South Africa

Just a few thoughts on our man of the moment (or should it be man of the year) regarding his recent acquittal and so-called “comeback”. Since getting back I’ve been checking out what was said in the local blogosphere and in media after trial. A posts that I would particularly like to highlight is from Commentary, I fully agree with the sentiments expressed therein, particularly the following by Laurence :

But I’m not going to second-guess the judge. I’m willing to accept that justice was done, the system worked, and Zuma isn’t a rapist. But he’s still a scumbag.

 

Lest we forget, Zuma put himself in this position. He was a cad. The self-styled head of South Africa’s “moral regeneration movement” took sexual advantage of a psychologically disturbed young woman who, by all accounts, thought of Zuma as a father-figure. During the trial, he enunciated the evil idea that women are “asking for it” in the way they dress; in this case, by wearing a knee-length skirt. Women’s groups are correct to call this a “setback”: in a country which already has one of the highest incidences of rape in the world, the damage Zuma did will take years to undo.

That sound you may have heard while reading the above quote was the hammer hitting the nail on the head! This perfectly summarizes exactly how I feel about the Z, he may try and put on his happy-go-lucky-uncle-who-just-loves-the-working-man face, but if you look beyond that, you begin to see the true Z – a selfish, egotistical clown who loves living the high life while all the time playing the populist card when it suits him.

But the rape trial is history.

It’s time for us to look ahead and consider what lies in store for the “indomitable” Z (and the rest of us), as he lurches forward towards his corruption trial. While I am sure he will be Yengenied, let’s consider the insane notion that he by some miracle actually gets off (even thinking of that gives me a bit of a heady feeling like I’m not getting enough air). There seems to be a fair bit of debate going on over whether the Z-man could actually go all the way to Tuinhuis…

There’s no way and the reason starts with an M and ends with a “you-don’t-mess-with-The-Legacy. Ever.”

That’s right, if the big man hasn’t put his stamp of approval on something, it will not happen. Many pundits have been commenting on the fact that the “battle-lines” have been drawn between Mbeki supporters and those that support Zuma. What kind of battle do these pundits have in mind – an insurgency by a small plucky band of Zuma loyalist, or perhaps a glorious charge light-brigade style to victory after the conclusion of the corruption trial? There’s no way - Zuma was history once Mbeki fired him from the Cabinet.

Much has been written of Zuma’s support base and the belief that this electrified band of clowns in arms will be at the vanguard of any Zuma victory. To this I have to say – what support? A bunch of disorganized and obsessed weirdo’s ranting outside the High Court, or maybe the ANCYL or Cosatu, or other so-called far leftists in the ANC?

The people outside the court were good and burning things and labeling people “bitches”, but I hardly feel they’ll carry much weight in the presidential succession debate. Then there is the ANCYL. Between organizing their 310th party of the year, laundering Brett Kebble’s cash and organizing their “babe magnet” cars I cannot think of one, not one initiative the ANCYL has ever managed to spearhead and carry through to its conclusion. Blowhards of the first order who never deliver.

As for Cosatu, their track record in influencing national debate has been anything but strong of late – remember the “stayaway to protest unemployment” last year - total flop. Plus remember Vavi spinning himself into oblivion in an attempt to explain how they were for JZ president, but not really. Brittle support at its best.

The final group is probably the strongest – the determined leftist within the tripartite alliance. Some might point to there show of strength last year at the acrimonious national conference, but to me this was not really about Zuma and all about Mbeki’s leadership style. The left, tired with being sidelined, caught Mbeki unawares and forced him to make concessions in an attempt to placate the base. This will not happen again.

Mbeki is probably SA’s canniest political animal. He has had a lot of practice from his time in exile to his in-house coup to become SA’s president after Madiba. If Zuma and motley crew of wannabe’s think they’re going to upset The Legacy, they’ve got another thing coming.

“Michael: Fredo, you're my older brother... and I love you...but don't ever take sides, with anyone, against the family again. Ever.” - Godfather (aka. T. Mbeki)

Just seen the very interesting "V for Vendetta". Was it a nice bit of agitprop cinema, hell yeah! Was it about the Bush administration, hell yeah! Can we take a bit of the message and apply it to our own country, hell yeah!

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."

A simple, catchy little movie slogan, but one that makes a lot of sense if you consider its implications. At its core democracy is all about action and reaction - you deliver poor, incompetent service to the electorate and you get booted out of office. You deliver fine, visionary leadership and you are rewarded with a continued control of the levers of power. This means a healthy level of fear needs to permeate the governing group - fear of failing in their mandate, fear of the electorate calling them to account, fear of being driven from office. I'm not talking about a paralysing terror of making a mistake, I am talking about a healthy fear that keeps the government on their toes and mindful that they are not South Africa, but merely represent South Africa. Those in power need to understand that they are transitory and remain in power only so long as we allow it, not the other way round.

Now think of our current government, be it at national, provincial or local level - do they have this healthy sense of fear of the electorate? Or do they act like arrogant, paternalistic clowns who seem to have more in common with medieval lords-of-the-manor rather than elected public officials. This attitude can be easily seen from the Eastern Cape where this idiot was allowed to poison the Province for SIX years, to the spend-taxpayers-money-like-a-drunken-pirate-so-we-can-get... at the Department of Justice. No Repercussions=No Fear=Governmental Arrogance=Faux Democracy.

The governing party knows it. The opposition knows it. The electorate doesn't know it. If the government decides to do something or follow a particular course of action, there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it. Nothing. Oh sure we can moan and maybe kick up a fuss in the Court's but inevitably the government will get what it wants...because it can and because it faces no prospect of punishment at the polls (at least in the near-midterm). There is no fear. This point was ably illustrated in the last government elections and in this post where it was noted that dissatisfaction with the government led to virtually no retribution by the electorate at the polls. Suckers. 

In any other sane democracy Manto's handling of the Aids crises would have brought down the government, the NIA scandal would have led to widespread concern among the populace, the various service delivery protests would have led to a major reevaluation of the direction government is taking in terms of delivery. Not in our faux-democracy. Here it is business as usual and these controversies are treated as speed-bumps on the way to national (ANC) glory rather than the national disgraces they should be.

So keep complaining, but don't hold your breath because: no-ones listening...because the don't have to.

Update : No fear and arrogance in action.

Does liddle-baby-Thabo need protection fwom da big bad man? Don't worry Mamma Mbete's here baby, she'll protect you from the bad man from the DA with his nasty, nasty questions :

National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete has rejected as "outrageous" claims by an opposition MP that she sought to protect President Thabo Mbeki at the expense of parliament's constitutional obligation to hold the executive to account. Mbete's political adviser, Lulamile Mapholoba, said that questions put to members of the executive, including the president, must comply with parliamentary rules and practices. If this did not occur, the question would be disallowed.

Mapholoba was reacting on Friday to a statement issued by DA MP Eddie Trent last week, criticising the Speaker for rejecting a question about whether Mbeki had met the head of Thales International, Jean-Paul Perrier, in May last year. Thales and its South African subsidiary, Thint, are facing trial later this year, along with former deputy president Jacob Zuma, for alleged corruption. Mapholoba confirmed that the question had been disallowed because some of the words used were "sarcastic and hence offensive", and the fact that it was not in order to suggest a member might have acted improperly.

 

Oh boo-friggin'-hoo, if the Prez. can't handle a bit of sarcasm in a question he should get out of politics now. I haven't watched Parliament Live recently but I do remember the boo's and cat-calls that emanated from the ANC back-benchers each time a member of the Opposition was making a speech.

Dry your eyes Baleka, I think that joyride official trip you took to Liberia has clouded your judgement.

Something needs to be said.

The latest revelations about just how dirty Brett Kebble was and how he had a number of senior ANC heavyweights under his little finger is indicative of a serious malaise affecting the ruling party. I remember a while back some ANC Youth League functionary declaring something to the effect that Kebble was "our white man". In other words the ANC Youth League believed that they were the ones calling the shots and Kebble was just some happy-go-lucky fat white guy who they (the league) could go to to get some cash when they needed it. 

But Kebble was the player, the puppet master who used these idiots ego's and lust for the latest Visa platinums to suck them into his world of chequebook politics. You wonder why Kebble managed to avoid paying tax for so long, or why he seemed to always be one step ahead in the PR war with the Scorpions? It's because he had all of these fools dancing to his tune as he changed his personae to suit whatever the situation - generous donor to the arts/africanist/patriot/BEE pathfinder - it's easy to do all this if you're using other people's money!

But of course the blowhards at the ANCYL didn't see this. No, instead they just focused on those "babe magnet" cars, designer suits and pampering their juvenile ego's. The same can be said for all those listed in Kebble's loan list - what the hell does crooked Tony Yengeni need R1.4m for? Doesn't he have enough cash from Thales already? It is really starting to seem that the political elite in the ANC are playing a one-upmanship game with each other to see who can buy the best silk-tie/exotic trip on government money/latest luxury vehicle, all the while the majority of the population lives in poverty.    

Here's an adage I think should be stapled onto the forehead of every Party crony who thinks he's hit the big time when a "friend" from big business wants to lend him some cash "no strings attached" -

                  "I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts" - Virgil

Is anyone else starting to get a bit tired of the ID’s a) blatant political opportunism b) swaggering around like they were the ones who took the most votes in CT c) making statements about “doing things their own way” and then acting like an ANC front organization?  This past week the DA offered the ID the following in an attempt to get it to join the coalition :

The DA, which holds the executive mayoral position, said the ID were offered two seats on the mayoral committee, three chairmanships of sub-councils and three positions on the bargaining council, in exchange for a commitment to promote stability and consensus-seeking in the city.

In the opinion of this humble blogger - a pretty good deal for the ID in light of what happened last week! So what did the ID when faced with this offer to join the grand coalition and bring stability to Cape Town (for at least the short term) :

The Independent Democrats (ID) are to launch a motion at the Cape Town council's next full sitting to replace the executive mayoral system with an executive committee based on the proportional support received by political parties. It is a move the African National Congress says it will support, given that this would give it representation on the committee.

ID leader Patricia de Lille said that if the DA did not agree to the executive committee system by March 29, her party would go ahead with the motion which, if it succeeded, would wrest decision-making authority from executive mayor Helen Zille.

Short-sighted. Egotistical. Childish

I could understand this motion being tabled if it became apparent that Zille was doing a bad job. However, by doing it so shortly after her (Zille's) election, the ID shows that it has nothing to do with helping the City of Cape Town and everything to do with scoring some cheap political points (not to mention sour grapes)!

Yesterday’s election of Helen Zille looked like a real cliffhanger. The DA candidate narrowly beat out incumbent mayor Nomaindia Mfeketo by taking 106 votes to Mfeketo's 103 in what was a hotly contested vote. In a surprise move the DA managed to forge an unlikely coalition of partners – the ACDP, Africa Muslim Party, United Independent Front, UDM, FF+ and Universal Party – thus turning the tables on the ANC/ID coalition and sweeping to victory.

Jacob Derek Smit of the FF+ was elected as Speaker and the ACDP's Andrew Arnolds took the No.2 spot of deputy mayor.

Laughably, after the conclusion of the election the ID’s Patricia De Lille stated "The reason we supported the ANC on the mayoral vote was based on our (shared) anti-racism and pro-poor principles." This of course followed her statement to the Financial Mail a while back that the ID would “under no circumstances" support the ANC’s Mfeketo for mayor.

Update - The DA has pulled the same manoeuvre in Stellenbosch and Patricia De Lille has copious amounts of egg on her face!

Since all eyes are on Cape Town this week, I thought I'd share two quotes with you all. The first comes to us compliments of the incumbent Mayor of Cape Town, Nomaindia Mfeketo. Ms. Mfeketo stated a while back that although she believed she had served the mandate of the ANC well, the organisation could deploy a person "much, much better than me" to the position of Cape Town Mayor.

Which of course did not stop her from accepting the ANC's nomination to that same position.

The second quote is from the last local government elections when it looked like a coalition of the DP-NNP was going to overtake the ANC (which had secured the majority of votes in the province). The ANC thundered - "One important principle that must be recognised is that the ANC is the party that won the election in the Western Cape, and it was thereby given the mandate for transformation in this province. This has to be respected. It should also be remembered that democratic convention dictates that the largest party gets the first opportunity to form a coalition government. This is clearly not the case in the Western Cape. By shutting out the ANC, the NNP-DP-ACDP are not merely shutting out the party, but they are shutting out the very people who gave the ANC the vote of confidence in the Western Cape."

Which of course in no way or form has stopped them from doing the exact same thing to the DA this week.

Politics. Go figure.

Update : Helen Zille is the new Mayor of Cape Town. A big congratulations to her - she is the right woman for the job! 

Like a gift from the blogging gods is this weeks Suntimes Q&A with Jay-Z shill, general incompetent, SA's No.1 Blowhard,  oldest "youth" at 35 ANC Youth League head Fikile Mbalula. The picture itself is a classic - Mbalula looks like a deer caught in the headlights - which is a perfect metaphor for the interview as Chris Barron smacks him all over the room concerning the ANCYL's corrupt relationship with Brett Kebble. (this has to be one of the best Q&A's I've read in the Suntimes). Here are the highlights for me :

Are you alarmed at the stuff coming out about Brett Kebble’s fraudulent activities?

It is a bit alarming and actually shocking. Kebble portrayed himself as a man of integrity and one would not have thought that he would have stooped so low in terms of things that have been reported. Missing shares and all of that.

 

It must be particularly shocking because the ANCYL received so much money from him that seems to have been stolen.

Yes, well, I mean you accept any donation from anybody. You wouldn’t know that that donor would have actually done something irregular.

 

Didn’t you wonder where the money was coming from for all the empowerment companies he set up?

We didn’t wonder about that simply because, let me put it this way, Kebble was good to us in many ways. (he used you, you idiots!)

 

Doubts were raised in the media. Did this never make you wonder? (yeah and that was ages ago)

The media can’t judge anybody. Kebble was never found guilty by any court of law. (someamongus shakes his head at the feinged naivete)

 

Do you think now that he was just buying the support of the ANCYL, rather than promoting BEE?

I cannot conclusively say that. Kebble did not only pay for the Youth League, he paid for a lot of people. We viewed him as a servant (I'm sorry what?), one person who was trying to elevate the youth and bring them into the picture.

 

Didn’t it occur to you that you were very useful to him?

In which context?

 

For example, the support you gave him against the public prosecutor.

We never gave him support against the public prosecutor.

 

The ANCYL came out very publicly and loudly in support of him.

There’s never been a statement by the Youth League in support of Kebble.

 

You called him a “patriot” and an “ardent supporter of democracy”.

 

That is the statement of the Youth League post Kebble’s death. There has never been a statement of support for Kebble in relation to his being prosecuted by the public prosecutor. That statement about him being a patriot was a statement on him passing away.

 

I seem to remember that when he gave R500000 to the ANC in the Western Cape the ANCYL praised him for being a “patriot” and “ardent supporter of democracy”. (woops time to change the subject quick)

Brett was basically a very good person. He has given money to many people, including to the ANC [in the] Western Cape. But there was never any support from the Youth League when he was being prosecuted by the public prosecutor. That’s a fabrication.

 

When the prosecutor brought these serious charges against him, didn’t it cause the ANCYL to question his credentials?

Simply prosecuting a person does not mean that person was actually guilty. For the record, the prosecution never found Kebble guilty.

 

My impression is that the ANCYL turned a blind eye because it was doing so well out of him.

He happened to be very philanthropic in terms of, when we went around asking for money as an organisation, he was ready to donate. For that we’ll never judge him. We’re an organisation that is not profit-making and we never ask anybody where they get their money from.

 

The organisation might not be profit-making but certain members made a lot of money for themselves.

That is pure speculation.

 

How did (ANCYL member) Lunga Ncwana get his Porsche?

How individuals happened to conduct themselves in relation to their relationship with Kebble is a matter that they themselves, being members of the National Executive Committee, have got to give a full account of.

Love it! Chris Barron has just been inducted into the someamongus hall of fame!

I will make a little confession - this election blindsided me. Totally. Sure the voter turnout was horrid (expected), the election itself went relatively smoothly (expected), but it is the way the Opposition parties were completely blown out of the water that really shook me. I don't mean to say I was expecting them to kick down the doors of the ANC citadel and totally dominate in the polls. What I expected to happen was that opposition or grassroots candidates might manage to win a few wards in areas where there had been major service delivery protests. However as I documented in this post - none of that happened, it was more a case of boycott or ignore the polls and business as usual at the municipality the day after the election.

A lot has been written about the failings of opposition politicians in their attempts to attract new members, but surprisingly little has been written about the reasons why those on the ground are the following an ANC or nothing agenda. After my last post on the elections, hex (a big hat tip) brought up a very interesting article written by Prof. Susan Booysen (Professor of Political Studies and a research consultant at ACNeilsen). I did a bit of digging and managed to find the Press release from the original study as well as the article in question. The original study focused on the experiences, expectations and attitudes of South African's with regard to Local Government. The first part of the study is pretty standard stuff and yields nothing very surprising :

The survey indicated experiences of dismally low levels of local representation, as measured by visibility of, and contact with, councilors and ward committee members. Across all demographics, municipal councilors and ward committee members are virtually invisible to 80 percent of South Africa's metropolitan and urban population. Totals of 74 and 76 percent of survey respondents, respectively, report that they 'hardly ever see' their councilors and ward committee members in the communities. Adding the 6 to 7 percent of respondents who see their representatives roughly once a year, it has to be surmised that there is a daunting distance between the experienced reality and the mission of 'close contact with the people'

 

The more interesting story is the story behind the data, and for that we need to turn to the Professor Booysens article in The Star. The crux of her article is that "South Africa is witnessing the emergence of a type of local-level democracy where community protest ranks alongside voting and elections as a legitimate means to effect representation, service delivery and accountability." Let's look at the reasoning in greater depth:

This "new political animal" accepts and uses elections, but is unlikely to rely on mandated elected representatives to see through delivery. It will use, or be prepared to use, protest as reminders of a pledge to serve. This mode of local-level democracy holds advantages for the ANC. The predominant governing party in local government across the country sustains the allegiance of voters dissatisfied with delivery and quality of life. They can use non-electoral pressure to ensure that representatives will deliver their side of the bargain. These emerging dynamics of local government and party politics have been instigated by recent years' widespread community protests. A survey by research company ACNielsen confirms the comfortable co-existence of elections and protest in the minds of a majority of South Africans from the metropolitan and urban areas, especially black voters. 

 

So the average man on the street - having been all but ignored by his local councilor - has decided that protest is a very effective tool in getting the attention of the higher-ups. But just how effective did those at grassroots feel protest was? Well -

Specifically, the poll showed that more than half of urban and metropolitan South Africans support protest as "an effective way to get the municipality to deliver better services". The survey asked respondents to rate elections and protest in terms of their respective abilities to improve the quality of services in the local community. A total of 54% felt that elections do help make a difference. However 52% also supported protest against the municipality as a means to get better services. The findings thus point to a new reality: protest, as a form of direct action, has become an accepted and legitimate part of political action repertoires in democratic South Africa.

 

From 2001 on, the South African government and especially top national and provincial government, has increasingly relied on Imbizo (presidential, ministerial and provincial) to remain in contact with constituents. In contrast, protest is a contact initiative that emerged from the side of the powerless. Communities directly involved in the protests that arose from street level witnessed affirming responses from councilors, municipal officials, provincial executives, and even cabinet members. Not surprisingly, they now believe that "protest works", and have incorporated protest into their repertoire of political participation in conditions of formal democracy.

This goes some way in explaining the recent protests but what of the continual voting for the parties that have already delayed delivery? How can the ACNielsen poll explain that? (here comes the kicker)

Contrary to many perceptions, protests and its acceptance on community level appear also to demonstrate the continuous and strong relationship between the ANC and the electorate, and the fact that conventional notions of multi-party democracy often do not find full application in new and post-liberation democracies such as South Africa's. Rather, space is required for the expression of dissent and dissatisfaction, when these are not to be channeled into vote-switching to opposition parties. It is also well-known that popular dissatisfaction is infrequently channeled through the ANC's structures. Despite the ANC's hopes of responsible branch structures, few community members get satisfaction out of reporting service problems to branch meetings.

 

The ACNielsen survey powerfully demonstrates that support for the ANC does not dwindle in the face of support of protest to supplement elections. Loyalty to the ANC, and willingness to vote for this liberation movement-party, remains largely unaffected by the endorsement of protest. The survey results illustrate how the voters continue their allegiance to the ANC, amidst support for protest action, whilst the opposition parties continue to stagnate in their support. Instead of switching their votes to opposition parties, South Africans appear to combine allegiance to and electoral support for the ANC with expression of their needs and interests through protest.

 

This argument of widespread acceptance of protest to supplement elections is further substantiated through the survey findings that it is particularly the poorest of South Africa's metro and urban income categories who are distressed about the quality of services. It is also the poorest that are most unrelenting in their support of the ANC. Simultaneously, the poor are solid supporters of protest. This leaves some of the ANC's most powerful and continuously loyal constituencies as supporters of protest.

 

Could this be the answer to part of the local election riddle? It is a very tantalizing theory with a good bit of research behind it. In the eyes of most voters its the ANC and protest or nothing. No DA. no switching sides, just loyalty with periodic expressions of discontent through protests that don't effect the balance of power or alter the ANC's dominant position.

Where this leaves our democracy is the next question worth pondering

It's quite simple really - when you make a mistake, you take responsibility for it. We're not talking rocket-science here, it's as easy as falling on your own sword, a mia culpa or a simple "my bad". What it certainly isn't is an advanced session of passing the buck or imploring people not engage in the blame game. I'm sure you know where I'm heading with this. The faux "press-conference" that Alec Erwin and Eskom CEO Thulani Gcabashe held this week had enough hand wringing and looks of pained "oh-my-goodness" outrage to put a Papal Mass to shame. These two men of "industry" (I use this term extremely loosely) would give the cast of "Law an Order" a run for their money with their supposed "concern" and exhortations that they are honestly doing everything in their power to make sure things are remedied ASAP.

Spare me the act. Thulani your BS speech about people needing to conserve power by making sacrifices looks like hypocrisy of the highest order when you pocketed all those millions in bonuses. As for Alec "I never said sabotage" Erwin, his blatantly politically opportunistic speech last week has erased any (not that there was a lot anyway) credibility he has in dealing with this crises.

What should have happened in the press conference was a good 'ol Japanese style "we stuffed this up royally". Instead what we got was another  condescending speech from those in power who seem to think that with great power comes zero responsibility.

What a farce!