'Comrade' Mbeki's letter out in the open

I've been away for two days, taking a break in nearby Alexandria Forest. Arriving back in cell phone coverage, and reconnected to my internet access, I discover that a couple of things have happened since my departure. Apparently Barack Obama has an 'illegal alien' connection in the US, oh my, and the ANC splinter group will probably call their new political party -to be launched in December- the South African Democratic Congress.

But the tidbit that most got my attention relates to the publishing of a 'private' letter former president Thabo Mbeki wrote to the president of the ANC, Jacob Zuma (see letter below). This is after the same ANC NEC that removed Mbeki as South African President, suddenly announced that Mbeki would be campaigning for them in the run up to next year's elections! The timing of that announcement is obviously tied to the above mentioned break-away movement by Terror Lekota and other present-former-suspended-stealth members of the ANC disillusioned by the manner of Mbeki's sacking and the perceived purge of his loyalists after 'Polokwane". While on one hand members of the ANC's NEC have been dismissive, in their typical arrogant manner, of the bad bad bad dissidents they, on the other hand, found no problem in suddenly brandishing Mbeki as trump card in dealing with what they claim to be a splinter group of no significance.

Make no mistake, Comrade Mbeki is not happy about this. Thus he fires of a stinging letter to Comrade Zuma. The letter is not published, initially, and is sent as a private communique. It shows Mbeki's discipline and in content once again displays his intellectual prowess (although in my opinion diluted by dated political ideology).

What is not clear, but which I can't help but suspect, is whether Mbeki knew what would happen next? Is this a case of 'give them enough rope and they will hang themselves'? The ink on his letter was barely dry when, with great arrogance, his letter was quoted in public -once again without his permission- to indicate that Mbeki would not run off with Lekota into a new political party. But the stinging criticism that made up a large part of the letter was conveniently left out of these public pronouncements. What happens next follows the script of political power play to the letter (no pun intended...). The poisonous letter is leaked to the press...

The letter makes for interesting reading. What I find of particular interest is Mbeki's attack on the 'cult of personality' and how this has become a feature of the Jacob Zuma brigade. He clearly infers that he will have no part in it - no surprise there off course. He is however very much involved with the 'cult of personality' in his dealings with the Zimbabwe crisis and its super cult-of-personality-characther Robert Mugabe...

The use of exclusive and polarising terms such as 'comrade' and 'national democratic revolution' are still alive and well amongst 'intellectuals' in the ANC . The latter term implies some positive values, such as the alleviation of poverty but is very worrisome in many other respects. For one thing it has become a trend to brand anyone who differs from the ruling party as an 'anti-revolutionary'. While Mbeki has not resorted to the latter, if memory serves me correctly, his tendency to think within the Africanist ideological box has probably had a lot to do with the polarisation which featured so strongly in his presidency.

The letter also leaves me with some sadness for Thabo Mbeki, the human being. How the mighty has fallen. It would have been so much better if he actually delivered on the promises he made and the lofty ideals he strived for. I posted on 'what could have been' in May of this year and I'm afraid what I wrote there represents what will probably be my lasting impression of Mbeki years from today.

Herewith then the much spoken about letter, as sourced from news24.com:

Comrade President, I imagine that these must be especially trying times for you as president of our movement, the ANC, as they are for many of us as ordinary members of our beloved movement, which we have strived to serve loyally for many decades.

I say this to apologise that I impose an additional burden on you by sending you this long letter.

I decided to write this letter after I was informed that two days ago, on October 7, the president of the ANC Youth League and you the following day, October 8, told the country, through the media, that you would require me to campaign for the ANC during the 2009 election campaign.

As you know, neither of you had discussed this with me prior to your announcements. Nobody in the ANC leadership - including you, the presidents of the ANC and ANCYL - has raised this matter with me since then.

To avoid controversy, I have declined all invitations publicly to indicate whether I intended to act as you indicated or otherwise.

In truth your announcements took me by surprise.

This is because earlier you had sent Comrades Kgalema Motlanthe and Gwede Mantashe to inform me that the ANC NEC and our movement in general had lost confidence in me as a cadre of our movement.

They informed me that for this reason you suggested that I should resign my position as president of the Republic, which I did.

I therefore could not understand how the same ANC which was so disenchanted with me could, within a fortnight, consider me such a dependable cadre as could be relied upon to promote the political fortunes of the very same movement, the ANC, which I had betrayed in such a grave and grevious manner as to require that I should be removed from the presidency of the Republic a mere six or seven months before the end of our term, as mandated by the masses of our people!

Your public announcements I have mentioned came exactly at the moment when Comrade Mosiuoa "Terror" Lekota and other ANC comrades publicly raised various matters about our movement of concern to them.

I have noted that some in our broad democratic movement have spoken publicly, unfortunately, and wrongly saying that Comrade Terror has acted as they have, driven by their loyalty to me as an individual.

During the decades we have worked together in the ANC, we have had the great fortune that our movement has consistently repudiated the highly noxious phenomenon of the "cult of personality", which we saw manifested in other countries.

It therefore came as a surprise to me that anybody within our revolutionary democratic movement could so much as suggest, and therefore insult somebody like Terror Lekota that he could act as he has, whether rightly or wrongly, driven by attachment to a personal cult!

In this context, given that I have worked longer with you than I have worked with Terror, I would be interested to know your view of any instance in our movement during which it fell victim to the noxious phenomenon of the personality cult, as a result of which it ceased to think, content to act in the manner of the "anointed personality", such as the late Kim Il-Sung determined to the people of North Korea!

Personally, I've been privileged to interact with such varied titans of our struggle such as Oliver Tambo, Moses Kotane, JB Marks, ZK Matthews, Yusuf Dadoo, Mark Shope, Leslie Massina, Duma Nokwe, Moses Mabhida, Frances Baard, Steve Dlamini, Lilian Ngoyi, Walter Sisulu, Gertrude Shope, Govan Mbeki, Julius Nyerere, Raymond Mhlaba, Kenneth Kaunda, Helen Joseph, Trevor Huddleston, Agostinho Neto, Robert Resha, Jack Simons, Seretse Khama, Ray Alexander, Ruth Matseoane, Sam Nujoma, Fish Keitsing, Kate Molale, Ahmed Kathrada, Nelson Mandela, Joshua Nkomo, Samora Machel, MB Yengwa, Ruth and Joe Slovo, Robert Mugabe, Mpho Motsamai, Bram and Molly Fischer, Mike Harmel, Brian and Sonia Bunting, Andrew Mlangeni, Liz Abrahams, Joe Modise, Florence Mophosho, Alfred Nzo, Beyers Naude, Albertina Sisulu, Thomas Nkobi, Sophie de Bruyn, Ellen Khuzwayo, Nomzamo Madikizela-Mandela, Wilton Mkwayi, Alfred Hutchinson, Rusty and Hilda Bernstein, Jack and Rita Hodgson, Cedric Mayson, Thomas Nkobi, Tiny Nokwe, Albert Nolan and many others.

All these, and many others I have not mentioned, were and are true heroines and heroes of our struggle.

I have omitted to mention others among these such as Albert Luthuli because I cannot claim truthfully that I have interacted with them in the context of the struggle.

I have mentioned the people I have to make essential and crucial points, central to the value system of our movement and struggle, that none of these heroes or heroines ever sought adulation in any manner that would turn them into cult figures.

They never did anything, nor did we act in any way as we grew up in the liberation movement, which would result in our movement being enslaved in the cult of the individual.

In this regard there were exceptional circumstances attached to Comrade Nelson Mandela, which were not of his making or will.

In the context of the global struggle for the release of political prisoners in our country, our movement took a deliberate decision to profile Nelson Mandela as the representative personality of these prisoners, and therefore to use his personal political biography, including the persecution of his then wife, Winnie Mandela, dramatically to present to the world and the South African community the brutality of the apartheid system.

The beginning and the end of this particular discourse is that both of us have grown up in a political atmosphere that we fully respected and honoured our leaders, heroes and heroines without reservation.

However, for me personally, at no point did this translate into "hero worship" and therefore the progression to the phenomenon of the "cult of personality".

I know this as a matter of fact that all the heroes and heroines I have mentioned would have opposed the emergence of such a cult with every fibre in their revolutionary bones!

For this reason I find it strange in the extreme that today cadres of our movement attach the label of a "cult of personality" to me, and indeed publicly declare a determination "to kill" to defend your own cause, the personal interests of "the personality", Jacob Zuma!

When we last met, on September 19 2008, at the Denel buildings adjacent to the Oliver Tambo International Airport, I restated to you the incontrovertible fact that you knew that our engagement in the struggle for the liberation of our people had never been informed by a striving for personal power, status or benefit.

In this context I told you that should the ANC NEC, which was meeting from that day, decide that I should no longer serve as president of the Republic, having been the ANC presidential candidate presented to the Second and Third democratic parliament in 2004, I would respect this decision and therefore resign.

I have been informed informally that you reported this to the ANC NEC at the conclusion of the discussion about this particular matter. I take this opportunity sincerely to thank you for communicating my views to the NEC in this regard.

I mention all this in the light of what I cited earlier - the statements made first by the president of the ANC Youth League and later yourself, concerning the role I would play in the forthcoming 2009 election campaign, which has not been discussed with me.

For some years now our movement has had to manage an immensely challenging and unprecedented situation, occasioned by the criminal charges preferred against you by the National Prosecuting Authority, and related matters.

I state this as a matter of fact with no comment about the merits or demerits of what may have been said and done by anybody or institution in this regard.

I also mention this fact in this letter because, despite our best efforts, many in our movement and our population at large have refused to believe the sincere message both of us strived to communicate, that there were and are no divisions between us, and that nobody should use our names to incite or perpetuate division in the ANC and the country.

When the December 2007 Polokwane ANC National Conference elected you president of the ANC, and responding to Comrade Kgalema Motlanthe's suggestion, I walked with you to the platform, publicly to demonstrate my acceptance of that outcome, as did other Comrades who had been defeated in the electoral process.

When, more recently, the ANC NEC decided that it no longer had confidence in me to serve as its preferred cadre to occupy the position of president of the Republic, I made it a point not to contest this decision, and therefore resigned.

When I addressed the nation on September 21 2008, announcing that I had tendered my resignation as president of the Republic, to the National Assembly as the elective body, I said that I have been a member of the ANC for 52 years.

There is absolutely nothing I have done through this half-a-century of struggle of which I am ashamed. Above all, I know of nothing I have done which, to my knowledge, constitutes a betrayal of the interests of the masses of our people and their confidence in the ANC.

Despite all this, I have taken note of the campaign that some in our ranks, supported by some in our media, have waged for many years focused on discrediting me in particular, given the senior positions I have occupied in the ANC, and the ANC in general.

I have constantly been acutely aware of the fact that this campaign has been based on outright lies and deliberate and malicious distortions.

For many years I have refused to stoop to a public debate driven by these fabrications, which would demean and destroy the dignity of the ANC, its leadership and me personally.

I must admit that this posture might have produced results we never intended, specifically as it might have suggested that we could not contest the lies that have been told.

I know that now there are some in our country and elsewhere in the world who appear on television programmes or contribute newspaper opinion columns as "experts" or "analysts", simply on the basis of their readiness to abandon all ethical considerations and self-respect, to propagate entirely fabricated and negative notions about what our national democratic revolution means to our country and people.

Because of the services some of these have rendered to the opponents of the national democratic revolution, the "experts" and "analysts" and others who market themselves as "intellectuals/academics" have been handsomely rewarded with material possessions as embedded opponents of the national democratic revolution.

Yet such is the malaise that has entrenched itself in our democracy, including our movement, that we do not ask the obvious question - how can such "intellectuals/academics" have come to accumulate such wealth?

Bearing in mind everything I have said, let me then address the immediate matters on the national agenda, which relate directly to me.

(1) Comrade Lekota and others have not engaged me in any of the actions they have taken, to secure my approval or otherwise.

(2) The ANC leadership has not engaged me in any of the responses it has taken in this regard, to secure my approval or otherwise.

(3) Informally, I have communicated my view to both these contending groups, members of the ANC, that they should address all matters that might be in contention.

(4) In my President's Political Report to the Polokwane 52nd National Conference of the ANC, presented as prescribed by the ANC constitution, I warned of the grave challenges our movement was facing. I suggested that the conference should discuss these. This was not done. Ten months after this report was presented, I still stand by what it said.

Following the developments of December 2007 and September 2008, relating to tasks I had been given by the ANC, I have considered carefully what I should do as a private South African and African citizen.

Currently I am working as speedily as I can to elaborate the substance of this work, which will ensure that whatever I do in no way involves me in the internal politics of the ANC or the functioning of the government of South Africa.

As the saying goes, I refuse absolutely to rule from the grave. History will judge whether what I did during my political life, until September 25 2008, is worth anything.

Given the December 2007 and September 2008 outcomes to which I have referred, I trust that you will take the necessary measures to:

Remind all comrades that everything we have done since 1994, to advance the national democratic revolution, has been based on collective decisions of our movement, without exceptions; Encourage all Comrades honestly to confront the real problems, challenges and opportunities that the ANC, the broad democratic movement and our country face; and, Convince these Comrades to desist from abandoning their revolutionary democratic obligations by falsely and dishonestly pretending that the goals of the national democratic revolution have been frustrated, if they have been, through the actions of one individual - Thabo Mbeki. I would like to believe that you and I have devoted out adult lives to the victory of the national democratic revolution, and nothing else. Similarly, I would like to believe that we have always understood that this revolution has as its principal focus the upliftment and empowerment of the millions of our working people, including women, who constitute the overwhelming majority of our people. Accordingly, we have understood that this revolution has absolutely nothing to do with the personal fortunes of those who might, by virtue of historical accident, be its leaders at any particular moment. I would like to believe that in this context we agree that the strategic and historic task facing the tried-and-tested leaders and cadres of our movement is to determine what needs to be done, next, to advance the goals of the national democratic revolution, focused on advancing the interests of the millions of the working masses. In my view, with which you are free to disagree, the revolutionary tasks we confront are to: Recognise the various factors that have militated against the achievement of the unity and cohesion of the ANC in the recent past; Defeat the actions prevalent in our governance system, especially the provinces and municipalities, to remove from their positions Comrades who are perceived as belonging to factions different from those which currently serve as elected leaders in the current elected ANC structures; Renew the democratic movement on the basis of: opposition to the cult of personality the defeat of careerism and opportunism; the defeat of the use of violence in the ANC and the rest of the democratic movement to impose particular leadership cliques interested in winning government tenders for themselves and their friends; the defeat of bureaucratic parasitic tendency leading to the abuse of state power for self-enrichment; the rejection of the phenomenon of the emergence of a black compradore bourgeosie which, in the context of BBBEE, is ready to front both for the domestic white and international capitalists; commitment to the implementation of a socio-economic programme focused on economic growth and development, the restructuring and development of our economy, reducing unemployment and poverty, and sharing the wealth of our country in terms of our national, class and gender categories. Nobody, and I believe the leadership of the ANC above all others, can ignore the conclusion that today our country stands at a particular crossroad. This means that the decisions we take today will impact on our country and the masses of our people for a considerable number of years. I am confident that the decisions the leadership of the ANC will take in this regard, with you at its head, will indeed advance the goals of the national democratic revolution to which so many of us, led by the veterans of our movement, have dedicated our lives. As a small plea in this regard, I appeal that nobody should abuse or cite my name falsely to promote their partisan cause, including how the 2009 ANC election campaign will be conducted. Amandla! Matla! Thabo Mbeki - News24

ANC Youth League President puts his foot in it (his mouth)

Stupid stupid speech!
Julius Malema, the by now (even more) controversial ANC Youth League President, is said to be on the defence after his inciting remarks in Thaba Nchu (Free State) at a Youth Day rally. The ANC President, Jacob Zuma, was in attendance and did not use his own speech later on to rebuke the young firebrand, but rather stuck to his prepared speech and ignored Malema's inexcusable utterings.

If you missed the news coverage on Malema's remarks, you can read about it here (The Times), but the following quote sums up the offending speech pretty well :

“Let us make it clear now: we are prepared to die for Zuma. Not only that, we are prepared to take up arms and kill for Zuma,”

This thoughtless inciting remark was apparently received with applause from the crowd... I don't think the above statement by Malema really requires any comment, it speaks for itself. Suffice to say that South Africa really needs better quality leaders with more common sense and respect for democracy and the rule of law.

The journalist and the war monger
A Times political reporter, Moipone Malefane, recorded an interview with Malema to get clarity on what he may have meant with his ill chosen rants. The audio interview follows at the end of this post. Instead of gracefully distancing him from his moment of foolishness he seems to only dive deeper into the murky waters of shallow, ideological, rhetoric. Malefane, on the other hand needs to be commended for not being thrown, but relentlessly asking piercing questions. She's clearly more of a print than broadcast journalist and is not very smooth in terms of presentation, but she zooms in mercilessly on the target!

- exactly who does the ANCYL want to kill?
Malefane pointedly asks him who 'they' are prepared to kill, perhaps the judiciary (in retaliation for the prosecution of Zuma on corruption charges)? Malema tries to skirt the issue vaguely stating that they (the ANCYL?) will kill those who try to undermine black majority rule. Malefane then points out that Zuma is being prosecuted under a black government. He then claims his comments is not related to the legal prosecution of Zuma but against the 'forces of darkness' who wish to portray the ANC leadership as 'the most corrupt people who will never lead any successful government' (cue Darth Vader breathing effect in the background here). Malefane: "Who are these forces?". In not answering her question Malema then uses a term that is fast becoming a pet hate of mine, claiming that he is talking about 'counter-revolutionary forces'. The latter term is becoming the preferred twin to labelling legitimate criticism of the Government or ANC as being racist.

- are you not inciting violence?
Interesting, in denying stoking up violence Malema employs another trick often used by politicians finding themselves in difficult corners of their own making. He starts using 'we' rather than 'I' or 'me'. Suddenly it is collective. 'No, no, we are not saying...'. Was Malema conveying official ANCYL policy, I hope not? I doubt it, although the Youth League of late is a strange animal.

And just as I'm thinking about the above, I press the play button for the rest of the interview and Malefane zooms in again with her next question:

- the statement that you made... ...did you canvas it within the ANC Youth League... ...is that what the ANC Youth League believe...?
Then Malema goes back to talking about the 'revolution' and that the ANCYL has always said that it will pay the highest price to defend it. Probably quite true in content, but he's clearly uncomfortable with the question.

- give me an example of what would cause the Youth League to take up arms?
Malema tries to avoid answering, he can't really... He mumbles about 'no need'.

- but you can't put out a statement if there's no need? ...is there a threat?
Malema is suddenly a little lame. The bravado is somewhat deflated now. In an almost apologetic tone he tries the old line: 'There's no threat... we are just saying to you... so committed to this revolution we can even die... and kill for it (sic)'. Now he's really burying himself, he actually said there is no threat! Why the great hooha?

- do you think your statement was responsible?
'Yes, very responsible...'. Sure. 'It's a revolutionary statement'. Oh, off course, now it all makes sense! Thank you comrade Malema, why didn't I see that all along!

At this point the interview meanders off into other topics. But Malefane is as sharp as before. When Malema claims they've put together a legal team that will approach the courts she wants to know if they have met with the team yet (they will be doing so on Thursday and will then announce the names). Further questions on the composition of the 'legal team' by Malefane leads to answers that leads a strong impression that the existence of such a team is somewhat questionable. The legal team will among other things try and convince the court that the case should be dropped because it may divide the country. That sounds like a strange legal argument to me, if enough people disapprove do we set aside the law for an individual?

And then, just as one thinks Melefane is going to say 'thank you and good bye' she pitches the clincher to a worn-down Malema:

- but Julius what happens in case this case is not dropped?
So what does 'Julius' say. We will attack the 'forces of the dark' and kill them? No, he says: "If the case is not dropped... ...it will go through the court, the president will appear...".

Well done Moipone Malefane! The audio file follows below:

"Questions we must start asking to bring SA back from the brink"

A friend's blog, mhambi, mentioned an excellent article recently published in Business Day, 15 March 2007. Mhambi also posts a satirical take on the ANC's logo, have a look - it's really good.

In the article, titled rather ominously "Questions we must start asking to bring SA back from the brink", Xolela Mangcu provides a well reasoned and researched summary of how South Africa's present and past politics may be analyzed. Using a thorough intellectual approach he quotes from socio-political-philosophical works to raise interesting angles on the subject. Mangcu is executive chairman of the Platform for Public Deliberation, and a visiting scholar at the Public Intellectual Life Project at Wits University.

He quotes Alain Badiou:

"Badiou explains why political parties betray their people by first asking the question that has preoccupied many of us over the past few years: “We must ask the question that, without a doubt, constitutes the great enigma of the century. Why do the most heroic popular uprisings, the most persistent wars of liberation, the most indisputable mobilisations in the name of justice and liberty end in opaque statist constructions, wherein none of the factors that gave meaning and possibility to their historical genesis is decipherable?”

His answer is what he calls “political unbinding”. He says that political representation is a fiction through which politicians pretend to represent the interests of others."

Granted, Badiou's take is rather pessimistic. However, in South Africa we're still suffering a little from the so-called 'honeymoon syndrome'. That is there's still a lingering euphoria about our emergence from Apartheid, making criticism -especially stinging criticism- of the government seem a bit like treason. In the mean while the door is left open for corruption. Mangcu points out that Jean Francois Bayart & Co. refers to corruption as “the privatisation of public resources”. This reminds me of a recent article, mentioned in this blog, in the Financial Mail under the heading "ANC's soul for sale". What the latter article describes, a network of patronage on all levels of government, can very well be referred to as "the privatisation of public resources".

Mangcu also decries the government's stance on Zimbabwe, in which it acts very much in line with Badiou's perplexing question above. Pitched in our contemporary context Badiou could very well have asked how on earth the ANC, that fought (in effect) for human rights for all South Africa's citizens, can be so tame in it's response to Zimbabwe's atrocious treatment (including torture) of the political opposition? I touched on this in a recent post - "Robert Mugabe - credible partner for quiet diplomacy?".

My only criticism on Mangcu's article is that I would have loved a few more pages of it, it's way too short! If I get the time I'm going to dig around and see if some of his academic papers are available online. It should make for very interesting reading (click on this post's heading to read his article).

Financial Mail - (ANC's) SOUL FOR SALE

The 19 January edition of the Financial Mail had an excellent feature dealing with the corruptive influence of relations between the African National Congress (ANC) and ANC-aligned business people (see link below). I'm afraid it's just another case of 'power corrupts', in this case it deals with the power to award state / municipal contracts.

I've previously referred to the encouraging rise of a black middle class in South Africa, helped along by Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). A corner stone of the latter is affirmative action. It is a necessary evil, which if managed poorly -as it often is- allows for the appointment of unqualified and inexperienced candidates. The pressure on companies to transform in a hurry, as well as dramatic staff changes (i.t.o. racial composition) in the civil service, have led to many such poor appointments. At its worst the incredible economic upward mobility of many affirmative action candidates has led to a culture of entitlement and crass materialism.

This culture of entitlement and materialism features strongly in the article below, although not necessarily described in those terms. Too many officials at national, provincial and municipal level seem to have adopted an ideology of the maximum-accumulation-of-wealth-at-any-cost. In its eagerness to advance BEE the top brass of both the government (cabinet and parliament) and the ANC seem to be reluctant to implement aggressive counter-corruption measures. In fact, most individuals on the ANC's National Executive Committee (NEC), cabinet ministers and their deputies have substantial business interests (personally or through their spouses), often in companies that deal with the state.

The article mentions instances where business people aligned to certain ANC officials have repeatedly won government contracts, with competing tender bids apparently locked out. Where municipalities have instituted 'independent' tender boards it has proven all too easy for politicians and officials to simply manipulate decisions by using proxies within those bodies.

In order to tackle our very serious crime problem in South Africa we need bold intervention on various levels. To my mind corruption in the civil service must be a top priority. Where financial benefit from political connections is not strictly illegal it should become so or be blocked by policy. However, many decision makers in government and the ANC probably has too much to lose.

One can only hope that the ANC's support base will in time become fed up with corruption and nepotism. In the long term I suspect that election shifts will be the most effective measure against corruption. That is, something similar to the recent US midterm election where voters punished the Republican Party not only for its conduct of the Iraq War, but also for corruption.

I'm not necessarily hoping that the ANC should be voted out of government, just sufficiently challenged for it to realise that it does not have carte blanche. As a government you ultimately have to answer to the citizens of your country - not your business buddies.

(Also see a recent posting by Mhambi: BAE and South African government corruption cuts deep)

Financial Mail - SOUL FOR SALE:

By Carol Paton

The African National Congress has traded ideals for influence as the party is corrupted by its members' lust for financial gain. The FM tracks the rot at the heart of SA's most powerful organisation.

It was a cool spring evening when an ambulance screeched to a halt outside the ANC's provincial office in Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Paramedics were rushing to the aid of the city's first citizen, mayor Patrick Lenyibi, who had been hit by flying teacups thrown during a brawl in the ANC offices. The first cup hit him on the head. The handle of a second lodged itself deep behind the ear after being smashed onto his head with greater force by a senior ANC member.

From several accounts, the fight, which took place in late 2005, was over a tender to supply coupons for pre paid electricity meters. The mayor is said to have implied that it would go to a group of ANC women, the member's mother included, who had already arranged to be trained to run the enterprise. But instead the tender was advertised, as it should have been, with conditions that cut his mother out of the running.

The blows were exchanged in the office of provincial secretary Neville Mompati, who strenuously denies that the argument was over a tender. Decisions over tenders should be made by neither the mayor nor the ANC but, according to the Municipal Finance Management Act, by officials in the city's tender committee. However, theory and practice are far apart.

Fights over who should get what contract are happening with growing frequency countrywide. It is a matter of embarrassment to the ANC, a party many members proudly think of in terms of its struggle legacy. That legacy is now being severely undermined, and the party seems paralysed.

The ANC, as the party in government, is centrally involved in dishing out tenders and contracts. The introduction of commercial interests is one factor that is undermining its proud political footing. Another is the "deployment" of ANC comrades to business.

This commercialisation has driven a profound change in the nature of the ANC. Once local ANC meetings were all about policies and strategies - the transformation of SA society according to the ideals the party championed for decades. Now these gatherings are frequently preoccupied with business opportunities and who should have access to them.

It's a transformation that wasn't expected. Rather than "transforming the state", as the party describes its goals in official rhetoric, the economy has transformed the ANC.

How did it begin? Trouble started for the ANC almost as soon as it took power, with squabbles over control of provincial structures. But it was only when politicians moved into the world of business that the competition for commercial opportunities began to dominate ANC dynamics. (For the complete article follow link above...)

PW Botha 'defiant to the end'

Yes, sooner or later we all have to leave this world. PW Botha's passing, see article lower down, will be greeted with mixed reactions. He was the last stalwart of Apartheid, a fierce hawkish president who ruled while South African whites were caught in the grips of a border mentality - not unlike what America is experiencing at the moment. Granted modern America is a full democracy and South Africa was not - in the 1980's only whites had the vote.

Very few will feel sad about his death. However, in the shadow of the Truth and Reconciliation process that South Africa went through, the respect with which his death is being treated is remarkable. The ruling ANC, the erstwhile Apartheid government's biggest enemy, responded with a statement which wished Botha's family "strength and comfort in this difficult time".

Botha will mostly remembered for 'what could have been'. He is famous for an important speech he made, dubbed 'The Rubicorn Speech'. In the speech he declared that South Africa has crossed the Rubicorn, implying that the country was heading down the road of reforms for good. He drove through Soweto (South Africa's biggest 'black' township) waving at excited onlookers who waved back and ran alongside his cavalcade. The majority of whites never dared to enter a township. Those who did, mostly did so as conscripted soldiers sent in to 'enforce law and order'. A signature photograph showed only Botha's white hand visible through a partially open car window with the rest of his body hidden behind darkened (probably bullet-proof) glass. Yet, that awkward reserved gesture, on the back of his Rubicorn Speech, created huge expectations. (2008 update on a similar photograph available on the internet here).

Sadly, he didn't follow through on the foundation that was laid. It should be noted that the first contact with the then still imprisoned Nelson Mandela was made on his watch, with his approval. The challenge was huge though. South Africa was isolated and its white population felt threatened from within and without. It believed that it had the blessing of God in carrying the torch of civilization into darkest Africa. The rest of the world was viewed as simply being ignorant, as not grasping the complexities that was South Africa.

However, all the potential was there for change. The Afrikaner population (white Afrikaans speakers) has changed from a not-too-educated rural farming nation to a well-educated mostly urbanised group. The 'ship of knowledge cleaving through a sea of ignorance', the mantra of the HQ Administration Building at the University of Pretoria, was having it's effect on the Afrikaner nation. Increased 'knowledge' gained through much improved education was eroding the arguments at the foundation of Apartheid.

Segregation (separate development) was looking more and more like the pure discrimination it has always been and not the noble cause it was pitched as. The idea of human rights and liberty for all was making more and more sense. Importantly, the biggest of the religious Afrikaner's churches, the Dutch Reformed Church, issued a document in 1986 entitled "Church and Society" in which it retreated from it's previous support of Apartheid. It basically concluded that there was no basis in scripture for Apartheid and that as such the church has erred in providing religious backing for it (it's against this kind of background that intellectuals in South Africa balk at the current influence Evangelicals are having on American politics).

What was desperately needed was strong, visionary, leadership. Botha was definitely a strong leader, as bold as they came (once again the similarity with American President Bush in this respect is not comforting). Importantly in that time, as with all the Apartheid leaders, he publicly proclaimed his Christian faith. He thus met the religious requirements Afrikaners was looking for. He showed promise of vision, but alas did not follow through on this.

I was busy with my 'national military service' (compulsory for white young men at the time) as a 18 year old when Botha had a stroke. On Botha's return to office a leadership battle ensued, with FW de Klerk leading the protagonists. For a short tense time everyone in South Africa held their breath - white and black. For most it was clear that Botha was leading the country down a dead-end. I was heading home on a weekend pass from the Army when our bus stopped at a road-side 'one stop' (filling station, convenience and food store). There was no radio in the bus and I was curious as the crisis seemed to be heading to a conclusion, one way or the other. I approached a black family in their car, knocked on the driver's window, and politely asked the driver if there was any news on the Botha vs. De Klerk issue. Grinning from ear to ear the driver informed me that the 'groot krokodil' (big crocodile) has resigned and de Klerk has been sweared in as president. In a very unusual moment a young white Afrikaner (boy) in his army uniform and an adult voteless black man shared excitement of what the future may hold (neither of us probably realised just how big a change was waiting down the road...)

At the time I did not fully grasp the significance of de Klerk's leadership, most South Africans were simply relieved at Botha's departure. However, de Klerk picked up Botha's spilled opportunities and set to work making something of it. The rest, as they say, is history. He re-established contact with the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, unbanned various liberation movements (including the ANC), released political prisoners (including Mandela) abolished various apartheid laws and lead the government in negotiating a largely peaceful transition to a full democracy in which all of South Africa's citizens could cast their votes.

De Klerk's visionary role is today often disputed by some commentators. They argue that he had no choice and simply acted under huge international pressure. I believe the life of PW Botha shows how flawed this argument is. Apartheid South Africa, under the leadership of hawks such as Botha, could have survived for at least another few decades. There are many examples in the international world of undemocratic strongman regimes surviving despite our much more open global world. South Africa was in desperate need of a strong leader with vision, and de Klerk was the ideal person to fulfill that role. Elaborating on Nelson Mandela's incredible contribution to achieving a democratic South Africa and then steering it down the path of reconciliation will be addressed in this column sooner or later. But de Klerk should be given his due, the pretty picture of South Africa's transition to democracy would not have existed without him - period.

For now the Groot Krokodil has taken his final bow. He has been a mixed blessing for this country. Hamba Kahle PW!

PW Botha 'defiant to the end': "Johannesburg - PW Botha, who died on Tuesday, was a finger-wagging hawk who defied the world while ruling apartheid South Africa in the turbulent and violence-wracked 1980s.

Nicknamed the 'Groot Krokodil' for his tough-talk and uncompromising stance, the feisty 90-year-old Botha continued to cock a snook at critics and remained combative to the very end.

During an interview ahead of his 90th birthday this year, Botha said South Africa would have 'gone down the drain' if it had achieved liberation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the same interview, he said he never regarded blacks as inferior because 'many blacks and coloureds (mixed race) cooperated with us'."

Mboweni OK with his Afrikaners

A recent edition of the printed FIN WEEK publication caught my attention. Tito Mboweni, ANC member and Governor of the South African Reserve Bank, graces the front page. The portrait photo of him is in photo-comic-book style. A text cloud emanating from his mouth contains the following words: "I'm OK with my Afrikaners. They stay and do the work, and become experts".

I'm sure the words was spoken in a humoristic fashion, but it remains an incredibly bold and non-PC statement all the same. Tito Mboweni was known for cold factual analysis well before he entered the all important Governor position that he's held for a couple of years now. His statement on Afrikaners is one that is sure to draw criticism from the ANC's left wing.

As the FIN Week article, below, points out statements like that uttered by a white South African will very likely be labeled as racist. Hopefully Mboweni will not be the last black intellectual to venture a brave opinion on this matter.

As a white Afrikaans male I very much appreciate his statement, even though it was phrased rather paternalistic. I entered the formal job market in 1994. Within a year or two the first black colleagues was appointed in our then Lilly white department. It was obviously long overdue. What was immediately apparent though, was that a very high turnover was going to be a feature of black appointees. Not only were they appointed at senior salary level, even though most had no relevant experience in the (marketing & PR) field, they did not stay long. I remember my silent astonishment when a black colleague left the department for a three-fold salary increase plus perks such as a luxury Audi. She spent less than a year in our department and had not yet had a chance to make any impact, let alone gain any meaningful experience.

If we did not have 40 years of formal Apartheid and 300 years of colonialism before that things may of course have been different. All the same, affirmative action is a necessary evil at best. It is something that most South African whites grudgingly accepted. But 10 years down the line serious misgivings about the continuation of affirmative action is starting to arise. I attended a seminar earlier in the week where a very dynamic coloured (mixed racial descendancy) speaker said in so many words that BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) is doomed to fail. His argument is not unique. The core thereof is that dividing the economic pie, if the pie stays the same size, will only cause everyone to loose. What you need is to grow the pie.

Of course making sure that an larger pie is fairly distributed will require at least limited government intervention. History has shown clearly that pure capitalism mostly favours the 'have's' and does little for the 'have not's'. The ideal is that this intervention is achieved through taxation, not social engineering. However, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) is under ever increasing pressure to deliver benefits to the poor masses.

One of the real tragedies of affirmative action is that the white population has shrunk by approximately. 800 000. Some sources put the figure at 1 million. That's from a population of approx. 6 million, a massive decrease. This decrease has been primarily driven by the 'brain drain'. Skilled whites who are pessimistic about their professional future in South Africa do as many other skilled individuals from across the world do in a globalised world, they go where they are appreciated. That is where they can obtain a challenging position on merit and receive the financial and other benefits associated with the particular position.

In South Africa the same person will often have to silently accept being passed over for promotion or appointment, in order for a black candidate to move up the ladder. Truth be told, white males over 50 were often already in senior positions at the time Apartheid ended. They may be frustrated at not being able to progress further while affirmative actions propels black candidates to the top. But they could have been stuck at the entry level where many 20-35 year old whites find themselves. Not surprisingly the majority of whites who have emigrated fall in this age bracket.

Another very interesting statistic is that 1 of 4 white males are now self-employed. That's a whopping 25% or a 4% increase in just 5 years. In the Apartheid South Africa in which I grew up only a very small number of whites were self-employed. Afrikaners were often referred to as the staatsdiens nasie ('government service nation'). These days if you attend a trade fair or see a group of business men (still mostly men) huddled around a coffee shop table, chances are fairly good that they're speaking Afrikaans. Compared to just ten years ago that's a truly surrealistic image - but it's very much reality today.

The positive angle of this is that Afrikaners (and English whites) are forced to apply their privileged education obtained under segregated Apartheid to start and build small enterprises. In the process jobs are created. I'm one of those newly converted entrepreneurs. However, the world of self-employment can be scary and shaky. Gone are the government house subsidies, medical aid, study allowances, unemployment insurance, etc... You're on your own boykie. By the way, if you make a success from all your sacrifice and 100 hour weeks the government will reward you by slapping taxing BEE requirements on your business - the irony...

Whichever way you look at it, loosing almost a million mostly highly skilled workers is something South Africa can ill afford. Sooner or later the ruling party will have to face the unpopular fact that making things uncomfortable for your most skilled citizens are going to cost you in the long run.

Many mostly black commentators bristle at the above debate. They retort that black South Africans can take up the slack, surely blacks aren't inferior or unable to perform as well as whites? If we haven't lived with colonialism and Apartheid for as long as we have that simplistic argument would have been very legitimate. However, the fact is that the majority of black South Africans, non-withstanding their equal potential, has lamented in pathetic schools and socio-economic conditions. The sad truth is that the majority of black citizens has simply not had the opportunity to develop their potential to the degree that they can make a meaningful contribution in the sphere of highly skilled workers. To disregard this is to bury your head in the sand. Worse, while privileged black kids now enjoy quality education in formerly whites-only schools, the majority of black kids still suffer incredibly poor education. Sooner or later the current government will have to start owing up to that, never mind how huge the challenge Apartheid and colonialism left it.

So what's the solution? I believe it lies in courageous bold leadership. The kind of leadership that will acknowledge that non-withstanding the sins of their fathers, whites who choose to stay in South Africa (very few don't want to) have a very valuable contribution to make to the welfare of the country. Downscale affirmative action, focus more on merit in appointments, BEEF UP EDUCATION and be patient. We need to grow that economic pie, at present it's way to small for 45 million people to share. The pie is only going to grow if nurtured, disregard the laws of intellectual capital and you risk making the future worse. The ANC's motto since the 1994 election has been 'A better life for all', indeed a noble cause. Social engineering could result in 'A worse life for all'...

I concede that it is probably too early to adopt a totally colour blind approach to fighting poverty in South Africa, thanks to our Apartheid past. But wouldn't it be nice if policies addressed poor, middle-class and wealthy South Africans - irrespective of race? Instead we're still stuck in racially based policies that provide or withhold opportunities based purely on race. Sooner or later that has got to change.

FIN24 : Empowering Financial Decisions: "Johannesburg - Any white male - more so if he's an Afrikaner - who says anything about affirmative action is now quickly relegated to being irrelevant, writes Finweek Editor Rikus Delport in this week's edition.

He writes: 'If you're someone who belonged to a previously privileged class your views don't count in the current debate.

'However, it's different if someone like the Governor of the SA Reserve Bank, a former Labour Minister and a respected figure in ANC circles, vents his views,
especially if he says something positive about whites in the workplace and -
believe it or not - about Afrikaners in particular.

'And that's precisely what happened when Governor Tito Mboweni spoke recently at a breakfast session in Johannesburg. When describing the dilemma the Bank is facing - black people who seek greener pastures shortly after being appointed and trained, his words were: 'I get so upset... I'm stopping this recruitment of black people. I'm okay with my Afrikaners. They stay and do the work and become experts.'

Must learn from experts
'However, what Mboweni said - probably in a joking and light-hearted manner - is what every company is experiencing but is afraid to say, and what blacks - with the exception of a few, such as Mboweni - aren't prepared to admit. Especially not in government circles. 'And that's to the detriment of SA's economy and empowerment. Because how can you empower a person if he can't learn from experts? And due to their previously privileged positions, it's the whites who have that expertise.'

Delport concedes that under the current government, SA has experienced unprecedented economic growth. And it's been said repeatedly that the economy has probably never been managed aas well as since 1994. "However, unless it's accepted that if all SA's people aren't set to work properly and don't use their skills correctly, then we won't reach the above-average growth levels government has targeted.
"To achieve that will necessarily mean that there must be equal opportunities for
all, that the unhealthy trend of putting people in positions just because they
belong to the right racial group or political party will have to stop and that skills must count above all else."

Time to drop the race issue
He says it's disturbing to learn that research shows that nearly 1m people, many of them experts, have left SA over the past 10 years - mainly due to affirmative action
and crime. "Especially if you remember that many of them had the potential to make a contribution to our economy and also create jobs." Delport points out that SA's current unemployment figure shows encouraging signs that the battle against that evil is slowly but surely being won.

"But it isn't happening fast enough, and politicians in particular should realise that people are becoming impatient at the slow progress. So why not use the expertise that we have at home to promote government's own aims?

"What Mboweni said is by implication applicable to most whites and not just Afrikaners: they're committed to the success of SA and they're prepared to work hard, even if opportunities for promotion are limited. But hasn't the time come for us to drop the race question?" "

Citizens, bloggers & the 'Fourth Estate'

On 30 June 2006 Lizette Rabe, head of the postgraduate Department of Journalism at the University of Stellenbosch, wrote in a News24.com article:

Become more media savvy: "It's not only a matter of being media literate, to be able to read between the lines, that enables us to understand any given news, whether in print, broadcast or new media.

It is also knowing about your rights as a citizen in terms of freedom of expression - and how it is or is not manipulated by those who think they have a right to decide what others may think and say."

Summarising and paraphrasing freely the article argues the following: South Africa's media freedom is largely dependent on citizen's appreciation of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. When 'apparatchiks' of the public broadcaster claim the right to manage how journalists cover the news, even indirectly, one has to be worried. While South Africa boasts a 'well-developed media infrastructure' we need 'media literacy campaigns' to create awareness of the important role of the Fourth Estate in a democracy. In protecting the Fourth Estate, an emerging "Fifth Estate" (bloggers) is sometimes mentioned as protector of the former - but this is not the solution. Members of the media have to fend for themselves by standing up to undue interference.

Her comments follow on two disturbing incidents in recent times. The one is a decision by the powers that be at the public broadcaster (SABC) to cancel, at the last moment, the broadcast of a 'un-authorised'-style documentary on President Thabo Mbeki. The other is the revelation that journalists at the SABC were instructed to avoid using a number of commentators in putting together news stories. What the blacklisted commentators seem to have in common is critical views of President Mbeki and the policies of the ruling ANC government. In both cases the SABC aggressively defended itself against accusations of censorship, but commentators and other sections of the media cried foul. The SABC at first flatly denied the blacklisting of some commentators, but reverted to an enquiry into the matter after a SAFM (English radio service) presenter confirmed on air that he in the past received instructions not to interview some commentators.

With accusations and counter-accusations flying around it's always difficult to form a clear picture of what's going on behind the scenes. However, to paraphrase an Afrikaans expression, where there's smoke there's a fire. That is, while the finer details may be disputed, it is clear that all is not right.

Is media freedom under threat in South Africa?
What was sorely missing in the whole saga, at least in the coverage that I was exposed to, is a strong and unequivocal statement from the SABC and the cabinet on the importance of, and their respect for, the media's freedom. Pleading ignorance and discrediting your accusers is not a satisfying answer to the core question - is media freedom under threat in present day South Africa? Truth be told, we have never before seen the impressive media freedom in South Africa, that has become a feature of our democracy since 1994.

Citizens of any country, including ours, cannot take this extremely important pillar of democracy for granted. If it crumbles, the whole democratic temple will follow suit. In the bigger picture of the South African media the two incidents that has caused so much discussion is in my view an exception, rather than being the rule. However, the way the SABC and cabinet responded to the accusations, is cause for concern. It suggests that in the case of the public broadcaster much more pressure needs to be applied to guard against the cancer of censorship.

I believe the privately owned media is at present more or less free from undue interference from their owners. Most definitely something to be thankful for.

Citizens' role in protecting media freedom?
But what to do about the SABC and its 'owner'? That journalists should have the courage of their conviction to stand up against even the mildest form of censorship, is a given. Where this does not happen all hope is lost. But what about the rest of society. Can we play a role?

The idealistic answer is 'hell yes!'. In practice it's not so simple. The management of the SABC is not elected and often not seen by the general public as their servants. This is off-course a misconception. In this sense Ms Rabe's contention that South Africa needs 'media literacy campaigns' makes a lot of sense. The media often performs well in informing, reminding and educating citizens on important events in the past. Programmes and content around Youth Day (commemorating the Soweto uprising of 1976), Sharpville, etc. come to mind. Sometimes the coverage of these events take on an almost religious element.

However, in taking a critical view of current affairs and policy implications for the future the same vigor is not always displayed - especially at the SABC. The South African public needs to reminded by the well covered events of the past, that if the Fourth Estate does not function freely the first three estates (government) is bound to get up to no good (think blacked-out sentences on the front page of South African newspapers in the 80's...). We as citizens should think about the dangers of any level of censorship today in those kind of terms. Even a government voted in by the kind of majority the ANC received in the last election should still continuously be put under the microscope. Being elected is a responsibility, not a chance to do as you please.

Blogging community
I was intrigued by Ms Rabe's mentioning of the Blogging community as the 'Fifth Estate'. Being new to the act of Blogging it creates the temptation in me of taking on an air of smug self-importance. Uh-hum, I'm looking out for your rights bro - I'm a blogger! However, she shoots down that notion in her very next sentence. I concur. The media's role is unique and cannot be substituted by blogging. In fact, the notion could be quite dangerous. Bloggers answer only to themselves and are notoriously subjective. While it is an obvious fact that no media outlet is fully objective, the profession of journalism is a well established and developed one. It does have checks and balances built into it and tend to be transparent. Blogging is all too often a bunch of ignorant hooligans who rant of subjective, untested and unbalanced arguments and statements. Often blogging is an act of activism, rather than empowering readers through information. Covering contradicting viewpoints in a fair and balanced manner is something I've seldom encountered in the bloggosphere.

Still, even though the medium is very much flawed, it does have an important role to play when it comes to civil liberties such as freedom of expression. In the ideal world we still mingle with the people in our street and know our neighbours by first name. In the real world we don't. Most of us are buried in work, we socialize and discuss issues with a small group of like-minded close friends or associates in our very limited spare time. This can be replicated on the Net off-course, but you can also choose to talk to strangers as much as you like.

In the world of blogging, as opposed to chat-rooms and news groups, you can get to know strangers intimately in terms of their thought processes. Something which normally takes weeks, months or years in the real world. Multiply this hundreds of times and a potentially life-enriching experience awaits you. It's like walking through a massive stadium where scores of people are huddled in small groups discussing interesting (or frivolous...) subjects. You are free to walk around and join or leave a discussion without being frowned upon. The guy who happens to be speaking can do so uninterrupted for as long as he/she likes.

If you walk around enough you will get to hear really smart people with interesting opinions or fascinating tales to tell. In short you can deepen you insight on just about any topic under the sun. You can do so by talking and listening to people who you would never meet in real life and may not feel comfortable meeting in the company of your like-minded real life friends. In a space like this, questioning and discussing at length the state of civil liberties can progress unhindered (unless you're living in China or the like...).

I suppose a difference between the (electronic & print) media and the bloggosphere is that the former speaks to millions at the same time while the latter speaks (potentially) to thousands or even millions on a personal level one at a time. Try to tell your breakfast programme presenter that his/her take on an event is totally skewed and shortsighted...

So how can blogging assist in protecting the Fourth Estate? One way is probably by making netizen-citizens used to exercising freedom of expression on the Net, unhindered. The idea of a state apparatchik censoring your blog or limiting which opinions you may quote in it is simply absurd. The extension of this to the journalist delivering your dose of daily news is obvious.