedings are initiated, a court may grant an order for eviction if it is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so, after considering all the relevant circumstances, including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women.”
LOL!
Normally I vouch for the respect of President and/or his office but the cartoon contains such an essential human truth that I have to applaud Zapiro for it… Keep up the good work Zapiro especially after that interview!
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-15-uproar-over-new-zapiro-cartoon
Can’t we suggest that Shaik’s apllication be the first one to be dealt with so that we can get over and done with this.
Friday evening after a day in the fields, time for a comment: You folk are all partying likely. I prefer a quiet glass of wine in my gardens in the Klein Karoo.
I see Zapiro has zap’d (zapiro’d) us again with his prescient wit; whether JZ is pissing on Justice or continuing the analogy of raping justice, nevertheless, his satire today is so clear, such painful truth, and brave I might add. Not sure I could do that. Gird your loins, the knights used to say.
How do we get past this assault on our Democracy in 2010? And not only Democracy and the vital rule of law, but the growing hatred of either militants towards whites, white rednecks towards blacks, or the injured who care about this country and all its people, and who I believe have made amazing efforts to accept the transition and who still work towards the benefit of all in South Africa through Democratic beliefs, EXPECTATION, and actions.
I noted an important article by Solidarity at politicsweb today, which for some strange reason has been removed. I just went there for the link now and its not posted, whereas earlier it was the lead post. The subject relates to the exclusion of white children, as the only excluded children, from bursary possibility with a bank in question we’re all familiar with.
The jist of the article expertly describes the difference between constitutional law and ‘transformation’; transformationalists being ideologists, rather than constitutionalist. Further, that the drive today within the ANC is transformational, not constitutional, and that the Constitution in their view and intent must take second place, therefore the transformationlists feel justified in ignoring and abusing the Constitution.
Well, we know their ulterior motive don’t we? Now we know the modus operandi.
God save South Africa, well something has to, right?
Sne, I am a firm believer in Davies’ J-Curve theory; it explains the violence prevalent in this country; like you I see the snowball growing, the intervals between outbursts growing shorter.
This is nothing to relish.
We have twigged that you are growing impatient waiting for wealth to drop in your lap.
Tell me please what this country looks like the day after your revolt.
Sine says:
January 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“Normally I vouch for the respect of President and/or his office”
Ditto.
But now it seem President Zuma is no longer in charge or control of the organisation he was elected to lead.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-15-anc-youth-league-targets-mantashe
Good post Pierre.
And I would go further to say, that in some respects, precisely because the rule of law was more protected, apartheid SA had in certain sphere’s more accountability.
The problem with what is happening now, is that no amount of good policy or rhetoric or laws help, without the rule of law being applied.
I blogged about it here.
http://mhambi.com/2009/12/democracy-ubuntu-social-capital/
@Maggs – it’s ‘rooi gevaar’ politics time again.
The SACP has always been the main driver of non racialism in the alliance. These developments is very worrying.
It’s now time perhaps for the SACP to start looking to become a political party. But not a discredited communist party. It should be come a social democratic Labour party.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 16, 2010 at 16:13 pm
Rooi gevaar – so it seems.
But I suspect that it’s being orchestrated elsewhere, much like the nationalisation debate. The organised youth, it seems, have become a vehicle for nefarious agendas.
President Zuma’s lack of decisive leadership and direction is worrying.
I think the SACP has an important role in the alliance – everyone will be worse for wear if it splits, in the short term at least.
@ Kameraad
I am curious: in what respect was the rule of law more protected in apartheid SA?
Michael, a few examples.
Ken Owen recently wrote in relations to the Arms Deal:
“Think back to the great Information Scandal. Muldergate. A puny affair in both moral and monetary terms compared with the arms deal, but it brought down the Vorster government. John Vorster, he of the 90-day and 180-day detention laws, the creator of BOSS and the condoner of torture, the most feared man of his time, was kicked upstairs into a ceremonial presidency while his two cohorts, Connie Mulder and Eschel Rhoodie, were dismissed into obscurity. There was justice and closure in those evil times.”
Compare this to what happened during the Arms deal, Scopa was emaciated, the office of Speaker soiled to squash investigations, and when it looked like he may take up the case, the public protector Selby Baqwa, was blackmailed. He backed off.
Feinstein less we forget, was ostracised, warned off and got death threats. Has there been an inquiry into the arms deal yet?
Apartheid SA has many very objectionable laws, which in general were inforced. Take detention without trial. We now have one of the greatest constitutions in the world, and have no laws allowing detention without trial, yet that is exactly what the government is effectively doing by virtue of just ignoring the law.
Bishop Rubin Phillip recently wrote:
“The Kennedy Thirteen have come to court on six occasions to ask for bail. On each occasion a group of people, sometimes wearing ANC colours, some drunk and some armed, have been at the court to demand that bail be denied. The behaviour of these people has been appalling. They have openly made all kinds of threats including death threats. Clergy are amongst those who have been threatened and the apparatus of justice has been allowed to degenerate into what looks to all intents and purposes like a kangaroo court.
On six separate occasions the magistrate has postponed the bail hearing to give the police another chance to gather some evidence that could link the Kennedy Thirteen to a crime. On each of those six occasions the police have failed to produce any evidence linking the Kennedy Thirteen to any crime. Today the bail hearing for the Kennedy Road Thirteen was postponed until the 27th of November.”
For example – I am sure you are aware of recent things done to Zimbabweans, by police, against the law, and in spite of court orders to the contrary?
“A number of documented persons were arrested, along with persons who had either received an appointment to lodge their asylum claims at the Department of Home Affairs, or were in the process of lodging these claims,” he said. “Home Affairs failed to issue any documentation to these persons indicating their immigration status in the country.”
The Johannesburg Refugee Reception Office remains closed, despite several High Court orders mandating its reopening, forcing all asylum seekers to queue for weeks at the nearest office, which is about 40km away in South Africa’s capital, Pretoria.”
When the Bloemfontein court of appeal found for a claimant and against the government, Judge John Hlophe found otherwise in the Cape High Court. Not only was it absurd, the appeal court is the ranking legal body, it was outrageously disrespectful of the legal system. To add insult to injury, the government refused to present their case before the appeal court.
Said the Constitutional Court in its final judgment handed down later:
“…courts are entitled to expect assistance and not obstruction from litigants in the discharge of their difficult duties. What happened in the present case not only failed to meet this requirement, but also evinced a deplorable lack of respect for the SCA, which is the highest court in this country in respect of all matters other than constitutional matters.”
And lastly let me invoke Helen Suzman. Helen Suzman were no friends of the Nats but she said that the Nats at least respected parliamentary democracy and added:”I used to be a fan of proportional representation, but I am not at all now I have seen it in action. Debate is almost non-existent and no one is apparently accountable to anybody apart from their political party bosses. It is bad news for democracy in this country. Even though we didn’t have a free press under apartheid, the government of that day seemed to be very much more accountable in parliament.”
One last exmaple. Gavin Evans was part of the ANC underground, as well as an organiser in the ECC. He says that the rules of the country gave them space with to operate.
See this video towards the end.
http://mhambi.com/2009/12/a-beer-with-gavin-evans-part-7-the-ecc-brett-myrdal/
An interesting debate on politics web….
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=156282&sn=Detail
>The law is not always just and it surely does not always serve
>the interests of the poor, but it does provide an important
>tool that can be used in the struggle against the heartless
>and corrupt political elites and their cronies.
No the poo-wah have no access to the law. I’ve seen PIE bypassed.
SA law doesn’t even solve grosser issues. PIE is way down the priority list.
If the constitution had been more attuned to the native’s natural sense of justice
instead of being compiled by Marxist fruit-cakes, it would be more easily
implementable.
——–
PS. the blog seems to have less techno-errors = good, thanks.
gmail seems screwed today. BBC announced that UK military-boss said that cyber
protection is more important than battle-ships [or other 2nd wave stuff].
I suspect that Chinese disabled the zimbabwe Newsgroup which previously led the
exposure of the Mugabe looters.
sirjay jonson wrote:–
> describes the difference between constitutional law and
> `transformation’; transformationalists being ideologists, rather
> than constitutionalist. Further, that the drive today within
> the ANC is transformational, not constitutional, and that the
> Constitution in their view and intent must take second place,
> therefore the transformationlists feel justified in ignoring
> and abusing the Constitution.
Let’s look at the motives of the parties:
the Marxist/multiculturists [Albi Sacks..etc.] wanted to prove that a non-failed
‘african state’ could exist [be built], and they thought that a constitution would
prevent an Adi-Amin/Mugabe situation. But the ‘liberators’ aren’t interested in the
white-man’s constitution crap, except as it ensures that they get money from the
donors; i.e. they made a reluctant compromise. Also the constitution slows the
transformation towards a normal ‘african failed state’ to allow time for big capital
to move some of their assets out of SA. BTW many say that Haiti is the architype
failed negroid society, since their independence in 1804 — long before ‘apartheid’
[to blame it on]. But they have NOT failed in Darwinian terms: they are breeding and
spreading their genes over the globe. Altho’ I can’t see how the capital’s buildings
falling down would cause an immediate shortage of food. Less city-squatters means
less mouths to feed. And the earth quake didn’t destroy the tomatoes and bananas ?
—
PS. are other gmail-users out-of-order too?
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 17, 2010 at 17:51 pm
Wessels,
Many things are wrong, even rotten, about the way some people in government act.
But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, about the apartheid era that can or should be looked upon kindly.
For a perfect example of the complete contempt the ANC has for the rule of law just look at the lengths government is going to – to thwart the gun compensation ruling in the Western Cape High Court.
Maggs, I also believe that in many instances – if you kept your nose out of controversial politics, especially – the common law bill of rights offered more protection to individual liberty than does the Bill of Rights.
Brett Nortje says:
January 18, 2010 at 8:31 am
“if you kept your nose out of controversial politics” implied supporting the apartheid government.
They looked after their own, of course they offered all kinds of protection to their supporters, not necessarily through “the rule of law” if the rule of law applied at all to that era (I think not).
For the most part, where the existing laws were not enough, they simply made up new laws and or regulations, some more draconian than others.
I dunno what Helen Suzman was thinking of when she said (according to Kameraad Mhambi says: January 17, 2010 at 17:51 pm) “Even though we didn’t have a free press under apartheid, the government of that day seemed to be very much more accountable in parliament.”
We must distinguish between the accountability of Parliament and the Rule of Law more generally.
Suzman was probably referring to the periods when De Klerk had less control of his caucus than the ANC has now; in that sense, the government may indeed have been more accountable to the all-white legislature.
But the rule of law is another matter. Brett and Kameraad are right to point to high-profile instances of spectacular ANC govt misconduct.
But, on a day-to-day basis, it is crystal clear that the rule of law is more respected now than pre-1994.
One index: the frequency with which courts rule against govt. On the rare occasions that courts ruled against the apartheid giovt, that was a matter of celebration. Nowadays, such rulings are commonplace.
Brett Nortje says:
January 15, 2010 at 18:14 pm
“Tell me please what this country looks like the day after your revolt.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
“Sine says:
January 12, 2010 at 6:23 am
“… (We know Sne’s views on this subject – fairly representative?)”
It is not a good idea to discuss anything other than guns with Brett so contain yourself Sine.”
Maggs Naidu says:
January 15, 2010 at 18:51 pm
Thanks very much for the link Maggs. If what is said is true then it is indeed embarrassing to note things unfold in our country. I find it hard to believe when I witness and read about things which are actually happening. It’s like I am in a comedy movie…
Michael Osborne says:
January 18, 2010 at 9:15 am
“But, on a day-to-day basis, it is crystal clear that the rule of law is more respected now than pre-1994.”
Well said!
I know very little, if anything at all, about the apartheid era parliament (apart from that it was iniquitous) but I would venture that the window for engagement was very constrained, hardly a basis for any kind of extrapolation, meaningful or otherwise.
What is most disconcerting that our democratic era, led by possibly one of the world’s best and most widely known liberation movements, is being referenced against almost the greatest evil the world has ever known by, including others, some of South Africa’s most exemplary citizens.
@ Maggs
Yes, the rule of law is the great achievement of this govt – which makes the lapses we have seen recently all the more regrettable. Also, press freedom is incomparably better protected now than it was under the Nats. Anyone who denies this knows no history.
Re Suzman: she sat for many years as the sole opposition MP. The Nats hated her heckled her mercilessly, and PW blamed her for Verwoerd’s killing.
Yet she said, after she had retired, that as horrible as the Nats were, she got more respect from them in Parliament than the ANC have shown the DA.
Why would that be, I wonder.
Michael Osborne says:
January 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
I happened across an interesting paper “Human Rights in India : An overview” by V.S. Mani – IWCOHR Occasional Paper 1997.
Among the concluding paragraphs, it has this to say :
“.. many of the core values of this great culture came to be seriously distorted by social evils perpetrated by some of the dominant sections of society … and by British colonial rule. The British rule exploited many of these social evils and played havoc with the traditional social, economic and civic institutions of India. The roots of much of the present day human rights maladies are traceable to these still lingering social evils and the debilitating effects of British colonial rule. Fifty years of independence are perhaps not enough for a society, such as the Indian, to recover from the shock and turmoil of those ‘dark ages’”.
Michael Osborne says: January 18, 2010 at 9:15 am
“On the rare occasions that courts ruled against the apartheid giovt, that was a matter of celebration. Nowadays, such rulings are commonplace.”
Michael, I was just wondering, does the statement above say anything at all about some of the current judges who sat during that era?
@ Maggs
I do not much like Mani’s sentiment.
It comes across to me as a romanticism, similar in spirit to those who would have us believe the pre-colonial African society was a consensus-based democracy.
(People in the West similarly romanticize Athens as a great democracy forgetting that 90% of the population were slaves.)
And blaming all ills on colonialism is a convenient excuse for the post-colonial elite.
[See Marx on British colonialism in India.]
Michael, you say: “One index: the frequency with which courts rule against govt. On the rare occasions that courts ruled against the apartheid giovt, that was a matter of celebration. Nowadays, such rulings are commonplace.”
That’s a legalistic view of the law. The question about the rule of law is how people experience it, not so?
What about the instances where government ignores the courts?
Maggs, perhaps Suzman was referring to the 40 plus ANC MP’s that took anti-retro virals, while not holding the government to account for not supplying them to the country?
Or perhaps she too was comparing the Infogate scandal and its fall out and compared that to the Arms deal, and what happened to Scopa?
@ Kameraad
Yes, and the rule of law is experienced by people every time a judge tells a petty bureaucrat to issue a trading license, or process a social welfare payment that has been outstanding for two years. And when the CC order the govt to make AZT available or to allow citizens abroad to vote. Sustained judicial resistance on matters small and large would have been largely unthinkable before 1990 — although there were some courageous judges who put the govt in its place now and again.
The current order is very far from perfect. But still a great improvement in some areas.
What instances do you have in mind wherein the govt ignored the courts? My impression is that this is very much the exception rather than the rule.
Michael Osborne says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:02 pm
He seems to capture both “distorted by social evils perpetrated by some of the dominant sections of society” as well as “and by British colonial rule”.
That concurs with what you have said.
We certainly have rapidly developed a “post colonial elite” and while on it’s own (a developing elite) that is not a bad thing, the way it’s unfolding is horrible.
“But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, about the apartheid era that can or should be looked upon kindly.”
It’s these kind of i’ll considered sweeping statements that show how hard it is to even try and find some common ground in this country.
Take the much maligned bantu education. Education was made compulsory for all South Africans under apartheid. Before that it was limited to a small elite.
“By 1948 the education of black people was still for more than 90% an extension of the church and missionary enterprise. Illiteracy was widespread. Although a few mission schools provided good education, the overall state of black education was extremely poor: only 3% of blacks had received post-primary school education by 1952 and only 8 488 blacks had a matriculation qualification. By contrast, more than 40 000 whites passed the highest school standard every year. In 1947 there were only four coloured high schools and 182 candidates who sat the examination of the final school year.
In 1949 the new government established a commission of inquiry into black education, under the chairmanship of Werner Eiselen. It proposed a new state-controlled system. No mention was made of any theories of racial inferiority. The report concerned itself with the worrying lack of a groepsgevoel (group feeling) among blacks. It pointed out that African cultures were dynamic and could provide the context for the modernisation of entire peoples. Instead of imitating English culture, the system had to inculcate pride in the volkseie – the history, customs, habits, character and mentality of the ethnic group of pupils. The report also evinced a strong belief in the superiority of mother-tongue education. As a result, the government made the ethnic language compulsory during the entire primary schooling, and subsequently in most of secondary school as well.
In 1953 the government took control of black education. It was keen to eliminate the church and mission schools whose teachers mostly rejected the apartheid policy and had extended English influence. This assumption of control went hand in hand with a major extension of inferior mass education to blacks. In 1948 only 24% of blacks of school-going age were enrolled in schools; by 1994 the proportion had risen to 84%, a steady increase in black pupils of an average of 5.8% per year.
Verwoerd got the National Party caucus to accept the introduction of mass education with the promise that there would be ‘no place for Africans above the level of certain forms of labour’. He added that within their ‘own community all doors are open’. These words reverberated through the years. They were blunt and callous, epitomising the mean spirit of apartheid. It came as a shock because the war years had kindled the hope that the straitjacket of segregation was slowly slipping from the body of blacks.”
Life as most thing are not as simple, It’s not that black and white Maggs.
Another example -
“AWARD-winning actor Sello Maake ka-Ncube yesterday criticised the African National Congress (ANC) government, saying he believed African culture was more protected during the apartheid days.
The former Generations actor blamed the ANC for allowing the SABC to reduce its local content unopposed in recent years.
Ka-Ncube has become the first actor to join the Television Industry Emergency Coalition (TVIEC’s) hunger strike campaign to protest against the SABC’s decision to cut local content. He joins production and administrative staff in the strike.
At a press conference at Atlas Studios in Johannesburg, Ka- Ncube said what was happening at the SABC culturally needed to be made public because stories about black people’s culture , and particularly those in African languages, were not being told.
“Culture for black people continues to be marginalised,” he said. “In a very twisted way African culture was more protected or heard as a voice during the apartheid years — and we have a black government. ”
I don’t have the stats to hand (but if you want, I’ll go and digg them out, but Giliomee shows that particularly from the 70′s the Nationalist effected a massive transfer of wealth from whites to balcks (One of the main reasons the Conservative party grew). Black South African’s disposable income grew faster than white South Africa’s (Indian and colloured’s even faster).
Aparthied had many terrible, no horrible traits. But to make such sweeping condemnations is very Malema like, no? It excludes, it does not allow proper scrutiny of our past and how can we then inform our future?
@Michael, of the top of my head I can now only think of three instances. The long delay in providing anti-retro virals, the not opening of the asylum office in Johannesburg, and the cases Pierre mentioned above. Evictions without court orders.
So your general feeling is that the police and government act with dure respect to the law, and that there a but few aberrations?
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 18, 2010 at 13:13 pm
I will stand by my comment – I see no reason why that view should be regarded as unpalatable.
Pockets of normalcy, in the overwhelming structural and systemic iniquity does not advance the argument that in some respects apartheid was better. Apartheid was evil.
Be that as it may, there are two things from the general discourse which I find worrying.
One is as I said that fine people with sound minds feel so helpless in what has to be among the world’s finest constitutional democracies, to resort to reflecting even mildly fondly on that horrific era.
The other is that some of what is going on is, simply put, outrageous.
Both have to be addressed – we, the current generation of South Africans, have to address it. The situation is far from hopeless and we are not helpless. We have our excellent constitution and a range of institutions on our side – all we have to do is make it work.
@ Kameraad
Yes, I do think the police and government more often than not, in the banal everyday course, act in accordance with law.
But more important, one there is a court order in place, they almost always comply, although not always without foot-dragging, evasion, etc.
Every great plan will have unintended consequences both positive and negative. Apartheid govt never had good genuine feelings for black people. What ever relief they provided, it was with the intention to either buy them more time or just improve the labour pool that they can abuse. The good highlights that came out of this were deliberate and controlled. On the other hand oppresed blacks were striving to beat the system in whatever way possible and those who succeded were too smart for the system.
Todays good and bad plans will also have their own uninteded outcomes and we should not easily apportion blame and praises without careful consideration. We still have individuals who will be too smart for the current systems and we should avoid taking outliers and making them the norm.
Maggs – “not advance the argument that in some respects apartheid was better. Apartheid was evil.”
Why do so many people, when you point out an area of policy or execution thereof that was better during apartheid, tend to *reduce* your argument to – apartheid was better??
Is that not intellectually callous?
You go on to say: “One is as I said that fine people with sound minds feel so helpless in what has to be among the world’s finest constitutional democracies, to resort to reflecting even mildly fondly on that horrific era.”
Yes, I agree. That says a lot does’nt it.
@ Mhambi et Maggs
“But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, about the apartheid era that can or should be looked upon kindly.”
Mhambi, I also do not agree with the rather sweeping statement above and I have always cited, inter alai, the strong and diverse economy and better infrastructure to support my views (SA most probably has the best infrastructure in Africa).
However, it may be that what Maggs meant to say was that the “good” that also came out of the actions of the Apartheid Govt is actually attributed, not to the kindness of those who were in power then, but such “good” comprises the “side-effects” or “collateral damage” of the implementation of the Apartheid policies. An example that I have in mind is the statement I think by Verwoerd or Vorster that it is not in the interests of the native kid to teach him mathematics and science since he will never use any of those subjects in practice. Instead, a native kid should be taught something that will be relevant to him. This accounts for the number of teachers who were produced in colleges and other tertiary institutions to “teach” the natives subjects (like history and geography) which they were going to use in their lives but which were obviously lesser in importance than those of their white counterparts.
The building of these colleges and other tertiary institutions and schools in black townships may be seen as “good” on the part of the Apartheid Govt but the reality is that such actions were an implementation or perpetuation of racial policies not the manifestation of “good”.
I may be wrong in my analysis but that is what I think Maggs means by his “sweeping statement”.
Michael, I respectfully submit that your experience is that of a middle class South African? The experience of the poor, of an asylum seeker, would that be the same?
@ Maggs
“all we have to do is make it work.”
I agree with your sentiments. You are correct that we have a great democracy and wonderful institutions.
But they are all premised multi-party democracy.
And multi-party democracy is in turn premised on the assumption there is an at least in-principle possibility that the ruling party will become the opposition …
But that will not happen unless voters are not so loyal to the ruling party that they have “no interest” in the opposition.
You can see where I am going with this …
@ Kameraad
I have some professional experience providing legal assistance to asylum seekers, and others in like positions. It is often difficult to get these cases to court. But once you do get to court, judges will quite often rule against the govt. And govt will almost always comply.
Yes, there is resistance, and sometimes govt acts in contempt. But this happens in almost every country, and does not lead one to say that the rule of law has collapsed.
Michael Osborne says:
January 18, 2010 at 15:46 pm
“You can see where I am going with this …”
Of course.
Like any good missionary, the constitution in one hand and the ballot in the other!
Sine says:
January 18, 2010 at 13:54 pm
Hey Sne,
The fabulous VW Beetle was as a result of the Nazi regime!
Sine says:
January 18, 2010 at 13:54 pm
Hey Sne,
“I also do not agree with the rather sweeping statement above and I have always cited, inter alai, the strong and diverse economy and better infrastructure to support my views (SA most probably has the best infrastructure in Africa).”
Let me add some perspective to that :
“Diamond and gold production may now be well down from their peaks, though S A is still no. 2 in gold[1] but South Africa remains a cornucopia of mineral riches. It is the world’s largest producer[2] of chrome, manganese, platinum, vanadium and vermiculite. It is the second largest producer[3] of ilmenite, palladium, rutile and zirconium. It is also the world’s third largest coal exporter”.
“Almost 50% of the world’s gold reserves are found in South Africa”
Given that we have better mineral reserves that the USA for example, a “strong and diverse economy and better infrastructure” is despite the apartheid regime, not because of them.
And relative to the massive wealth that has been extracted, they had comparatively little to show for it.
Compare South Africa, for example with California during and post their gold rush.
@Maggs Naidu –
“Given that we have better mineral reserves that the USA for example, a “strong and diverse economy and better infrastructure” is despite the apartheid regime, not because of them.
And relative to the massive wealth that has been extracted, they had comparatively little to show for it.”
What utter rubbish and you should know better.
The South African party worked hand in glove with capital, most of it foreign.
We often hear in SA from the disciples of the market how it will cure all our ills. Yet it took Hertzog and the Nationalists to turn us away from being an extraction economy by eschewing market principles and investing in infrastructure, which in the end laid the foundation for massive economic growth placing us ahead of China come the 1970′s as an industrial state.
The Nationalists brought us Iscor, Eskom, Armscor – and would we have had our highway system? Harbours? In fact, Cosatu would do well to Kiss Hetzog’s arse.
The USA won their independence from Britain when? What was the size of their population then? To what extent was Europe dependent upon trade from the (ex) American colonies then? And after nudging out the British and the Spanish who controlled much of this key economic activity? Did the USA have a navy and did they control cities in China even as the Zululand and the Transvaal were the only independent bits in a foreign controlled Africa? Was the USA invaded by a foreign power after gold was discovered in California? Did the US gold mining companies belong to companies listed on the London stock exchange?
Did South Africa or any of it’s neighboring countries have any comparable trade with the West as the USA did come 1910?
Care to answer these questions?
The development of South Africa from the 30′s were remarkable. We had a alot of ground to make up. Yes, and a lot of it was on the back of exploitation and coercion.
We are in a tough neighborhood so is hardly the most flattering comparison. But in Africa, where one ethic group had captured the state other groups rarely got a look in. Take Kenya as an example where the Kikuyus dominated the state and how other groups were excluded. The Afrikaners did not do that badly if you did a comparative African study.
@Michael
To quote Pierre above: “Mahendra Chetty of the Legal Resources Centre in Durban who told them:
The City, as a matter of regular and consistent practice, acts in flagrant breach of the law. I have never come across one incident where the City has acted in accordance with the law in terms of Section 21 of the Constitution and the PIE Act. I do not know of one instance where the City has carried out an eviction with a court order.”
I did not talk about a collapse by the way – and if like you say this is quite rare than its a great relief. I hope you are right.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 18, 2010 at 21:59 pm
Maybe you missed the part of my comment that we have more mineral wealth, especially that which was extracted, than the USA and for that we have relatively little to show for it.
You mention Iscor, Eskom, Armscor but left out Sasol, the Banana Board, the Peanut Board, The Fruit Board etc.
The economy was controlled by apartheid supporting enterprises – they would have determined what infrastructure was needed to keep their money flowing. The highway system was not built for the benefit of the people of our country, it was for the interests of businesspeople in that era (who funded and supported the evil) and for that of the narrow voting group that upheld it. An argument that the harbours and ports were built for the benefit of the people of this country is not worthy of pursuing.
The road infrastructure was mainly from Johannesburg to the main ports – what happened in the rest of the country?
What makes the legacy rail system so wonderful? There are three or four different types of railways in SA.
In any event infrastructure development was largely a response the great depression circa 1930 – largely to create jobs for the apartheid voters and their families. If I recall correctly the strategy was borne out of the research into “Carnegie Commission of Investigation on the Poor White Question in South Africa” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Commission_of_Investigation_on_the_Poor_White_Question_in_South_Africa
To what extent did the “mutual societies” like the then Sanlam and Old Mutual provide the capital? You are no doubt aware that they were custodians of the for example pension funds. You are probably also aware that their risk profiles were firstly races based – so in effect Black people were subsidising apartheid supporters.
I stand by my comments :
- For what was extracted, there is very little to show;
- Most of all, there is nothing, absolutely nothing about the apartheid era that deserves to be considered kindly;
- A lot of what is happening in democratic SA is completely unacceptable. This has been said by no less than our President, the concerns are so profound that it informed the ANCs Polokwane resolutions and it’s 2009 election manifesto and the several subsequent pronouncements from government, the ANC and the alliance partners; and
- This has become so bad that some of our leading minds have resorted to comparing aspects of the worlds finest democracy with the world’s most evil system.
The ANC under President Zuma has been elected on massive and overwhelming voter majority to turn this around. He has to do it, failure is not an option, neither are excuses.
@ Kameraad
“The development of South Africa from the 30’s were remarkable. . . . a lot of it was on the back of exploitation and coercion.”
Yes. And this is in stark contrast to the great industrial revolutions of Europe, Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China, which were all based upon equitable distribution and free consent.
Maggs is right.
The great industrial revolutions are usually built on mineral wealth.
Just look at how poor Japan, Taiwan and Singapore have struggled, compared with places where DRC, Angola and Saudi Arabia, where incredible industrial revolutions were founded on great resources!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:25 am
Sounds like you’re in the “talking nonsense” mood today – enjoy.
How are you Dworky?
@ Maggs
Talking nonsense “today.”
As opposed to other days?
hey Dworky,
I see Min Sexwale’s plan to suck up to the kingmakers may have backfired.
As a general rule, alienating the SACP and Cosatu may not enhance the prospect of becoming future President, even while sucking up to the kingmakers.
We saw what happened to the last guy that dismissed those formations.
Mikhail does talk a lot of nonsense.
If he bothered to read history, he would learn that every major industrial revolution in history has been based upon exploitation and coercion. (Whether in 19th C England or Stalin’s Russia, people do not generally volunteer to go down mine shafts 16 hours a day for a pittance.) Countries like Vietnam are currently industrialising, on the backs of labourers who are paid next to nothing.
South Africa’s industrial revolution was in that regard no different, except that the axis of exploitation was racial.
@Maggs if your going to debate like a politician I will stop responding to you as there is no point. Your reply ignores what I say. Are you interested in debate at all?
Everything from “You mention Iscor,…” to your mention of the Carnegie Commission I agree with. And it does not change an iota of what I said.
Then you go on to repeat stuff you have said before and still don’t address what I said.
I know, it’s most probably because you can’t defend your original statement comparing us to the US. It’s ok to admit sometimes that your wrong.
Word of advice to you Maggs, if you want to imagine solutions for SA’s problems you have to know its history first.
As a lefty interested in development and a counter to self centered accumulation, I’ll recommend you start with Volkskapitalisme and Volksosialisme – and as I have said before they should be viewed in a critical light because it went hand in glove with exploitation. But there is much to learned about true fraternity and ubuntu. The question is how to apply it, and make it work on a broader level.
Did you know that almost every third Afrikaans school has names like Saambou (buid together), Saamwerk (work together), or Helpmekaar (help each other)? It comes from the 30′s.
Two more asides – did you know that Carnegie was in part a reaction to poverty and destitution caused by the Boer War. In the Free state, almost every house was burned to the ground. Think Falujah, but repeated 20 times. No hearts and minds here though. Livestock was killed, wells poisoned.
Second aside, do you think the Nationalists would have allowed Anglo and Old Mutual to list off shore? If your thinking about it – your once gain not well versed in South African mindsets, the answer is bloody hell no. It was an ANC government that allowed that massive shift of South African capital to Europe. And that organisation controlled by the nasty Boers, Sanlam? Where is Sanlam listed?
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:56 am
” Are you interested in debate at all?”
The debate I am certainly interested in is post 1994.
I must surely have made it clear that there’s a whole range of things that are utterly despicable – like this for example http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=373830
Where the constitution is ignored or rule of law is violated, that has to be brought into public space.
The standard to measure this government in my view is against our constitution and the obligations of government which derive from that.
I cannot and will not, for example, support the view that says because British MPs messed around with their allowances then it makes our Travelgate any less offensive than it is. I will however point out to those who say that corruption is uniquely endemic to South Africa as deplorable as it is, we are not unique.
Of course the ANC government has done or allowed some pretty unacceptable things – that which can be undone has to.
@Maggs once again I completely agree with your last comment. But its a pity that you make statements and then when you are taken up on the your not prepared to engage.
Be that as it may I think that its pretty obvious that the solution to our problems do not lie in laws. As you say we have a great Consitution, probably the best in the world and good laws.
Ours is a problem of attitudes and to look for answers its better to go to sociology and psychology than law. Surprisingly, considering the scale of the problem remarkably little has been written about the links between bad government and society, especially in an African context.
I find the explanation in sociology around social capital, formulated by French marxist theorist Pierre Bourdieu, and expanded upon later by others very persuasive in this regard. And it centers around the idea that people must see themselves as a society and that working togther, doing the right thing, also benefits the common good even if its not directly in their own interest. That’s the reason why most people stop at traffic lights, and not because of policing or laws.
There is one book I know of that have tried to address Africa’s peculiarities – The Criminalization of the African state. It’s super depressing and is not a very thick book. Lots more works needs to be done to try and understand this.
@ Kameraad
“people must see themselves as a society and that working togther, doing the right thing, also benefits the common good even if its not directly in their own interest.”
This may be right, but it sounds odd from the mouth of a Marxist.
I would have thought that historical materialism would have identified the sources of change in material conditions, rather than in a change in mental attitude.
Or is that too simple?
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:54 am
“Ours is a problem of attitudes”
Indeed.
It does not help our Arrive Alive campaign and all that the Min of Transport may preach about, if Malema is allowed to speed, disrespect traffic officers, officers get treated with contempt by their superiors and all this gets condoned by the ANC.
I was, for example, recently told by a female friend that gender insensitivity is on the increase in government departments since the new administration took office. It does not help when atrocious statements made by high profile politicians is not immediately struck down in public – rather we see massive show of support for the offensive, insensitive hooligans.
When senior politicians from bygone eras wax lyrical about “intellectual honesty” and fail to admit their roles in the disaster that is our education system, it does not help to create a better life for all.
The ANC cannot claim that it was unaware of the circumstances that led to at least 40 000 houses being built to such inferior standards that those have to be demolished.
The list goes on and on and on.
Police Commissioner (is it General) Cele seems to be one of the few DGs, if not the only one, that is taking the task at hand seriously.
It’s time the Zuma led ANC government showed some teeth if they are serious about “working together, we can do more”.
I’m a lay theorist. I got introduced to the ideas around social capital via Giliomee who uses three incidents to explain the erosion of social capital amongst Afrikaners – which he argues was extremely high after events in the 30′s and later.
One was the Information scandal. It eroded trust tremendously. Secondly was the invasion of Angola and later incidents like Cuito, where the government lied on TV as to what was really happening.
I can’t remember the third.
Anyhow – Bourdieu is the father of ideas around social capital. He defines it as – “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”.
He is definitely seen as a Marxist scholar, but I don’t know enough about him to provide a quick explanation of how this theory is married to his Marxism.
Others expanded on his ideas – Frances Fukuyama, not a Marxist at all, as I’m sure you would know, defined social capital as: “shared norms or values that promote social cooperation, instantiated in actual social relationships”.
To quote from Wikipedia – ‘He argues that social capital is a necessary precondition for successful development, but a strong rule of law and basic political institutions are necessary to build social capital. He believes that a strong social capital is necessary for a strong democracy and strong economic growth.
Familism is a major problem of trust because it fosters a two-tiered moral system, in which a person must favor the opinions of family members. Fukuyama believes that bridging social capital (a term coined by Putnam in “Bowling Alone”), is essential for a strong social capital because a broader radius of trust will enable connections across borders of all sorts and serve as a basis for organizations.’
@ PDV
May be its about time that we pick up a topic about what is working in this new administration. Maggs is right Cele is making the right noise and I suspect that our crime stats will come out better. Criminals are downscaling to robbing KFC’s, Clothing shops because of the closing of their operating space. Even Nqakula must be noticing that something has changed.
I am also impressed by the statements coming out Dept of Health. The implementation of the six key indicators that are part of the national benchmarking system is promising together with roll out of OSD & NHI .
Pravin Gordhan started on a sound footing and proved wrong to all prophets of doom that we do need a minister for life. The tightening of the kitty strings has been encouraging and pricing of tenders have been scrutinised such as paying R27 for a loaf of bread, R40 000 for a PC, Ghost beneficiaries of state grants etc.
Lastly Blade has beaten all the new ministers in setting up a new dept, taking seta’s from Labour and regrettably on also purchasing new wheels.
He is dealing with the tertiary funding challenges and rectors are back at managing universities rather than meddling in politics.
I hope others will pick up these good examples and start creating good legacies.
Gwebecimele says:
January 19, 2010 at 12:20 pm
It was reported that there are 18 or so schools with zero (ZERO!) pass rate in matric.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/5a89f02875354e51a62249002d03cdd4/07-01-2010-10-06/18_schools_get_zero_pass_rate
Some are repeat offenders.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=371934
Heads must roll – at the school, at the district and the province.
Correction.
“we do need” must be “we do not need” minister for life
Gwebecimele
I agree, if things are going better journalists better report on them pronto. There is a rebellion brewing in the Afrikaans community, and signs of improvement is the best way to counter it.
Gwebecimele says:
January 19, 2010 at 13:19 pm
JZ must be given all credit for his very astute management of the necessary “redeployment”.
Slowly but surely veering the lawless Zim way. It started like this in Zim now is complete disater. Political power reign supreme while poverty remains with the majority of the people.
Eish!
“The South African National Editors’ Forum is outraged at reports that journalists in Mpumalanga are on a hit list targeting corruption busters in the province.
“This after Sunday World and Mail & Guardian reported about the existence of the hit list.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=iol1263909958240S510
Hey, Maggs, when were the Baragwanath and Leratong hospitals built?
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article271141.ece
Rule of law in action.
Michael Osborne says:
January 16, 2010 at 18:23 pm
@ Kameraad
I am curious: in what respect was the rule of law more protected in apartheid SA?
Im a bit late on the topic, but have a look at your mining laws and I can mention one right which was taken away, they were alot better in the old government…now its boardering on encroachment by the new government
[...] from: Why the Rule of Law matters – Constitutionally Speaking [...]
[...] the Police Commissioners violent rhetoric making a difference? On the Constitutionally speaking blog a regular, a certain Maggs commented this week: “The ANC cannot claim that it was [...]