Democracy is an ecosystem. Its survival is dependent on many things: a sound legislative framework, an independent judiciary, a vibrant parliament and a responsive government. Beyond this, it also needs a vigilant, proactive civil society, engaged voters and a free media: three elements that ensure government is held accountable for its actions, transparent about what it does and goaded into serving the best of interests of the people – not of those in power.

The Protection of Information bill is one of the gravest threats to this ecosystem. It will critically undermine the ability for parliament, the media and civil society to ensure accountability and transparency in government. The ANC claims this law is to protect state security but, as many before me have pointed out, its wide-ranging mandate means it can easily be used to cover up wrongdoing, severely punishing those who dare to expose it.

Earlier this week, Pick n Pay’s chairman, Gareth Ackerman, spoke out against the bill. He provided a calm and clear explanation of its potential to damage the economy and deter foreign investment. Financial information could be concealed, as could corruption – thereby severely stymieing the economic freedom needed to foster entrepreneurship and attract investors – both essential ingredients required to combat poverty and narrow the vast gulf between rich and poor.

While the dangers of the Info Bill seem self evident, it is startling that so far Ackerman is the only significant businessman who has criticised it. The silence from the rest of business is as deafening as it is inexcusable.

When the prosperity of our economy, our democracy and our country’s future is being put at risk, you would have thought there would have been a cacophony of outrage from businesses – it is in their interest that the bill does not become law, after all. But no. Two of our biggest and most important business groupings, Business Leadership South Africa and Business Unity South Africa have not said a word. Neither have our largest companies.

What can explain this gutless behaviour: is business hoping this is a battle that will be fought by others? Or that the ANC will suddenly override its totalitarian instincts and dump the legislation at the last minute?

Perhaps a more plausible explanation is that many businesses are simply too afraid to stand up to government because they are reliant upon political goodwill to operate freely. Many businesses unquestioningly and sycophantically signed up to Black Economic Empowerment. This was despite them knowing that BEE had little to with empowering blacks and everything to do with consolidating the ANC’s economic clout: a system designed to massively enrich a tiny yet powerful elite.

Big business thought it would get an easy ride if it cosied up to the ANC. And indeed, with loyal ANC cadres dotting the boards of some of South Africa’s largest companies, business has largely been left alone to get on with making money.

Now they’re really caught in a fix. Even if they are conscious of the long-term dangers of a law like the Info Bill, they are too entrenched in the ANC’s patronage network to speak out about it lest they incur the wrath of the party’s titans and lose business deals and political support as a result.

Our nation’s corporations should have been more careful when they made this Faustian pact with the ANC in the Nineties. In the afterglow of the first democratic elections it must have seemed pragmatic and sensible to cuddle up to the new snouts at the trough. But with the ANC’s non-racial values long squandered by the craven despots that call the shots in the movement now, the folly of such an approach has been exposed.

If the Info Bill is thwarted, it will certainly not be thanks to big business. It will be in spite of it: in spite of a group of companies that have cosily conspired with the ANC to maintain a status quo of wealth in the hands of a few, at the expense of the countless millions who remain economically oppressed.

Alex Matthews is founder of The Soapbox, and its editor-at-large. He blogs at Afrodissident.

World Movement for Democracy is an international network of organizations who share the common goal of promoting democracy. Its missions are to strengthen democracy where it is weak, reform and invigorate democracy even where it is longstanding, and bolster pro-democracy groups in countries that have not yet entered into a process of democratic transition.

The World Movement for Democracy Assembly was held in Jakarta, Indonesia, during 11 – 14 April 2010. This assembly brought together over 600 democracy and human rights activist, NGO leaders, politicians, businessmen, academics, and other friends of democracy and human rights. I was fortunate enough to be invited to this assembly and share experiences with people from all different backgrounds.

The worst part of the trip was the sad and constant reminders about Julius Malema, and the threat he poses to our democracy. A prominent Zimbabwean student leader who has been pushing for democratic reform in Zimbabwe even implicitly mentioned Julius Malema in his speech. He spoke about how Julius Malema endorses Zanu-PF’s dictatorial rule of Zimbabwe, and the human rights abuses with which it comes. He mentioned how he has been sucked into the demagoguery of revolutionary talk that elders promote. At the end of it all, Julius Malema was the centrepiece of a negative speech delivered to the world where our African youth brothers warned us to guard against those who threaten our democracy.

In the same assembly, I had the pleasure of interacting with people from over 110 different countries. Sadly so, the conversations where international leaders have shown concern for Julius Malema are the ones that stick out. In one conversation, an American activist expresses his alarm about Malema’s behaviour and the direction in which the country is heading with him in a seat of power. Another European wondered how investment will continue flow to South Africa with his current behaviour, and he described the nationalisation of the mines as the beginning of the end for South Africa.

Julius Malema is a powerful man, and some even say more powerful than the president of the republic himself. Due to the views which he portrays, and the influence he holds, Julius Malema is a direct threat to our democracy. Julius opposes a free media, and wants to personally decide what appropriate and fair coverage is. Malema by admission supports a militant land expropriation method which disregards human rights, and threatens property rights in its entirety. Malema fuels racial tensions and easily plays on the emotional connection South Africans have to the past in order to provide a smokescreen for his ill-conceived agenda. He is an opportunist that gets rich off the money from the taxpayer, and hence he contributes to a cycle of growing poverty in South Africa.

The Democratic Alliance must continue to defend and promote the constitution. It is the only thing that can stop people such as Julius Malema, and protect South Africans from becoming a failed state because of such leaders. We must always protect and guard against those who threaten our democracy.

Hlanganani Gumbi is provincial youth chairperson of the Eastern Cape DA.

The Freedom Front Plus has laid a hate speech complaint against African National Congress Youth League president Julius ‘Juju’ Malema and even called for his prosecution.

This came after Juju allegedly said the boers (reference to white people) must be killed for they are rapists when he addressed students at the University of Johannesburg’s Doornfontein campus, as reported by the Star. “Kill the boers, they are rapists”, Juju is reported to have said at the time.

Hasn’t he heard of some black people accused of rape before (although some of them being found not guilty, including Pres Jacob Zuma)? Or maybe he does not know any of this because he is “too glamorous, too rich… and too arrogant to indentify [himself] with [the lives of ordinary people]” as Jackie Mapiloko once wondered?

In opposition to the controversial remarks by Juju, University of Johannesburg vice chancellor and principal Ihron Rensburg issued a statement saying while the university supported the  right to free speech and encouraged it in its campuses, it, however, did not condone nor encourage “comments that are potentially inflammatory, provocative and defamatory”.

Ihron said that UJ had first refrained from commenting on Juju’s statements until “a number of staff and students registered concern(s) about Mr Malema’s statements” and that parents, fee-payers and members of the general public had also expressed concerns over Juju’s remarks at the time. UJ, as many have come to know it, reassured members of the public of its determination “to uphold [its] values which include, integrity and respect for diversity and human dignity, and which run counter to any statements that provoke racial, gender or religious tensions”.

It was disappointing and unfortunate that Juju, president of a youth movement that should be providing leadership, had uttered such regrettable words. As a president, Juju should have known better for it is ill-informed statements and remarks such as these that set us back in achieving the one human race we envision.

And despite UJ distancing itself from Juju’s remarks, the ANC’s Gwede Mantashe and Jackson Mthembu have, however, continued to defend Juju. Mthembu said Juju’s words had been quoted out of context and that he should not be blamed as he [Mthembu] will defend him while Mantashe on the other hand allegedly defended Juju as saying the song did not “constitute hate speech” and even “condemned opposition parties that had filed complaints against Malema for singing it” according to a Cape Times newspaper report.

Strange as this may seem (or maybe not?) it will not be the first time that Juju is made to face the music over his controversial remarks he’s popularly known for. Recently he had been found guilty for hate speech by the Equality Court after he alleged that “when a woman didn’t enjoy it [sex], she leaves early in the morning. Those who had a nice time [a reference to a woman president Jacob "Love Pants" Zuma had allegedly raped] will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast and ask for taxi money”. He has, however — or his half-wit lawyer rather — indicated his intention to appeal against the Equality Court decision, according to the Mail & Guardian. Many commentators and editors have since questioned this and found it contradictory and unconstitutional, if not in contrast to the ‘right to opinion and freedom of expression’.

Pierre de Vos, a University of Cape Town Constitutional law expert said the decision [on Juju's hate speech] was wrong as it meant no one could say “anything rude about anyone” while Robert Brand, a lecturer in economics journalism and media ethics at Rhodes University, wondered if Juju’s words constituted any ‘hate speech’. Tim Cohen wondered how such words could have “explicitly [been] intended to do something as drastic as ‘incite harm’ or ‘propagate hatred’.

In his complaint sheet against Juju, Mulder said “kill the boer, kill the farmer” was declared a hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission in July 2003 that he found Juju’s remarks as hate speech which is in contravention of section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution of South Africa. “In terms of this section, no person may advocate hate which is based on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender or religion and which incites action to cause harm to others” read Mulder’s complaint sheet against Juju.

Juju’s remarks are suspectedly linked to the farmers recently killed in Kwa-Zulu Natal according to Democratic Alliance. DA said the attacks came after Juju’s “public appearance, singing a song promoting the killing of farmers” with FF Plus also blaming the attacks on Juju’s “kill the boers” comments. FF Plus has also threatened to investigate “the possibility to lay charges against Malema at the International Criminal Court, or in the least make the court aware of a growing phenomenon of the victimisation of minorities and specifically the Afrikaner in South Africa which could escalate to international crimes”.

One would agree on and commend efforts, despite how this may be seen by others especially from the ANC circle, by FF Plus in investigating the influence Juju’s comments could have had on the killings of farmers around the country however strange it may seem. This is because not once before (or at least as far as one can remember) has a decision, or rather lack thereof, such as this one been taken at the time when many farmers (white) and farm workers (black) were murdered or  killed. Has race got anything to do with this?

Put mildly: is it because many of these farmers killed are white? If not, then forget I said anything. But these remain questions for many South Africans, irrespective of their race, as there is the impression that it is only when ‘white’ people are subject to these unfair and ill-actions that the likes of DA, FF Plus and AfriForum seem more concerned than when it is black people which then leaves many of us wondering if the life or death of white people is still more important and superior to that of black people.

It was disturbing of FF Plus to launch a “Prosecute Malema” website. Just how effective and helpful does FF Plus think the anti-Malema campaign is? And whoever thought the anti-Malema campaign was in the “interest of all South Africans in general” must be as crazy as its subject, Juju. Or maybe this campaign is ONLY in the interest of “Afrikaners and minorities in particular” as FF Plus claimed in its statement.  It is therefore racial statements such as these that will ONLY benefit a few selected members of our society, Afrikaners and the minorities in this case. And if Juju’s comments are hate speech as alleged by the FF Plus why then resort to the racist campaign and not await the decision of the HRC or the Equality Court whose recent ruling on Juju has been widely criticised?

By this I am not saying Juju is right or anything like that. Of course the half-wit youth league president is very wrong and surely there are steps – like previously done with the hate speech complaint lodged with the HRC that saw him being found guilty – that can be taken and certainly not that of the FF Plus that is rather racist and ill-informed. FF Plus can do better that this for this anti-Malema campaign is not going to help the situation (of farmers and their workers’ murders) at all. And instead, the campaign — a sign of firm demonstration and the ONLY language the ANC understands — will only make things worse.

Aren’t there other means that can be used to “prevent him from continuing with his racial incitement performance”? It is however not clear whether FF Plus anti-Malema campaign will put Juju’s life at risk as is alleged by the ANC. “This campaign poses a danger to the personal safety and security of Cadre Malema.  As the ANC, we draw the conclusion that it is meant to incite, instigate and mobilise some people to harm and even lead to the execution the ANCYL President” claimed the ANC.

And as said before, and also noted by the ANC, it remains to be seen if Juju’s remarks “led to the death of some farmers” as this seem too convenient for both FF Plus and DA. Farmers have died before, and who killed them then if they are now assumed to have been killed by Juju or that their murders have been attributed to Juju’s comments?

The ANC saw the campaign as a “clear deliberate ploy on their side to mobilise the farming community and their next of kin not to hesitate in causing harm to the Youth League President” which could be true.

And as advised before, FF Plus should instead approach the “law enforcement authorities” and report the incident(s) for failure to do so, as said the ANC, will be indicative that even the Freedom Front itself does not believe in what it claims.

The ANC will also approach the Equality Court for recourse on this matter because it viewed the campaign as indicative of hate speech meant to endanger and pose a threat to the well-being and safety of Juju, according to the issued statement and that it had “instructed [its] lawyers to file papers with the Equality Court on this [anti-Malema] matter, with immediate effect.”

And it’s worth emphasizing and repeating that its defence of Juju’s ‘kill the boers’ comments has not helped much too for if this continues, as noted Alex Matthews, we might as well kill all black people, gays and women. Does it really have to come to this because by supporting Malema as the ANC has to date, we may as well be heading to war, according to Inkatha Freedom Party.

However strange this may seem, I just could not agree more with AfriForum Youth that Juju has now become the biggest embarrassment of not only [us] the youth, but also of the country and if he has really broken any law when he called for a person of any race to be killed then we should arrest him instead of being prosecuted (or may be later) — he asked for it mos, didn’t he?

Or rather we let the law take its course?

And while we are at it, we must do away with these ‘struggle songs’ as they can be quite dangerous and at times incite fear among us and a sense of superiority as we’ve now come to know.

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

Where do you start: nationalisation, disrespecting, swearing and even disgust at elders, shooting to kill, and labelling someone a “racist little girl”?

If anyone is to write a biography on Malema – that person would certainly have it both ways. This is because the process, not to forget the subject thereof, would certainly be quite interesting and enjoyable too. I mean, it’s Malema you’ll be writing about and too much should be expected.

Firstly, you are very much likely to have Malema agreeing to the biography wherein he would say many things, a lot of which we otherwise have never heard him say or being quoted as having said. Secondly, it would be funny in that you would hear a different version of his “controversial” statements which at times, have landed him in a ‘hot pot’ so that someone had to call in JZ.

However, what one can say for sure is that Julius Malema is an African National CongressYouth League president who speaks his mind. He does not care what position you hold in government or in the private sector. Moreover, the following are just some of the things likely to be included in Malema’s biography, I hope, by whoever will have the guts to write it.

• He is a “layman” who completed matric aged 21.
• He is, and can be very forgiving. He advised that former president Thabo Mbeki “not be charged” for a somewhat incomprehensible and ill-informed ‘genocide charged’ due to his alleged denial of HIV causing AIDS,
• Last year he said, “Nationalisation of mines was necessary to generate income for the government so that it could fund free education and provide better services for the people”. He recently reiterated that although the ANCYL agreed with JZ on nationalisation not being a government Public Policy, “no one should attempt to stop the… League [he leads] from raising the debate [on nationalisation]“ and that they therefore “don’t want Zuma’s or Mbalula’s support… [but] want the support of the masses” because the white people stole the land from the black majority, and he certainly will not let them steal the mines too this time.
• He can be very  mobilising of society against anyone he deems an enemy, or even corporations.
• He would certainly condemn you as “rascals and thugs” if you likened him to a “Mickey Mouse” probably for talking too much so that he sometimes gets into trouble with the big boss.
• He would eliminate anyone opposed to Zuma, and probably the ANC too — who knows?
• He certainly can be called to order for stepping out of “that line”.
• He can be very generous in giving to the somewhat needy when and as he sees fit.
• He is  ridiculously protected by state as if he is Mandela, Mbeki or even Zuma the president for his life is considered to be more in danger than yours and mine.
• He would tell you to accept the African leadership even when you do not agree with or accept it. Period!
• He believes that Zuma would probably even lead us from prison one day.

What South Africans came to know recently about Malema, except what we may have known before, is that the man is rich. The Sunday Times reported Malema as very rich. This was after the Star newspaper reported of his “millions” recently.

According to the Star report, Malema was able to buy two houses worth 4.6m, cars worth 1.2m and a Breitling watch to the value of 250.00. He now has about 3 cars, and is reportedly a director of four companies: 101 Junjus Trading CC, Blue Nightingale Trading 61, Ever Roaring Investment and SGL Engineering Projects.

When asked by the newspaper how he could afford such a luxurious lifestyle, the militant Malema said the journalist should rather write about herself, her husband and her family. “You and your husband and your family – that’s who you need to write about. You go away, just go away.” Now that’s AYOBA!

The league spokesperson Floyd Shivambu came to the defence of Malema in saying the newspaper was being “nonsensical” and asked if it could “rethink” what it was doing [reporting on Malema and auditing his 'luxurious' lifestyle]. “What business is this of yours? How dare you call me and ask for comment on this?” he asked the newspaper at the time.

DA youth league leader Khume Ramulifho told the Star that Malema is said to earn as much as a minister and “that is why he will not go to Parliament or take up any other office.”

Mail & Guardian Online reported that opposition party Freedom Front Plus was going to ask South Africa Revenue Service to “immediately investigate” Malema and his “real contribution” to income tax in recent years, and the ANC Youth League itself. The party’s parliamentary spokesperson Anton Alberts told the newspaper that if reports of Malema’s lifestyle are “correct” – it would only mean he lived “far above his income” and could not claim to be a communist by trying to nationalise the mines, but at the same time “live a capitalist”.

Given Malema’s response yesterday to SABC News that the ANC pays him well more than what the newspaper reported – then it is worth suspecting that he indeed he is being paid well enough to live this “lavishly luxurious” lifestyle. Or that somebody’s lying. And I just hope it is not the Star newspaper report that is lying to us, but Malema himself to the nation.

And this is your Julius Malema. He’s got a very good and expensive taste: look at his cars, the houses and the watch. Damn! As if that’s not enough, he is also very much protected by state security services, quite talkative and that comes with being “well paid”, I think.

I now have come to know and describe Malema as a “Communist Capitalist”. I must confess to not having heard such a name before or rather know of someone being described as such, and therefore, Malema sure as hell must be lucky to have such a name as names do not come easy for politicians in South Africa. This is because if former Heath Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang would still be alive, I would suggest you ask her on the Dr. Beetroot title and how that came about.

And what’s you definition of Malema? You heard mine?

By the way, I see no reason why The ANC and its youth wing would demand a “retraction and an apology from the Star newspaper as Mail & Guardian Online reported.

This, I think, is because someone – both the ANC and the Youth League in this case – has to prove the Star report otherwise by either stating all facts to the editor who will have to publish it – as it is already in the public domain and has generated “public interest” and is probably in the public interest by now – or write a complaint to the Ombudsman where all facts would be revealed.

But until then…

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

President Jacob Zuma had an affair with a woman who was not his wife. They both had a child, and as per cultural norms, Zuma did pay his dues and apologised to South Africa (and probably his wives too — one just wonders how they took the news) with the hope of being forgiven and forgotten that it never happen. Well, not so easily.

Democratic Alliance Hellen Zille was up in arms at the time, arguing that if Zuma does not like public scrutiny, he should then resign. This after ANC defended Zuma when Zille said Zuma thought he was above the law and could do anything and get away with it (having as many kids outside wedlock as he sees fit, maybe?).

It was after Zuma’s apology that everyone moved on. Or at least so it seemed at the time, until Congress of the People said it would pass a vote of no confidence for Zuma in continuing to be the country’s president.

Zille has defended Western Cape MEC for community safety Lennit Max’s “alleged extramarital affair” after Rapport newspaper reported on Max’s alleged sexual harassment. According to the report Max is accused ‘four previous allegations of sexual harassment when he was still the provincial police commissioner’.

At the time of writing Max was on a ‘paid leave’ – something Zuma told the SABC recently, after his state of the nation address last week, that government would have to take a firm stand on irrespective of which political party one is a member of – pending the outcome of the investigation.

It was very contradictory of Zille to defend Max in saying ‘an extramarital affair between consenting adults in private is not a matter that can be regulated by a political party’.

This, according to a Sunday Times report, was after Max was ‘accused of having an extramarital affair and unprotected sex with a former police clerk, Belinda Peterson’ several times in 2007 as ’she had been unable to pay him in cash when he was her legal representative during a police disciplinary hearing’ Max  unashamedly did all this allegedly ‘on his son’s bed and in the main bedroom’. Jesus Christ!

A few years ago Zuma had a “sexual and consenting adult” relationship with a friend’s daughter – something he is very good and excellent at – while still a deputy president of the African National Congress and South Africa which cost him the former role.

Both Zuma and Max hold high positions in government and surely their conduct as public servants and representatives should be the same. Or shouldn’t they because on the one hand Max is just an MEC who less is expected from while on the other hand Zuma as THE PRESIDENT, too much is expected?

What’s the difference?

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

You actually did not hear me say this, but write it because some parliamentarian is reported to have told another parliamentarian (possibly the president) exactly that. Now that’s AYOBA!

One says AYOBA because this has never happened in the Mandela time, or even Mbeki time for that matter. And it’s worth admitting that during Jacob Zuma’s tenure as president of the country we are very much likely to see what otherwise would not have been seeing, hearing or happening in both Mandela and Mbeki’s time. Or worse, even during De Klerk’s time — otherwise he would have made sure he sends you to jail like he did to some now-turned politicians and parliamentarians.

Plus, you have to agree with me on this one; it is only here in South Africa where you would hear another politician “fucking up the other one”. Unless of course…

Mail & Guardian Online reported that Democratic Alliance MP Kohler-Barnard was heard saying “fuck” in the National Assembly during a walkout by her party and another political party Congress of the People (Cope) in support of Cope MP Mluleki George.

According to the ruling party African National Congress’s statement on Politicsweb.co.za, George has accused JZ of “leading the nation into lawlessness”. It is not clear what George could be basing his allegation(s) on. But surely it must have been a lot of things that Zuma may have, if not suspected to have, done. A child out of wedlock maybe? Anyway this is not about Zuma, but the “fuck-ups” that are taking place in our parliament of recent times.

The ANC believed the allegation to be as “serious charge that should be brought before the House through a substantive motion”. And it was not long before DA decided to suspend Kohler-Barnard, M&G Online reported.

Just imagine telling another parliamentarian or whoever: “Fuck you!”

It was good that  DA decide to act on the matter by suspending her (see also here) before things got even more damaging and tarnished its image than it already has as that of “sex pest” Lennit Max as an article by the Mail & Guardian’s Pearlie Joubert described him. I mean, what else was she going to tell Zuma, or another parliamentarian — maybe, “Go to…”?

Maybe SASCO president Mbulelo Mandlana is somewhat right and correct, after all, in saying “foul language is da [in] language [in parliament].”

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

Robert Frost wrote of two roads that diverged into the woods and how his opting for the one less taken made all the difference. As President Zuma applies the finishing touches to his State of the Nation speech, one hopes that he will use this opportunity to take the people of South Africa into his confidence and deliver something which accurately details the state of our nation without needless rhetoric and sugar-coating. It is not too late to change course and steer his government towards the light.

Even a cursory reading of documents such as the ANC’s 2009 Election Manifesto and its 8 January 2010 statement makes it clear that much has been done since 1994. In fact, a brief glance at any street in South Africa will attest to the fact that we have come far from where we once were; yet, juxtaposed against that, is the harsh reality that on that very same street you will find evidence of just how vast a distance still remains to be travelled. It is to the road ahead that we must focus, despite how tempting it may be to dwell on past achievements or failures.

Since his inauguration, Zuma’s performance can, at best, be described as symbolic. He has, among other things, flown on the national carrier, held mass meetings with police officers and school principals, stepped onto the scene of service delivery protests and ambushed a truant mayor, and he has set up a presidential call-centre –going so far as to take a call in person. His cabinet is rather large and some of the departments now sport new names – most notably the Ministry of Police in what he argues was an attempt to toughen the attack on crime. Most recently he has imposed night shift duty on Members of Parliament by deciding to deliver the State of the Nation address in the evening. But has all of this made a tangible or discernible difference in the way that services are delivered to South Africans? For let us not forget that amidst all the obfuscation, the core task of the State is to serve “the people”.

However, all is not lost – just as it never was in the darkest hours of despair during the negotiations towards the 1994 democratic election. The ruling party has correctly identified the pressing challenges that currently hinder our country, namely job creation, education, health, rural development and crime. What they have not done successfully is to defeat these challenges or at least present coherent strategies of how they intend to do so.

Whilst I do not personally presume to have all of the answers, there have been certain glaring errors made by the ruling party and their obstinate refusal to concede where they have erred or accept constructive criticism suggests that the interests of their voters (and other South Africans) are not always foremost in their minds.

The president may easily deliver a flaccid speech which promises everything but offers nothing, and take comfort in knowing that he has failed those who depend upon him the most by not giving the desirable leadership to ensure that civil servants raise their game.

Alternatively, he may break from convention and come out with his guns blazing in a manner that is unprecedented – after all, what is the point of having the power of being president if one doesn’t use it occasionally? Whichever route he elects to take, he cannot complain of having not known what is at stake.

Lungelo Magubane is a fourth year student in the Faculty of Law at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Durban.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) has entered into what should be a new and most exciting decade for politics in South Africa. The DA has grown from a minor opposition party to the efficient and effective official opposition it is today. If the strategists who engineered this immense growth continue with the bold and visionary objective of creating an open opportunity society for all, the African National Congress (ANC) will be unable to block the DA’s growing support. This should lead to the DA, with other opposition parties, governing locally provincially, and being a large alternative in the National Assembly.

I recently read an article titled, “Eusebius McKaiser: Only a black-led party has a hope of taking on the ANC” while I was in the States. The first thing that came to mind was that the core of the article was nothing new, innovative, nor explosive in its message to what many senior political commentators have had to say. The article centred on the fact that any possible merger between the DA and Congress of the People (COPE), has to be perceived, and be, black-led. The second point which it focused on was that the ideology of the party should be one that places social justice as the most important point in which to build the party.

On the first point, the DA is a non-racial party. That is a core principle of the party which should not be compromised in order to gain votes. To institute the leadership of a party on the basis of the colour of his/her skin, would be nothing less than ANC policy of cadre deployment, and also implicitly racist in itself. I certainly agree that South Africa’s demographics should drastically increase the likelihood of a black president and leadership, but certainly should not guarantee it. The open possibility for all races is what the DA promotes, and must continue to promote from within its structures. Only a non-racial principle will ensure that the party has lasting growth – as opposed to the short-term method of window-dressing, which fools nobody, and must be totally resisted.

On the second point, it is quite obvious that social justice must be at the forefront of all political parties in South Africa. South Africa’s history which is evident in society today necessitates this in order to transcend the past, and enjoy the goals which our country has shed blood for. The DA understands this, as they currently fight for social justice. Where many analysts such as Eusebius McKaiser get the view that the DA does not, I suspect, is in the DA’s opposition to window-dressing with regards to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and affirmative action. The DA, as opposed to the ANC, supports Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment, and Affirmative Action measures which are established in an organic fashion in order to have a lasting effect in society. The ANC in contrast window-dresses BEE through cadre deployment, and promote an elite-based BEE scheme.

The DA needs to continue with its quest to creating the open opportunity society we all dream off. It needs to continuously make the changes, when necessary, to its policy in order to continue to allow its policy to be contextualized into the South African environment and creating their noble ideals within that perspective. That is why I think that the much anticipated possible merger between COPE and the DA is unimportant, unless its momentum is carried by people whom believe in these ideals. Political parties are made on people. Hence, this possible merger will be built on people. That is why, when the DA sits across COPE on the negotiation table, certain things are rightfully non-negotiable. If any advantage that the possible merger may bring is the hope and possibilities in the electorate, that for once since the dawn of democracy, the ANC has a serious alternative party which can win during elections.

The DA in the coming year of its negotiations with COPE in my individual opinion should concentrate on creating an environment conducive for other leaders of political parties to join the ranks of the DA’s well-oiled political engine. Leaders such as Terror Lekota, Phillip Dexter, Patricia De Lille, Lance Greyling, Bantu Holomisa and other influential and experienced politicians – who themselves arguably believe in an open opportunity society – should be practicing their trade from the well-organised, resourced, efficient, and effective machine of the DA, whether it be under a different banner or not. Basically, the DA should open its doors wider, not build a new one. Once many of these high profile leaders are able to come into the established DA, they will be able to go congresses and win positions in the organisation. This will not only increase the party’s diversity, but also draw in a whole new pool of supporters.

The DA also recognizes the need to continue to take proactive steps in order to increase the diversity within the party, like they fight for it within the country. Those are challenges shared by all political parties. The DA, which dates its history back to the times of the Progressive Party days, was always initially a party which had a likelihood of being majority white due to the nature of the political landscape at the time. As times have changed, so has the party. No party in South Africa today has been more confrontational about its diversity needs than the DA. In the short space of time, the DA has made the most gains in bringing diversity that is organically generated within the party, than any other South African political party. The ANC in contrast simply deploys cadres into positions, which is certainly not the same. In effect what they do is actually fool the electorate that those deployed cadres are the change that we wish our society to see. These gains over the years, can only be accelerated in 2010, and the decade ahead.

The DA also needs to continue to be the efficient and effective opposition it is today in the National Assembly. The ANC, and by extension the Tripartite Alliance will continue to have infighting due to the selfish, greedy and unsustainable nature of the alliance. A lack of clear leadership in the ANC, a loose cannon heading the ANC youth league and a communist party attempting to share power with a nationalist capitalist organisation is brewing an explosive cocktail which will lead to a focus off good governance.

The DA needs to continue its extensive oversight over these issues, which in effect result in poor South Africans denied their opportunities and liberties in the economy, and become victims of a diplomatic form of oppression. If the DA can continue with its good oversight abilities, it will not only curb bad governance, but allow the DA to benefit from the endless liabilities of the ruling alliance.

The last and probably most important thing that the DA needs to do is govern excellently in the Western Cape. The DA’s Western Cape administration will be able to grow beyond their current borders if significant improvements are made in people’s lives in the Western Cape. That process though has already started. For example, there has already been an over 90% drop in crime in Cape Town which is the large metropolitan area of the Western Cape. That is due to strong efforts of the DA run municipality and province. These substantial improvements will be more valuable than any other skilful political moves. The DA must also remember that it is better to be a good opposition, than a poor government.

While I am both excited at being part of the Democratic Alliance team, and eagerly wait for the next decade to unfold, I am also cautious and wary of the challenges that lie ahead. That is why I have taken the current position that I have mentioned above. We must open our doors wider, and not create a new one, in any way possible. We must not be misled into short-term thinking which compromises our principles. And we must continue to do the basics well which has always allowed to grow, this means to govern excellently were we govern; to provide good oversight were we are in opposition; and to always value diversity and fight for social justice in our country.

Hlanganani Gumbi is chairperson of the DA Youth’s Eastern Cape branch.

The negotiations that will plot the world’s new climate change framework are less than six months away. But you wouldn’t think so if you listened to President Jacob Zuma’s first “State of the Nation” address. This subject matter, on the mind of every President or Prime Minister worth his or her salt, did not feature in the President’s programme of action.

The closest he came to the topic was acknowledging that South Africa was a dry country and that it required urgent action “to mitigate adverse environmental changes and to ensure the provision of water to citizens.” He also said that the government would work to improve energy efficiency and the uptake of renewable energy. But where was the detail and how do these programmes relate to rejuvenating an economy that is in recession?

If this was an attempt by the President to introduce climate change into his address, he could have at least mentioned this human-induced phenomenon that has the potential to wreak disaster on Southern Africa by its name.

Climate change is not going to go away, hence President Zuma would do well not to cast himself as a denialist. . South Africa cannot afford to wait in responding to the challenges of climate change. The science suggests that Southern Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world. Localised decreased run-off from rainfall, increased frequency of droughts and the change in the ranges of biodiversity all have the potential to undermine our economic growth and undermine this country’s attempts at poverty alleviation.

Much of the warming that will occur is already locked into the system meaning that adaptation to climate change is the initial priority. However, South Africa has one of the highest per capita CO2 emissions ratios in the world and therefore mitigation action is a necessity if South Africa is to be a responsible global player in stabilising the world’s climate and keeping global warming to no more than 2 °C.

There will be no binding emission reduction targets for South Africa at the Copenhagen Climate negotiations, but the developed world will expect some mitigation action from the likes of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and India. But what does President Zuma have to say about this?

It is not as if the previous administration did nothing to prepare South Africa for the response to the climate change challenge. The Long Term Mitigation Scenarios for South Africa clearly outline the various paths that South Africa can choose to follow. We know the dangers of the business-as-usual scenario and we understand what is required by science. The previous Minister of Environmental Affairs also started a gases inventory project and the biggest emitters are now encouraged to voluntarily report on their emissions. And the Climate Change Summit began the process of outlining the action steps that will need to be taken by various stakeholders in the economy and in government.  We have to move to the introduction of climate change legislation at some point in the term of this government.

President Zuma has inherited an economy that is in recession and it is his task to lead us out of it in way that makes us more resilient and better prepared to capitalize on long term growth. The response to climate change is an economic response and therefore it must be fully integrated into economic policy.

Like many other governments in the world it is clear that the South African government aims to stimulate demand by spending. Notwithstanding the likelihood that tax revenues will fall in the immediate period going forward and that government needs to act responsibly, President Zuma should consider spending in areas that will stimulate new green industries. Projects that promote energy efficiency appear to be on the agenda. But large capital projects like concentrated solar thermal deserve thorough consideration as well.

When investing in rural infrastructure and social relief programmes, President Zuma needs to make it clear that such spending will take into account the need to adapt to climate change. The promotion of small-scale agriculture, improving access to water, and “climate proofing” human settlements all need to take into account that the climate of today will not necessarily be the climate of tomorrow.

President Zuma also needs to take us into his confidence about how his government intends to approach the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. We face the prospect of a new lead Minister, Buyelwa Sonjica, who has no history in these negotiations and is unlikely to understand the dynamics. I have been told by one senior civil servant of a G8 country that there is considerable consternation that Minister Van Schalkwyk will not be at Copenhagen. Despite his numerous faults, Van Schalkwyk knew the negotiation process well. He had established a rapport with other Ministers and he was regarded by many G8 countries as a bridge between the developed economies and the major emerging economies.

Minister Sonjica deserves her chance to show what she can do, and she has no doubt inherited the majority of the negotiating team that Van Schalkwyk had at his disposal, but I cannot shake the feeling that Sonjica’s explicit focus as Minister is going to be on water. It is obviously not a case of “either or”. Climate change and water are both important.

Will South Africa push the developed world to take up ambitious emission reduction targets? We don’t know because President Zuma does not think climate change is an important topic for State of the Nation address.

It is now the responsibility of Parliament to hold President Zuma to account for what he has said and what he has not said. I will certainly be asking questions on what his government will do tackle climate change. I hope other MPs will join me.

Gareth Morgan is the DA shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.