I see Jacob Zuma has again issued a threat to sue Zapiro, this time for R7 million based on the infamous cartoon in which Zapiro depicted Mr Zuma as preparing to rape lady liberty. This is not the first time Mr Zuma has threatened to sue Zapiro or other columnists and newspapers but those claims have gone nowhere.
I am on record criticising this cartoon because it debases and cheapens rape and may create the impression that Mr Zuma is a rapist despite him being acquitted of rape. However, if I was Zapiro I would not be too worried about this latest threat either. Not that he seems too perturbed, because a report in the Cape Times reports as follows:
Asked if he thought the R7m was a reasonable amount, Shapiro referred to a 2006 cartoon he had drawn in response to Zuma’s initial lawsuit. It showed an outraged Zuma telling Shapiro, ‘I’m suing for damage to my reputation!!’ and the cartoonist responding: ‘Would that be your reputation as a disgraced chauvinistic demagogue who can’t control his s exual urges and who thinks a shower prevents AIDS?’ Shapiro pointed out that ‘I could say the same thing now’. He had not expected Zuma to sue again as the initial case seemed ‘to be going nowhere’.
There are of course very good legal and political reasons why Mr Zuma has not sued any of the cartoonists or columnists he has threatened to sue and why this is almost certainly not going to happen now either.
First, since the SCA and the Constitutional Court developed the common law of defamation to bring it in line with the spirit and purport of the Bill of Rights, it is not so easy to win a defamation case – especially if one is a public figure like Mr Zuma.
But second, a defamation case could be politically disasterous for Mr. Zuma. Defendents in defamation cases very often use the same tactics used by rape defendents: they attack the character of the person suing for defamation.
Imagine a scenario in which Zapiro is sued by Zuma and before the court the whole rape case saga is dredged up again along with the various utterances Mr Zuma and his supporters have made about (i) women; (ii) gay men and lesbians; (iii) judges; (iv) HIV/AIDS (v) …..add any number of other issues here….. Imagine the awkward questions Mr Zuma might face regarding his relationship with convicted fraudster Shabir Shaik!
Mr Zuma’s reputation (if any) will be put on trial and it won’t be pretty.
If I was Mr Zuma I would not go near any court for a defamation claim (or a criminal case for that matter, but that is a story for another day) as I would be far too worried that the little that is left of my reputation would be torn to shreds. If I was advising Mr Zuma I would whisper only one name in his ear:Oscar Wilde.
Wilde famously sued his lovers’ father who had alleged that Wilde was fiddling with men only to be exposed on the stand. While cross-examined the following exchange occurred which sealed his fate and exposed him to a criminal trial which landed him in jail:
Carson’s cross-examination reached its climax with reference to Walter Grainger:
How old is he?- He was about sixteen when I knew him. He was a servant at a certain house in High Street, Oxford, where Lord Alfred Douglas had rooms. I have stayed there several times. Grainger waited at table. I never dined with him. If it is one’s duty to serve, it is one’s duty to serve; and if it is one’s pleasure to dine, it is one’s pleasure to dine.
Did you ever kiss him?- Oh, dear no. He was a peculiarly plain boy. He was, unfortunately, extremely ugly. I pitied him for it.
Was that the reason why you did not kiss him?- Oh, Mr. Carson, you are pertinently insolent.
Did you say that in support of your statement that you never kissed him?- No. It is a childish question.
Did you ever put that forward as a reason why you never kissed the boy?- Not at all.
Why, sir, did you mention that this boy was extremely ugly?- For this reason. If I were asked why I did not kiss a door-mat, I should say because I do not like to kiss door-mats. I do not know why I mentioned that he was ugly, except that I was stung by the insolent question you put to me and the way you have insulted me throughout this hearing. Am I to be cross-examined because I do not like it?
Why did you mention his ugliness?- It is ridiculous to imagine that any such thing could have occurred under any circumstances.
Then why did you mention his ugliness, I ask you?- Perhaps you insulted me by an insulting question.
What was the reason why you should say the boy was ugly?-
At this point, the record of proceedings (which does not purport to be a verbatim transcript, in the modern form) continues:
Here the witness began several answers almost inarticulately, and none of them he finished. His efforts to collect his ideas were not aided by Mr. Carson’s sharp staccato repetition: ‘Why? Why? Why did you add that?’ At last the witness answered: ‘You sting me and insult me and try to unnerve; and at times one says things flippantly when one ought to speak more seriously. I admit it.’
We already know Mr Zuma is not very fast on his feet and says very stupid things under cross examination (i.e. if one takes a shower after sex one reduces the risk of contracting HIV), so, Oscar Wilde, Mr Zuma, remember him. He died a broken man after serving two years in Reading jail after being convicted of “gross indecency”….
Zapiro is a brave man. He called into 702/567 yesterday to speak to JZee who was being interviewed by Redi Direko. Zuma’s response to the challenge that freedom of expression entitles a satirist to caricature a politician as Zapiro does – “My brother it must be done reasonably” …
His bravery is particularly remarkable in the fact that he has resisted, for so long, the urge to instruct Mr Zuma to desist in calling him “brother”.
That sort of limp-wristed pandering as an attempt to disarm an opponent (by subtly trying to convince him that you are both on the same side) boils my blood.
I wonder why Mr Zuma would even call that stupid racist “brother!”Hev is even ugly,stiff and lacks style and sophistication.
I hope Zuma sues his bald empty head off!
Well-written piece Prof! This has reminded me of the legendary English barrister George Carman, QC, who died in 2001. He would relish representing Zapiro in this one. It is said that after he tore SA journalist Jani Allan to shreds in the witness box in a libel/defamation suit, Jani remarked to Carman afterwards, “No amount of damages will ever compensate me for being cross-examined by you”.
Or words to that effect!
Most newspapers and individuals when threatened with libel/defamation lawsuits would simply write back and advise that the matter would be defended and that George Carman QC had been briefed to act for them. On receipt of such a letter, most just withdrew. And for Carman, such a letter done by a solicitor without him lifting a finger on the case or receiving the actual brief would still earn him 5,000.00 pounds!
“it is not so easy to win a defamation case – especially if one is a public figure like Mr Zuma.”
It is also not easy getting journalist/internet critics to publish comments that can be construed as “personal attacks” against them : especially if those journalists/critics are moderators on websites like “Thought Leaders” and the “personal attack” is in fact an unpalatable political POV .
Launching personal attacks on our democratically elected leaders calling them ugly things like “sexist pigs” yet hypocritically and cowardly hiding behind a “moderators button” while at the same time championing the sacrosanct “freedom of speech”.
I disagree that the Zapiro cartoon cheapens rape. I think it drives the obvious home very clearly: Zuma (and the ANC) are unashamedly trying to find political solutions to legal problems. If that’s not raping Lady Justice then I don’t know what is.
Public leaders should be thoroughly ventilated – publicly. If they have flaws, let us know. If they have commited crimes, tell us. If they are unethical, dishonest or corrupt, let us get rid of them!
Zapiro is no different from throusands of other satirists. He chooses the mistakes made by public figures (from all parties) and makes a mockery of them. How is that wrong?
Ozoneblue, what on earth are you on about? If you are suggesting that I censor the sometimes scurrilous and defamatory attacks on me on this Blog, you are dead wrong. I have never “moderated” any comment – no matter how insulting to me – from any reader. I take the criticism from where it comes. As the infamous apartheid judge Erasmus once said: “It rolls off me like ducks water off my back…”
libdem
“Public leaders should be thoroughly ventilated – publicly.”
I think the public media should also be accountable and subjected to the same standards of transparency and accountability. If the M&G for example derive must of their income form advertising by Anglo American I think we should know about it. We should also know if – for example a guy like Pierre De Vos is secretly funded by big business sympathetic to the opposition. I’m not saying any of the above is true – the point I’m making is to assume that the media is neutral and doesn’t have a political agenda is naive and sadly mistaken.
I would for example have loved to see a Zapiro cartoon of COPE depicting them as an alienated, elitist group of disgruntled ANC supporters dancing to the sweet music of the Sandton elite under the banner of SCOPE (Sandton Congress of the People) with a bunch of corrupt leaders trying desperately to keep the door shut on skeletons threatening to come crashing out of the closet.
PdV
I agree with you Pierre – you don’t censor and I applaud you for it.
I was referring to “thoughtleaders” and the M&G/Zapiro cabal where you publish from time to time.
Ozone,
I accept that different elemets of the media have different biases – or would you like to tell me that for the past 14 years, the SABC have been scrupulously even handed in their treatment of politics?
My point is that satire (“1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly” – Merriam Webster Online Dictionary) deliberately attacks the errors and flaws of public figures, and has done so for centuries. Holding Zapiro liable for satire is a breach of his freedom of expression, and is a greater injustice than any potential breach of JZ’s dignity. It is in the public interest to know what kind of leaders we have….
Mdu
“He is even ugly,stiff and lacks style and sophistication.
I hope Zuma sues his bald empty head off!”
Who are you talking about? Here’s a photo of Zapiro: http://www.iziko.org.za/education/images/zapiro.jpg. He doesn’t seem very bald to me. Since you are so unobservant when it comes to distinguishing something as basic as a full head of dark black hair from a bald head, I’m not sure we should have much faith in the rest of your character analysis of Zapiro.
Oh, wait a moment. I see now. “bald empty head” You mean that Zuma should sue himself. How exactly does that work?
@Ozone
“If the M&G for example derive must [sic] of their income form [sic] advertising by Anglo American I think we should know about it.”
Is this not a very easy determination to make? When a media company sells advertising space, they are selling visible page-space. If you want to know who pays the largest portion of M&G’s advertising budget, just look at the paper (or websites). The brand most prominently displayed will be the one that paid the most.
I can’t imagine why a newspaper’s advertising sales would be a secret. Almost by definition it is intended to be seen as plainly as possible.
Ozone, you refer to personal attacks on public figures. I would agree with you entirely – personal attacks on people, public figures or not, are unwarranted and uncalled for.
However, when an opinion piece (be it a cartoon or written column or editorial) satirises public actions made by public figures which impact the public, you cannot tell me this is wrong. Zapiro did not attack Zuma personally – he did not ever imply, for example, that he is a bad father, or that he is an unkind man, because that is (a) irrelevant, (b) there is no evidence of it, and (c) it does not impact on society at large.
However, Zapiro did make an extremely strong statement regarding Zuma et al’s treatment of the justice system. This was not an arbitrary cartoon designed to hurt anybody’s feelings. This was a cartoon which, in many opinions, accurately reflected the ANC’s rhetoric of the moment. While on one hand stating that they respected the judiciary, they were also stating things like (to paraphrase) “the judges better make the right decision, or there will be trouble” etc.
I am undecided on whether the presentation was good or not, but the point remains, the cartoon was powerful, and a lot of people sat up and started thinking. This was not a personal attack on Zuma. This was a comment on what was happening in a very public setting, and since the leadership of the government were not putting a stop to these blatant attacks and threats (which is understandable, considering they were the ones making them), others had to stand up and call a spade a spade.
Ozone, Zapiro has also from time to time depicted leaders of the opposition (Tony Leon springs to mind) as closet racists – nobody sued him then, and in fact, there wasn’t much of a fuss made. Is it acceptable to label a white politician as racist, but not to satirise Zuma and friends? Being called a racist is no small thing in this country…but nothing further was heard?
The problem with the ANC leadership and executive is that, instead of sitting their collective comradely arses down and critically thinking through WHY a cartoonist (with struggle credentials by the way) would publish something like this, jump up and down and scream the usual collection of adjectives reserved for people who don’t worship JZ – racist, counter-revolutionary, thrid-force, right wing, western, blah blah blah. There is no critical thinking involved, it is just a knee-jerk reaction everytime – Zuma is mocked in the press, DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND!!!
Ozone, if you can actually sit here and tell me that you think threatening the judiciary, calling judges racist and threatening public disorder if the verdict doesn’t go the way the ANC thinks it should isn’t an abysmal state of affairs, and doesn’t deserve to get fully lambasted in the public domain, then you are indeed a special person.
“You mean that Zuma should sue himself. How exactly does that work?”
Sarah, Sarah, you got it all wrong. What Mdu means (and I’m taking liberties here) is that Zuma should sue his “bald empty” head. Off. He will then qualify for a head transplant – hopefully a better-looking one with more content – much like Franken-Manto qualified for a better-quality liver.
Lol @ Clara..
There is no critical thinking involved, it is just a knee-jerk reaction everytime – Zuma is mocked in the press, DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND!!!
I think that sums up the desperation of the Zuma camp. Let’s face it: on paper it does not look good. Faced charges of racketeering and fraud, already implicated in a bilateral crime, faced charges of rape and was acquitted, hangs around with Malema who has been accused of hate speech, caused the ‘divorce’ of the ANC and COPE. Zapiro has what exactly on his name? A few parking tickets?
What glorious reputation is there for Zuma to try and salvage?
Is it Constitutions, Leaders, Egos or Cutures?
Bush: Has shoe thrown at him, laughs it off and tells Iraqi’s not to to over react.
Sarkozi: Sued to stop Voodoo doll with his likeness being sold. French court dismissed his claim.
Zuma: New cartoon scandal. Await result.
Who ever said that Presidents served at the pleasure of the people?
The Big Slipper
“Zapiro did not attack Zuma personally – he did not ever imply, for example, that he is a bad father”
He clearly did imply he was a rapist however after the very same justice system that JZ is accused of raping in that cartoon found JZ innocent of that crime. Judging by comments by many bloggers on this site and even senior members of COPE that stigma should stick. Just who is raping our constitution and our justice system then ?
“Ozone, if you can actually sit here and tell me that you think threatening the judiciary, calling judges racist and threatening public disorder if the verdict doesn’t go the way the ANC thinks it should isn’t an abysmal state of affairs, and doesn’t deserve to get fully lambasted in the public domain, then you are indeed a special person.”
Naturally I’m find some of Malema’s wild statements quite disturbing but I’m just wondering how much of that is represents the views of JZ. Here again, I have a massive problems with the double standards applied here. Is JZ is supposed to control Malema and the ANCYL and prescribe to them what they should think and say? Why did M&G/Zapiro not lampoon Nelson Mandela when Peter Mokaba was running around inciting people to genocide with “kill the farmer, kill the boer”. Did they contribute Mokaba’s would rhetoric to Mandela and blamed him for not “controlling’ Mokaba and the ANCYL ? How can inciting the angry disenfranchised masses to commit genocide be worse than calling a judge racist ?
The reaction the past week of the ANC in general (to Cope) and Mr Zuma in particular (to Zapiro) recalls to mind the saying “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
ozoneblue, do you know any of these big business types sympathetic to the opposition who will be happy to fund me secretly or otherwise? I could do with the money! Meanwhile I have to survive on the taxpayer funded salary of the university. So thanks guys – you are all paying my salary by paying taxes.
No, Zapiro did not imply he was a rapist in a physical sense. The fact that Zuma was accused and acquitted of rape has nothing to do with this cartoon. I will agree with you that perhaps the imagery was unfortunate given Zuma’s rape trial. However, I am of the opinion that it was unfortunate purely because this was seized by the ANC and punted as evidence that Zapiro was a bad journalist who was just out to get Zuma by accusing him of being a rapist, even though he was acquitted. It was used as a mechanism to ignore the actual figurative message of the cartoon.
Zapiro’s cartoon was not about Zuma’s rape trial, nor was it referring to Zuma being a literal physical rapist. It was about Zuma and other high ranking members of the tri-partite alliance (Zuma was not the only one depicted in the cartoon) violating Lady Justice through their words and actions.
As for your question as to who is raping the justice system when people believe that Zuma is still guilty of rape, I contend that nobody is. There is no violation of justice when somebody disagrees with a judges ruling.
Regarding your second point, you have just done EXACTLY what the ANC does EVERY SINGLE TIME IT IS CHALLENGED. You have completely avoided the challenge I posed, and spouted forth information which is related to the general topic but draws away from the crux of the issue at hand.
I will respond however – YES, JZ, as leader of the ANC, is responsible for every single one of his ranking members and their statements. This is the problem with the ANC – they seem to think that people are responsible for themselves (I say that loosely), and that is where it stops. Unfortunately, in the real world it doesn’t work like that – look at the current fallout in the US with the Bernie Madoff scandal. The head’s of the SEC chairman and the auditors are on the line, not just Madoff’s. If JZ wants to be a leader he should lead – and that includes taking responsibility for his subordinates like Malema. Leadership is about service, and to serve this country and his party JZ needs to discipline ANC members when they step out of line, so that they too learn to serve people instead of themselves.
Regarding Peter Mokaba, I have no answer for you on that question. However, you simply threw this out there to avoid responding to my last statement, so I will pose it again more directly:
Ozone, do you believe that threatening the judiciary, calling judges racists and threatening public safety is an acceptable way to act, both as private citizens and as the leadership (collective) of a country? If not, on a scale of 1 – 10 with 10 being the worst, how would you rate the above actions in terms of acceptability in a democracy?
Gosh, Pierre – helping to pay your salary is only a pleasure!
Pierre, sorry to change the subject, but have you seen the latest post by my cyber-buddy, Udo Schuklenk (titled “Complete list of civilised countries now available”)? This is very sad.
http://ethxblog.blogspot.com
Somehow i don’t think Zapiro is all that worried about all of this–only makes him more valuable as a political cartoonist, I would think.
Truly, the only one who seems to get hurt by all of this is Zuma himself–empty threats really don’t accomplish all that much. Just as the empty threats against COPE really only served to legitimize COPE and set them up as the “official” opposition, at least in the minds of the public.
The Big Slipper
“Zapiro’s cartoon was not about Zuma’s rape trial,”
So I wonder what the shower head context was all about then ? Zapiro himself acknowledged that the rape trail was a secondary motif in the cartoon.
“YES, JZ, as leader of the ANC, is responsible for every single one of his ranking members and their statements.”
Nonsense. That is called a dictatorship alla Thabo Mbeki. Let me remind you that our constitution endeavors to promote democracy which includes such antiquated concepts such as freedom of thought, speech and expression.
“Unfortunately, in the real world it doesn’t work like that – look at the current fallout in the US with the Bernie Madoff scandal. The head’s of the SEC chairman and the auditors are on the line, not just Madoff’s.”
Shows just how little you understand about how a democracy works and how the inner workings of a company differs dramatically to that of a democratic political party. Also explains the arrogant thinking behind a new found party without any grass root support calling itself the “Congress of the People” and then “appointing” a person called Lynda Odendaal as its deputy who nobody has ever head of including but not limited to “the People” of Sandton.
“Regarding Peter Mokaba, I have no answer for you on that question.”
I’m not surprised. Perhaps you should think a bit more instead of mindlessly parroting the trendy neoliberal reactionary flavor of the month.
“Ozone, do you believe that threatening the judiciary, calling judges racists and threatening public safety is an acceptable way to act, both as private citizens and as the leadership (collective) of a country?”
No. But given the context of Judge Nicholsen’s comments about the likelihood of political interference in the endless prosecution of Zuma, the media’s obsession with Zuma and the relentless onslaught from the usual suspects against his character, I can understand the frustration. Let us also not forget that senior ANC leadership has taken Malema to task for some of his less responsible public remarks.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-08-29-ancyl-disturbed-by-motlanthe-comments
“…then you are indeed a special person.”
I just love this phrase by the Big Slipper. (Of course his response is spot on too.)
With people like the Big Slipper, there is hope for South Africa.
Ozoneblue,
Mandela did call Peter Mokaba to order. Mokaba was on TV telling us that he was changing his “Kill the Boer, Kill the famer” slogan to “Freedom in Mandela’s time.”
That was after Mandela had called him to order.
I thought I should set the record straight.
I know this may not be relevant to the discussion at hand, but did Ngcuka actually utter these words to the News Editors: “Help me. I want to try Zuma in the court of public opinion.”?
Dumisani Mkhize
Funnily enough, I reckon after Nicholsen (apparently uncalled for) remarks for the very first time I feel an irresistible itch to get my hands on a copy of Liesl Göttert’s “The Zuma Media Trial”.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/SpecialReports/Kebble/Article.aspx?id=298778
After all, as Jon Qwelane put it : “The little men and women of South Africa’s so-called mainstream media gasp that “people with rightwing links are now helping him pursue (his) defamation claims”.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_1965414,00.html
Mark Oppenheimer notes in this article on The Media Online entitled ‘Zuma’s investment strategy’:
http://www.themediaonline.co.za/themedia/view/themedia/en/page7330?oid=17010&sn=Detail
“One might presume that Zuma’s acquittal in his rape case would count as proof that he is not a rapist. However, criminal cases require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime that he is accused of. Civil cases, including defamation cases, require the lower burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities.
Not only does this mean that Zuma would have to endure a rerun of his rape trial, it means that the court may decide that he did engage in the act of rape. This would be similar to the outcome in the OJ Simpson trial. Even though he was not found guilty of murder in his criminal trial, he was found liable in the civil case against him. ”
So if Zuma is grilled on the question of his sexual conduct in the defamation trial he could potentially be revealed to have raped the woman on a balance of probabilities – which would be disastrous for him.
He would be ill-advised to pursue this legal action. It is a transparent attempt to bully the media into changing its representation of him.
I don’t know what Zapiro would say if he were to put that cartoon in words.
Did he actually utter the word ‘rape’ or is it the interpretation of the beholders based on their own prejudices.
Would I be wrong in my interpretation that that cartoon depicts Zuma about to pee on Lady Justice?
That was a horrible cartoon by Zapiro. He is skating on very thin ice. Yes it is true that at the moment, the threats made by Mr Zuma against Zapiro might be idle. This attack (in my view) on Mr Zuma goes further than just defamation of a public figure….it is an attack on South Africa’s BLACK MALE.
We can be as politically correct as we like but it cannot go without say that their are still stigmas out there. Zapiro has to be sensitave to these. We seem to have forgotten the ever important task at hand….TRANSFORMATION!!!
We all have a constitutional duty imposed on us. There are mature ways of hadling important issues: (one being seperation of power between the respective organs of state) AND then there is Zapiro’s cartoon in case.
david ansara
“Civil cases, including defamation cases, require the lower burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities.’
after reading the full judgment I believe that one can safely say, on a balance of properties, Zuma definitely did not rape that women.
I think Zapiro’s defense will boil down to the “cartoon didn’t imply the rape trail” cop-out. I say Zuma should sue the pants off this arrogant bastard and call his bluff because I have had enough of this “we are the precious media” and we are above the law and the constitution bs.
Clara, Dec 19 @ 3:27
That’s the funniest comment I have ever seen on this blog. I have always loved your wit.
@Paul:
Zapiro’s cartoon clearly depicts individuals. You can recognise them. I fail to see how he is portraying the average black male in a bad light. Unless you want to imply that it’s a habit of the average black male to resort to political solutions of legal woes?
Zapiro’s portrayal had nothing to do with the fact that Jacob Zuma and the others were black. He has even claimed that Lady Justice as portrayed there is black, which is a first as far as I know.
We do have a constitutional duty imposed on us. This duty entails protecting our freedom of speech, which is a mere 18 years or so old. We simply cannot afford that our media be censored again, because there is a cholera crisis in Zimbabwe and the world needs to know about it. The world also deserves to know about Zuma’s every legal move, because the tax payer is paying for most of it.
I think Zapiro is smart and sharp and a great political cartoonist, but that particular Zuma cartoon was tasteless. I don’t like the fact that he used a rape image and I agree with the fact that painting JZ as a rapist, was not “fair comment”.
I also think he is developing a bit of a THING about JZ which doesn’t make for good bizniz.
In a country like ours with a painful history so close to us, I think satirists and political and social commentators have to take a bit of extra care – it is very easy to hurt and offend.
But politicians should also develop thicker skins. They are public figures and they like to hand it out. They just seem to get a bit insecure when they get it back.
Anyway, these threats and knee jerk reactions don’t do them any good – they really just play into the hands of their detractors.
Karin Lotter
I agree with you when you say that carton was not “fair comment”.
I also think, taking Zuma’s proud struggle history and his prominent contribution in bringing peace to Kwazulu-Natal in the mid 90′s at a time when South Africa was facing the real prospect of an ugly tribal civil war in account, the media is painting a one sided, unfair picture of him.
Just as George W. Bush fed American comedians enough material to make fun of him throughout his Presidency, Jacob Zuma and the ANC continue to supply our satirists with material to carry out their businesses.
Their proud history notwithstanding, the ANC and Jacob Zuma deserve what they are now getting. You know what they say, “Garbage in, garbage out!”
Satirists, when one thinks about it, are in some way fighting our battles to make public officials face up to their gaffes and be accountable to the people they purport to serve.
Viva Zapiro. Down with taking people for granted.
Ozone:
The showerhead has become a motif used to lampoon JZ for his completely absurd statement that taking a shower reduces the risk of contracting HIV/AIDs. If a public leader wants to say something that dumb, he must expect to live with it. Political cartoonists use caricatures, which exaggerates physical features to acheive a comic effect. They also use external motifs relating to things politicians have said or done as a comic device. JZ’s statement simply gave Zapiro more ammunition. Who’s fault is that?
Regarding your idea that leadership is not about taking responsibility, this simply goes to prove how little you understand about leadership (and scares the crap out of me if you are representative of the ANC membership). If you are a manager in a company and one of your subordinate staff makes a huge mess of something, unless you can prove that he/she did not have a mandate from you to act in such a way, YOU will be on the line.
Unfortunately you seem to believe that JZ should not be held responsible for senior ANC leaders comments (and then have the gall to personally attack me by claiming I understand very little about democracy. You are indeed a true ANC cadre, you will do well in that organization). Who is responsible then? The leaders themselves? Obviously they bear some personal responsibility for what they say, but if they continue to be allowed to say and do things which are out of line, surely somebody higher up must take responsibility? It is part of JZ’s function, as leader of the ANC, to control those other senior leaders of the ANC when they get out of line. Unfortunately, that’s what leadership is about – it is not about power, or money, or profile (this may come as a surprise to you, but it’s true). If JZ is not responsible for controlling the likes of Mantashe and Malema, then who is? Are they simply a law unto themselves?!
The principle is called ACCOUNTABILITY, and you should look up what it means and how it applies in an organization with a hierarchy structure. Basically, people are expected to answer to people above them, and those people above them are expected to take responsibility for those answering to them. Please explain to me how this principle of accountability is “arrogant”? Please also explain how the formation of a new political party based on the principle (among others) of accountability is arrogant and displays a lack of understanding of democracy?
Regarding your statements about the Constitution, the Constitution does NOT absolve people of responsibility, which is what a lot of people seem to forget amongst all the rights they claim. Free speech, equality etc are all good, but there is a RESPONSIBILITY to exercise those rights in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution – which, as a matter of interest, also includes respect for OTHER PEOPLE’S rights (even those not in the ANC). Malema, Mantashe and friends have a right to free speech. However, when that crosses the line of responsible free speech (by threatening public disorder, for example), the LEADERSHIP of the ANC needs to exercise some executive power and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for ensuring that ANC members do not cross the line. If it is the leadership that is making those statements, it falls on the head of the leadership (i.e. president of the party) to bring those leaders into line.
Going back to your statement that I understand very little about democracy, I am always willing to learn – perhaps you could enlighten me as to what I misunderstand.
My lack of answer for you regarding Peter Mokaba was simply because I was at work, and did not have time to research the topic. As a fellow contributor has pointed out, Mandela DID take responsibility as leader of the ANC and brought him into line. Do not for a second construe my lack of answer there as ignorance. I was focussing on the topic at hand. When I was a child and my mother would tell me I wasn’t allowed to do something, I too would use the approach “But JIMMY’S mother lets him!” My mother would simply reply that she wasn’t Jimmy’s mother. So, applying that to this situation, Peter Mokaba is not Malema or anyone else, and in any event, your question was answered.
Regarding my “parroting of the neoliberal reactionary flavour of the month”, again you do your party proud with such big words. Please define for me the following:
1. The prefix “Neo”
2. The word liberal as it relates to politics
3. Reactionary
While you’re thinking of what those mean (because I doubt you have ever actually thought about it), it might be worth pointing out that I am conservative. It also might be worth pointing out that it would be difficult to be Neoliberal in a country where the ruling party considers itself “left”, which would be, by political standards, liberal. But please, I await your definition with eager anticipation.
Finally, thank you for answering my questions. You have definitively stated that the ANC is NOT acting in an acceptable manner. Therefore, you actually have very little in the way of moral ammunition regarding this debate.
Big Slipper
One or two definitions for you:
“democracy” : “a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them”
Note the bizarre emphasis on “electing” people to represent you instead of “appointing” someone who nobody has ever heard of before to manage or “control” you, as a company would do.
“neoliberalism”: I find it more than a little ironic that somebody who believes that a democratic political party should work like a company have never heard of that well understood political philosophy.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.
2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.
4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”
I see – I was always under the impression that liberal politics was “left” and conservative politics was “right”.
I would therefore not fall into the neoliberal category entirely, nor would I fall into whatever the opposite of that category is – instead I would fall into the middle. Both sides of the coin have positive and negative aspects – I believe in finding the best of both and making it work. As a matter of interest, what makes me a neoliberal? The fact that I think the ANC is generally populated by a bunch of self-serving money-grabbing politicians who forgot what service is about a long time ago?
By your definition of neoliberal, the ANC, although professing to be a left leaning party, is neoliberal – they have privatised parastatals, and adopted inflation targeting as monetary policy and pretty much left people to fend for themselves (i.e.individual responsibility) through a complete lack of service delivery. Their policy of affirmative action, while noble in intention, has left millions of South Africans no better off than under Apartheid, while benefitting a few people who keep cropping up in tender documents and shareholder registers. Public spending has been shocking, with budgets being wasted on public parties (yes, I have first hand knowledge of this) and fancy office furniture for people. This has led to situations like the present one with the Free State health department, where spending has been frozen to the detriment of millions of poor people. As for deregulation by eliminating anything that stands in the way of making profits, the ANC disbanded the Scorpions, which is factually the most effective regulatory body we’ve ever had as far as crime goes. In other areas, the environmental minister granted mining rights for a pristine area of the wild coast to an Australian company in spite of objections from just about everyone, including Richard Spoor, a prominent human rights lawyer, and the very community who was supposedly going to benefit from this very capitalist (foreign capitalist at that) venture. She stated that the community had been lied to by this white man Richard Spoor – the very same white man who fought on the side of the ANC in Apartheid, and she didn’t care what anybody said, she was granting the rights.
So who is neoliberal? I don’t care what the ANC says – actions speak louder than words.
Finally, by your definition of democracy, we do not have one. We elect political parties, who in turn elect people to lead us. I wish we could elect individuals to lead us – that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, we have no say in who is president, or even who represents our constituency in parliment. If the chap responsible for my area is caught stealing, and the party who won that area refuses to remove him, I have no say in the matter – tough luck. There’s some food for thought.
the big slipper
“By your definition of neoliberal, the ANC, although professing to be a left leaning party, is neoliberal”
Enlightenment at last
Now perhaps you would start understanding what the fundamental differences are between the “business friendly” Mbeki faction and the “evil” Zuma with his “left-leaning allies”.
That makes zero sense whatsoever.
Who cares what the differences are in terms of policy? We had a president who didn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS, resulting in 330,000 deaths directly attributable to him, and adopted “quiet diplpomacy” while innocent Zimbabweans were slaughtered in numbers. And those are just two of his “acheivements”. Next year we will have a president who has stated that he committed adultery with a woman young enough to be his daughter because the clothes she was wearing indicated that she was begging for it, and that showering after sex reduces the risk of infection for HIV. Nevermind his implication in a bilateral crime, or his tolerance for incendiary public statements by members of his party.
Can you not see why people are fed up with the ANC? Can you not see why COPE, for all it’s flaws (which predominantly reside in its leadership), provides such a welcome breath of fresh air for people who have had nowhere to go before now?
All I want for Christmas is 10 senior ANC members to wake up with brains and integrity, and start challenging their party leadership to hold to higher standards.
the big slipper
“Who cares what the differences are in terms of policy?”
I do.
Zapiro’s Dec 21 cartoon in the Sunday Times is quite good. It’s to the point and brilliant as usual. If it offends you then that’s unfortunate.
[Now perhaps you would start understanding what the fundamental differences are between the “business friendly” Mbeki faction and the “evil” Zuma with his “left-leaning allies”.]
Do these people think that Zuma existed in a vacuum untill 2004 …? He was the DEPUTY PRESIDENT in the Mbeki administration. There are no ‘fundamental differences’, only superficial ones born of political expediency.