Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation. This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.
The letter from the editor published on ANC Today last Friday is quite revealing. To my mind it inadvertently shows some in the ANC to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of democracy.
For example, it complains about reporting on the Gautrain and criticism of President Mbeki using the so called race card to answer his critics, and says:
[O]ur allies, the SACP and COSATU, made absolutely no effort to contact us to check the veracity of the allegations originally made by the Sunday Times, which consciously and deliberately sought to project some of our leaders, and the ANC as a whole, as a corruptive force deeply embedded in our body politic.
The underlying assumption here is that the ANC will always be honest when asked to respond about corruption and we should therefore trust them. Ifw e do not trust them we are horrible racists.
But in a democracy, we have a right NOT to trust politicians and political parties. Should Americans have trusted Richard Nixon or George Bush? Should the Brits have trusted Tony Blair or Margareth Thatcher? Of course not. Politicians and political parties lie to serve their own interest. The ANC has shown that it is no different.
Its only in a totalitarian state where one is forced to “trust” the rulers. In a democracy we have a right to question and even to ridicule our rulers and their political parties. The ANC is no different despite their struggle credentials because they are also now a government party and therefore need not be trusted.
The letter also responds to criticism of President Thabo Mbeki’s style of debate. Cosatu complained that he does not deal with the real issues but tends to label and ridicule his opponents to which the editors say:
[I]n the event that a robust debate arises affecting any issue, those involved must not expect that they can unilaterally lay down rules prescribing what constitutes legitimate argument, principally to limit the possibility for the ANC and the government to defend themselves.
But that does not answer the criticism. Instead of addressing the question posed by Cosatu, it merely states that the President can argue in any way he wants to. It’s the equivalent of shouting na-na-na while sticking out your tounge at the other boys on the playground! Its infantile and arrogant at the same time.
The real question is whether it is good tactics and whether it is good for democracy for a President to call others names instead of actually answering their criticism?
I would suspect that it is neither. By using race as an all-encompassing weapon to intimidate and ridicule those who criticise the ANC, President Mbeki is de-legitimising real debate on racism. Because he is claiming that any criticism of the ANC is by its very nature racist. In the long run we will just all start laughing at him when he uses the R word.
This is a rather sad development. Let’s hope 2007 will be the year when some of the good leaders in the ANC stand up to challenge this kind of clap trap.