E.TV’s 3rd Degree show and post debate on 3rd Degree Plus on 25th May 2010 centred around racism and left one deeply saddened at the entrenched racism in our society. The show covered a number of incidents from the effects of the AWB Leader Eugene Terre’blanche murder, to the both previous and recent incidents at the University of the Free State (UFS). It is the ethnic nationalism which was witnessed on the show that left one with the greatest lesson of them all: We must rid our society of ethnic nationalism and promote unity.

In one clip during the show, host Debora Patta at the University of the Free State proceeds to question the campus Freedom Front Plus (FF+) Youth Leader about the nature of racism on campus, and further goes on to accuse her of being a racist. The young female leader turns to tears as she tries to explain her “nonracist” character. But what was really interesting is her tendency to promote ethnic nationalism through her party, and left me unable to refrain from addressing this issue for once and for all.

What the FF+ Youth Leader fails to understand is that she belongs to an ethnic nationalist party whose policy is based on the development of a separate homeland to preserve that ethnicity. The FF+ is no less an ethnic nationalist party than the AWB because they both stand to preserve their ethnicity using the smokescreen of culture maximisation as has been seen by both AWB Secretary-General Andre Visagie, and FF+ Leader Pieter Mulder in many instances. Ethnic nationalism places the interests of one group of people over that of the rest of the populace. That is why it breeds racism, and causes divisions. It is the root cause of all the suffering in our history, and that in many parts of the world.

South Africa today must find every means to reject ethnic nationalism and promote unity. This immediately starts with rejecting organisations which promote it. The FF+ and AWB are some of the most forthright ethnic nationalist parties today. The IFP, perhaps on paper does not promote ethnic nationalism, but it certainly cannot be said to be a party accommodative of all people, and leaves one to wonder whether they have a single Xhosa within their senior party ranks considering the social divide amongst Xhosas and Zulus.

The South African electorate needs to reject all these parties as an act against ethnic nationalism. The African National Congress (ANC) is also a party which does not promote unity amongst people adequately. The ANC promotes racial representation within its party and government in an attempt to correct the injustice of the past. The idea that only blacks can represent blacks, and only whites can represent whites et cetera. This is the same approach favoured by Verwoerd in his day and the ANC today, and we must reject it. We must always remain vigilant that, in our attempts to address the legacy of the past, we don’t fall into the trap of seeing people simply as representatives of racial groups. This is precisely what we need to leave behind in our country. Racial representation or even ethnic representation serves more as a barrier to unity than a bridge because it instils a sense of racial ethnic responsibility to promote one’s identity to that group and hence becomes another form of ethnic nationalism.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) on the other hand, is the only party which is truly becoming a party for all. Unlike the ANC, the DA does not believe in groups of people, but in individuals, and groups of individuals. We believe that all individuals are equal both in worth and dignity. The DA is a party which is for blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds. It is for Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho’s, Tswana’s, Afrikaners, Swati’s, Ndebele’s, Venda’s et cetera. The DA is a national entity which swings far beyond the narrow objects of ethnic nationalism, to a party which promotes a single nation. That is why the DA promotes the slogan of “One Nation, One Future”. It is the only party which has earned that right to do so.

The DA believes strongly in the value of diversity and sharing if we are to build a united South Africa. During apartheid, the government refused to share South Africa with all whom resided in it and sought to eliminate diversity through separate development. In the DA we reject this, and promote entirely the opposite. Diversity in comparison to racial ethnic representation is about bringing in decision-making people of wide-ranging experiences and perspectives, without assuming that people can only be represented by others of the same colour or gender.

Ethnic nationalism is an implicit threat to driving South Africa into a passage of continued racism, and plants the seeds of division which we once before sought strongly to remove. We must bring back that spirit by rejecting ethnic nationalism in all forms, and promoting diversity and sharing. The AWB, FF+, and ANC do not stand for these ideals. Only the DA does.

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

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.

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.

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.

BY GARETH MORGAN

The decision by the ANC to combine the management of water affairs and environmental affairs (sans fisheries) into one Ministry has generally been welcomed by most commentators. I also believe it is a positive move. In fact, I suggested such a move in the Democratic Alliance’s latest environment policy which I authored last year.

Combining these two departments should theoretically allow for improved efficiencies and greater economies of scale. It will also allow the Environmental Management Inspectorate, otherwise known as the Green Scorpions, to move against water polluters.

What remains uncertain is whether President Zuma’s choice of MP to hold the position of Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Buyelwa Sonjica, is a good one. Tony Carnie, writing in the Mercury (13 May 2009) rightly pointed to the fact that it was Minister Sonjica, in her previous position as Minister of Minerals and Energy, who approved the application to mine the sensitive Xolobeni area in the Wild Coast, despite considerable opposition from both local residents and the environmental lobby. Similarly, Sonjica seems to have been in support of the controversial application by Coal of Africa, an Australian mining company, to mine in an area adjacent to the Mapungubwe World Heritage site (see Sowetan, 2 June 2008). The application has yet to be approved, and it will be Minister Sonjica’s successor in the Minerals portfolio who will make this call.

Minister Sonjica now finds herself in a watchdog portfolio. Like every new Minister in President Zuma’s cabinet she deserves a chance to act on the imperatives in her portfolio, but as the newly appointed shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs I intend to place particular attention on how the Minister responds to the effects of mining on the environment, both in terms of the damage that has already been done and the future damage that needs to be avoided.

The mining sector, at 6% of GDP, is an important contributor to the South African economy, and is directly responsible for over 400 000 jobs. It is important that this sector thrives, but the environmental management of mines in terms of authorisations, monitoring and rehabilitation needs urgent attention. The sector continues to externalise many of its costs to the detriment of both human and environmental health.

South Africa’s already stressed water resources are coming under considerable pressure from acid mine drainage (AMD), a process where acidic water flows out of (usually abandoned) metal or coal mines. There is no figure yet for the current or expected future AMD flows. One leading water expert suggests that the daily decant from the Witwatersrand mining complex alone is at least 350 Mld (that’s 350 million litres per day). Such a decant is flowing directly into various water systems, poisoning our environment.

It would cost around R10 to restore a cubic litre (one thousand litres) of such water back to its pre-mining condition. If we were to understand the actual total AMD decants around South Africa, and then if we did the maths, it would become clear that we are dealing with a problem that will cost several billions of rand to deal with each year. Minister Sonjica needs to face up to this problem as a matter of urgency. It will be during her five year term as Minister that the full effects of AMD will be felt.

Having some understanding of the historical costs of mining we now need to learn from past mistakes. There are hundreds of new coal mining applications in Mpumalanga that will almost certainly pollute local water systems, damage local agriculture, and undermine efforts to alleviate poverty in rural areas. There are similar situations playing out in other parts of South Africa. (See what’s happening in Limpopo here). It is important therefore that the spirit of co-operative governance prevails. The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mining are going to need to talk to each other about appropriate mining development that takes into account the health of the environment.

For at least the next three years the Minister of Mining will have the power to authorize new mining applications, a function that will move to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs thereafter. This is an outcome of the most recent amendments to the National Environmental Management Act. These amendments are a victory considering both the historical and more recent disdain that the Department of Minerals and Energy has showed towards our environment. But as I said in the National Assembly on 29 May 2008, “the vast majority of new mining applications that will exist for the next 30 years will be approved in the next three years”. This means that the majority of new mining applications will be approved before the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs receives the power to grant or deny these applications.

Interestingly, in approximately 18 months time the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs will become the Minister to which appeals against mining authorisations can be brought. This is an interim arranged until this Ministry receives the power to authorise the applications. So, the Minister will have an opportunity soon enough to show whether she has the best interests of the environment at heart.

I am of course making the assumption that the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs would do a better job of taking into account the actual effects of mining on the environment than the Minister of Minerals would do. But as noted earlier the new Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs did not show particular concern for the environment when she was Minister of Minerals and Energy. It is true that any Minister is bound by the legislation that governs his or her portfolio. One the hand it limits the powers of Ministers but on the other hand it empowers Ministers to do certain things. We expect Ministers to use their executive authority responsibly. While all Ministers should be guardians of the environment, the incumbent in the Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs must be held to the highest standards.

I hope that until the time when Minister Sonjica obtains the power to authorise or deny mining applications, she uses all mechanisms available to her to engage with the new Minister of Mining on the appropriateness of the merits of particular mining applications. Perhaps Minister Manuel and the National Planning Commission that he heads can assist in this regard. Minister Manuel enjoys the unique position of working in the Presidency and overseeing implementation of government policy. He can theoretically knock some Ministerial heads together.

Once Minister Sonjica has the power to authorise mines I hope that she uses that power responsibly in a way that enhances the protection of the environment in general, and our water sources in particular.

With coal reserves of more than 50 billion tones, South Africa has almost two hundred years of coal available at the current extraction rate. Inevitably much of it will be mined to fuel our electricity generation needs or for export to other energy hungry economies. But the time is coming when as country we are going to need to reduce our extraction of coal. Besides the effects of mining on the environment, there is a need to reduce our reliance on the burning of coal for electricity generation in order to mitigate climate change (another major issue that the new Minister will be responsible for coordinating).

Minister Sonjica will increasingly need to live by the mantra of being prepared to keep the “coal in the hole”. Just because we have massive reserves of coal should not mean that it all needs to be extracted. In fact, it is clear that our environment cannot afford for it all to be extracted. Minister Sonjica will need to show some restraint.

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

I have always said that Jacob Zuma would surprise the nation, despite his shortcomings. With all the state institutions against him, he rose victorious and the celebratory inauguration was a testimony to his indefatigable spirit to fight against a system he knew to be partial in whom, it targets. His inaugural speech was a clear commitment about upholding the constitution, respecting dissent, and free speech. He also pledged reconciliation and a cabinet that will be held accountable to the people.

I was still basking in the glory of this rain-soaked event, when Julius Malema declared Helen Zille, “a racist girl”, the enemy. When leading members of the ruling party declare its political competitors, the enemy, it does not bode well for political contestation and opposition, and they do themselves a great disservice when their party has so clearly charted a different path to Mbeki’s regime.

Regrettably, Helen Zille, our new premier, has fallen, hook line and sinker for the bait the incorrigible Malema and comrades threw at her. Having achieved international status as the world’s greatest mayor, it is unthinkable that she would respond to idiots like Malema and the MK veterans, and set the ruling party and the opposition on a collision course worse than Tony Leon had ever achieved. The atmosphere is further poisoned by her appointment of an all-male cabinet. When challenged about this, she claimed that competence rather than affirmative action bean-counting was the motive.

As much as I agree with Helen that race and gender not trump competence, in her instance, the story is much more complex.

Firstly, her choices were constrained by the gender, race, and track record composition of the members of her legislature. Secondly, like every political party, Helen had to reward those who made her extra million voters, her success. That is politics plain and simple. Thirdly, Helen should have told the public less stridently, about this, and that she had recruited black women before the elections already to make themselves available for the party. I was one of those approached.

The Premier should be careful not to stoop to the level of the Malemas of politics. She knows and has had experience of how the ANC tried to topple her when she became Mayor. The game now is the same, if not more vicious. That the MK war veterans threatened to make the province ungovernable; that Cosatu threatened to oppose her appointments at the Equality Court; that the Gender Commission threatened to challenge the Premier, all indicate to what lengths they would go to unravel a duly legitimately constituted government.

Helen Zille, unlike Jacob Zuma, cannot create ministries and split deputy posts to create jobs to loyalists, friends, and women. That is clear. But Helen should not justify her appointments on the grounds of competence, as though there are not enough competent black women around. A more serious issue for me was the response of Yvette Abrahams, a Gender Commissioner, to Julius Malema & Co’s libelous claims, that Helen Zille slept with the men in her cabinet and that they were her concubines. Yvette equivocated and would not condemn Malema outright for his base sexist utterances, proving again, that ye who pays the piper calls the tune. Instead Helen Zille became the villain.

The job of the Gender Commission is to take on the sexist defamatory utterances of Malema & Co against the Premier and show the public that they have balls. Maybe this is too much to ask from a Commission with BOOBS!

Rhoda Kadalie is a human rights activist based in Cape Town.