The Soapbox » cope

Assessing the Zuma regime

The Soapbox — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:09:12 +0000

BY VUKAYIBAMBE

The last 8 weeks have been the most tumultuous times in the newly installed ANC government of President Jacob Zuma. And it all started after a Sunday Times story about a child born out of wedlock between the President and one Sonono Khoza.

When I read the article on that Sunday morning I was shocked, disappointed, confused and angry. The shock came from the fact that this was totally unexpected. The disappointment was twofold. First I was disappointed at the President and secondly I was disappointed by the timing of the article.

It came shortly after the moderator of the World Economic Forum had ridiculed our President by asking him a silly question which was informed by the desire to undermine polygamy as an outdated if not disgraceful practice. So whoever was the source of the story was fighting the President because the alledged baby was born last year in October. And we all know who was the number one enemy of our President — that spiritual leader of COPE and members of his cult who make it their business to avenge the humiliation of their leader in Polokwane.

The journalist in me was asking the question — why publish now? The answer was clear — use the recent humiliation in Davos to provide ammunition in the campaign to discredit the President and the office he holds so that leaders of the world and the people of South Africa lose confidence in this man. This would be done a few weeks before the President delivers his state of the nation address.

My confusion stemmed from the Presidency’s response to the allegations. In one week we had two different statements. One was a defensive statement — outlining the fact that this was a private matter and highlighted the fact that the Sunday Times had violated the rights of the child in question. This seemed to be a reasonable response to me given the fact that the motive for publishing this story was suspicious — given its timing.

But the apology that came after this statement confused me and possibly millions of other people. It would have been better if the President and his advisers had chosen one route — apology or no apology — period. Doing both revealed a weakness in the coordination of communication in both the ANC and the Presidency. In this instance the ANC had the last word — at a great political cost to President Zuma. Basically, the organization put an ultimatum to its President and made him aware that any other scandal would not be acceptable.

After the state of the nation address, we witnessed COSATU starting to sing a different tune towards the president. This angered me because it seemed that COSATU was showing signs that its support for President Zuma was always conditional: we will support you if you push our line and policies. Unfortunately, this smacks of political opportunism. That is why when COSATU was sensing a president under attack they took the fight to him, with one COSATU affiliate, NUMSA, becoming very personal in their attack of the President. The same COSATU initiated a wave of strikes six months into Zuma’s Presidency. We were confused by this approach — it was the first sign that COSATU would use political blackmail to achieve narrow sectional ends.

In the final analysis — President Jacob Zuma has survived the first real attempt to discredit his presidency. The good thing that has come out of this sorry mess is that the ANC will become better for it. For one it has again demonstrated its ability to read a riot act to its leader. It has also given its leadership collective a wake up call that using political office for personal gain is not going to be tolerated. It has also made the president know COSATU’s motives better. The ANC is more united in its conviction to implement the Polokwane resolutions without undue pressure from its alliance partners.

President Zuma must pay attention to four things if his Presidency is to survive the next four years. Get rid of all COPE elements in the Party and Government structures in order to guard the leaking of sensitive information to the press. Relook at the capacity and expertise of support staff in the Presidency and coordinate their functions to complement those of the ANC. Thirdly, the President must crack the whip on those ANC members who do not follow the vision of the Party — working together we can do more on service delivery and the five priorities in the manifesto. Finally, the President must avoid scandal by being on the straight and narrow.

I am confident that we have not seen the best of this administration yet — the good signs for its success are there. South Africans will continue to support the ANC even at times when some dark forces are out to discredit and humiliate our leaders. We shall not desist from our cause to liberate ourselves economically and to transform the broader society by eradicating poverty, inequality and racism. And the ANC is the organization we have given the mandate to carry out this task. Amandla!

Vukayibambe blogs at Vukayibambe.

What the “f***k” is going on in Parliament?

The Soapbox — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:10:23 +0000

BY AKANYANG MEREMENTSI

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.

I’ve become a born-again South African

The Soapbox — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:27:47 +0000

BY KHAYA DLANGA

I have finally decided to break my self-imposed silence on our recent elections.

The first thing I would like to do is congratulate our new president, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma. Whatever one thinks of the man, you have to admire how he managed to clear every single obstacle in his way. I know that many people have mixed feelings about him. Whatever you feel for the man, it is imperative we support him because if we don’t we won’t be able to solve the unemployment problem.

It is for this reason that I believe we need to look forward to his success as president. If he fails, we fail. If he is a disaster, we become one. If he succeeds, you succeed. Wishing him to fail will be counter-productive to the goals we have as a country. We have to put the country above whatever personal feelings we may have towards him. Our support does not mean we blindly follow every decision he makes.

As some of you may or may not know, and in the interests of full disclosure, I would like to point out that I campaigned for and voted for Cope.

It is a mistake for Cope supporters to wish that the president or his government fail. Our success as a party should not be built on the failures of the ANC but rather on our ability to communicate a superior message and an improved articulation of our positions. To wish that the government fails so that we can succeed is self-defeating. It puts party before country. We cannot afford that. When Barack Obama took over, one of America’s most famous conservative radio talk-show hosts, Rush Limbaugh, said he wanted Obama to fail. Of course, if Obama does fail Limbaugh will not suffer because he is a multi-millionaire but those people who lose their homes will feel the failure.

During these past few months I have become a born-again South African. We live in a truly beautiful, surprising, resilient country. My faith in this country was renewed by the debates I saw, the interest young people showed in politics for the first time. We live in a new South Africa again. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it is being perfected every day by those who know they have a responsibility to the country, by those who know their success depends on the political success of the country.

There is something remarkable about how the ANC achieved its overwhelming victory. And I am not talking about the huge percentage it got. I’m talking about the small percentage it did not.

Think about it. They needed less than 1% to achieve a two-thirds majority. So, what is so remarkable about that you may ask? They could have cheated so easily just to get that, yet they chose not to. That is evidence that we live in a true democracy. This small, yet great, temptation was resisted. This achievement must be commended. We just have to be grateful our votes weren’t counted by M-Net. On the flipside one can also say why congratulate them on doing the right thing? As Chris Rock once said: “Some men like to brag about never having been to jail. Well, you’re not supposed to go to jail!”

So what’s next? We cannot talk about what’s next before we have talked about what has been. The future is always connected to the past. We should not talk about the future while we forget about the past. It is often said, “forget the past”. “No,” I say. To remember the past is to pay tribute to the future. The past may shape us but we decide who we become. Maybe the real question is what kind of a people are we deciding to become? We are either shackled by the past or freed from it. We are either shaped by it or we use it to shape the future. The choice ladies and gentlemen is ours. First as individuals, then as a people. The destiny of this country is not written for us. We chose the kind of future we want. And the people chose a Zuma future.

As a people we need to realise that we come from different pasts but what we all want is the same future — a better one. I would like to drive through Khayelitsha without being assaulted by shacks all dressed up in poverty and nowhere to go. Many of the residents there see a bleak future for themselves, a vicious, poverty-stricken future, with no way to escape, except through crime, drugs and violence. The social consequences of this endemic poverty are too depressing to enumerate. We don’t want that to happen. We want to see all South Africans employed. And we as South Africans can have solutions to these problems, they are not going to take a generation to solve, but we can’t just close our eyes and pretend there is no problem.

If there is one man living in a shack, then I am not yet free. If there is a farm worker who still endures being called a “kaffir” by his bass on a daily basis then I am not yet free. If there is a white farmer killed simply because he is white then I am not yet free. We are not free. If I bribe a traffic officer for my freedom, then I am not free. All of us are still striving towards freedom.

We have to hold our government accountable. We must question them without fear or favour. We need a youthful, respectful academic militancy. We need to cultivate the celebration of intellectualism. There has been a rise of anti-intellectualism in our political discourse. Anti-intellectualism is something new, we cannot accept it and to abandon it is to insult the Sol Plaatjies, Oliver Tambos and Steve Bikos who celebrated intellect.

For us to turn this into an extraordinary country will take a few ordinary people to take ordinary steps. If we all do what we are supposed to do, what we must do, we can turn this into an extraordinary country. Small things like not jumping a red robot. Refusing to bribe a traffic officer, refusing to bribe that home affairs official, demanding good, not great, just good service at the restaurant. Doing our best at work. Starting a business instead of being employed. All these small ordinary actions will turn us into an extraordinary country. If we have high ethical standards for ourselves, then we have every right to have high expectations of our leaders. But as long as we continue to cut corners, lie, cheat and bribe, we deserve the leaders we get.

So, what is next? The truth is we don’t truly know what is next. None of us are prophets. The important thing is we all know what needs to be done. But what’s even more important is doing what needs to be done. What young people need to do is turn us into a generation that future South Africans will talk about, we should be a tribute to the 1976 generation that fought despite insurmountable odds. The odds we face today are nothing like the ones they did. Maybe we are not desperate enough to see a great South Africa. Maybe we are too comfortable to change anything. Maybe we are not restless enough. Natives of South Africa, be restless, the country needs you to be.

Khaya Dlanga was named Africa’s top Digital Citizen Journalist in 2008.

Why class is more important than race

The Soapbox — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:42:37 +0000

I recently had an idealism-demolishing experience participating in a debate on behalf of the DA Students’ Organisation (DASO) with other student politicians at the University of Pretoria. The topic: transformation. The reason: probably to stir up a bit of emotive politics among students just in time to remind them to “vote with their kind” in the upcoming general election. The facilitator: the SRC, which is ruled by a solid majority of the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), despite attempts by the university management to “depoliticise” its institutions.

A less sceptical observer might explain that the purpose of these debates is to give an outlet to the political thinking and contestation which has purportedly been banned in the “depoliticised” Tuks SRC. Whatever the particular motive of the SRC may have been in choosing the topic, on the whole the debates do represent one of the few opportunities for Tuks students to get exposure to politics.

But, alas, anyone who has ever attended a student debate at Tuks knows that the “political discourse” degrades fairly quickly into a racial zero-sum game between whites and blacks but mainly between Afrikaners and blacks, characterised by a good match of jeers, accusations and insults. One almost has empathy for the reluctance of Big Brother in the university management to let these renegade young politicos have their way in the SRC.

In fact the whole experience was sombre, if not completely depressing for a person who grew up with the idealism of 1994, the promise of a society which belongs to all who live in it and hope for a future in which nobody would be made to feel “lesser than” by anyone else.

Listening to diatribe after diatribe by speakers against Afrikaans and white students, eagerly encouraged by ANC and COPE ringleaders, one could easily have imagined that apartheid had never ended and that South Africa wasn’t being ruled by a party that proclaims itself the “vanguard of the African majority”. Afrikaners in turn, with the exception of a few DASO and FF+ supporters, hardly bothered to show up for the debate, probably avoiding being called to account for the sins of their fathers.

Aside from the ANC and COPE speakers, both of whom stopped short of chanting “down with Afrikaans and Afrikaners at Tuks”, a member of the audience launched into particularly hateful tirade, asking black students why they were busy “negotiating” with whites instead of “taking back” what rightfully belonged to them.

The DASO proposal that racial quotas be abolished at the university in favour of redress measures based on the socio-economic living conditions of students, although well received by the audience was rejected by the ANC and COPE, the latter being slightly more confused about its own position on the matter. The ANC speaker repeated the well-known mantra that racial quotas will last as long as colonialism and apartheid lasted.

The bizarre case for racial bean-counting – a policy sacrosanct to the ANC – is premised on the assumption that most whites at Universities like Tuks aren’t there because of their academic suitability, but because some sinister force of apartheid, probably University management, is acting on their behalf. If it were not for this force, so the young Comrades argue, the university would be 80% black and there would be no Afrikaans which, in the thinking of a racial turf warrior, advantages the “white cause”. (The truth is that only three degree courses at Tuks are still offered in Afrikaans from start to finish).

When the comrades are reminded of the fact that all students are admitted to university based on an “M score” (basically their academic performance in high school) they rightly point out that many rural and township schools are still plagued by the legacy of apartheid education which disadvantages a great many prospective black students.

What they of course don’t concede is that political power did in fact change hands in 1994, and that the people responsible for the dismal state of education aren’t the children of former apartheid beneficiaries who grew up under the new order, but the democratically elected ANC government with its parliamentary majority of 70%. Today, incompetent teachers, schools that lack adequate facilities and dismal matric pass rates aren’t so much consequences of apartheid than consequences of ANC rule.

But what I probably found most depressing about our debate at Tuks was the reductionist idea of so many attendees that what we were in fact engaging in was a competition for state resources and recognition between races. In the hearts of its proponents, racial quotas not only meant guaranteed racial preferment for “our own” but also just racial punishment of “the others”.

When I confronted a COPE speaker after the debate about the obvious contradictions between his own utterances and that of his party leadership about race, language and diversity, he responded that South Africa could not afford to be “held hostage” by a few Afrikaners. In the same vein the FF+ Youth Leader, Cornelius Janse van Rensburg, once angrily reminded the ANC at a similar campus debate that it was the tax money of whites and Afrikaners that kept the university as well as the country in business.

Neither of these respective sentiments, expressed in the heat of crowd-pleasing exchanges, offer to move the debate beyond our unchangeable past to our quite changeable future. Both these arguments are essentially self-indulgent, taking young South Africans back to a crude and callous politics preceding the Constitutional Compact of 1993 and 1996. Moreover, they aim to deceive, obfuscating the fact that the income disparity AMONG whites and AMONG blacks are today far greater than BETWEEN blacks and whites.

What is needed is a paradigm-shift (excuse the cliché) from that of racial competition to social cohesion. A cohesion-centred paradigm in our society, rooted in the Constitutional values of freedom, dignity and equality, can achieve so much more to channel the human and financial resources of the wealthy in aid of the poor than the ANC (and COPE) model of a racial tug-of-war. It will also force the government to face-up to its failures instead blaming everything by default on the past.

With a cooperation-centred paradigm comes the realisation that neither white nor black can benefit from the disadvantage of the other. If our universities shun some of the best medical students today, tomorrow we shouldn’t be surprised by a dire shortage of doctors in public hospitals, where most patients are black. Yet if today we take no measures to create opportunities for the poor, black or white, tomorrow we shouldn’t be surprised that many young people have opted for a life of crime.

We only have one nation with one future: it is our duty to shape this nation into one which where the rights and success of one contributes to the protection and opportunity of the whole. Here’s hoping 22 April 2009 moved South Africa farther from racial competition and closer to social cooperation and ultimate cohesion.

Cilliers Brink is DASO Branch Leader at the University of Pretoria.