Picking at the Pikoli Report

Given the sheer size of the report and the fact that I do, contrary to popular believe, have a day job, picking is all I can do to this report. The report by Dr Frene Ginwala or her counsel, if any, is one that is long and complex, at least to me. What if anything are we to make of this report? Should it in any way be a surprise? The one thing it is, at least for me, is confusing not in itself but in its implications. Here we go:

The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) may only be removed from his office for misconduct; on account of continued ill-health; on account of incapacity to carry out his or her duties of office efficiently; or on account thereof that he or she is no longer a fit and proper person to hold the office concerned. In terms of the Act, only the president may have the NDPP removed following a commission of enquiry whose terms of reference would among others, be to establish whether there are grounds to remove the NDPP.

So says the Act of parliament that not only creates the office of the National Prosecutions Authority, but also determines how such office will, among others, be staffed. Everyone including Parliament and the president are subject to this Act. This Act also provides that the removal of the NDPP and the reason for his removal shall be communicated by message to parliament within 14 days after such removal. The removal should of course follow the outcome of the enquiry. Parliament shall within 30 days of the tabling of the message of the removal of the NDPP pass a resolution to confirm the removal or restore the NDPP. If Parliament votes to restore the NDPP, the President shall restore him.

The Act also sets out the procedure for the removal of the NDPP on what I term no-fault basis, but that is not half as exciting as what I term the “booting-out” provisions. As we all know, Vusi Pikoli is facing being booted out pending Parliament’s rubber stamp. I am not aware of any provisions of this or any other Act that sets out what it is that Parliament should consider or determine prior to resolving to restore the NDPP or to confirm the removal. What is clear, at least to me, is that the Act only contemplates and regulates removal of the NDPP in terms of the provisions of the Act. You may want scroll up or look up in order to refresh your memory on the grounds on which the NDPP may be removed. Other than on or for the grounds set out above, the president may not, at least in my view, remove the NDPP. The National Director or a Deputy National Director shall not be suspended or removed from office except in accordance with the provisions of subsections (6), (7) and (8). The subsections referred to are the grounds that I set out above. This is a prohibition the president has no choice but to respect.

Well, this is where it breaks down for me and gets rather confusing. Mr Pikoli was suspended and put through an enquiry to answer to a variety of charges. The terms of reference for the enquiry were 1) whether he is fit to hold office; and 2) whether the relationship between him and the minister of justice had broken down.

Mr Pikoli was suspended by Thabo Mbeki, the then president of South Africa. It is not clear to me whether the president or the presidency or the ministry of justice, formulated the terms of reference.

The report is some 218 pages long. Granted it is in big font and double spacing but it is still 218 pages long – so no, I have not read all of it but the following quote among others, is what I have read, after reading the terms of reference and the executive summary, that is:

Having considered all the matters above, the basis advanced by Government for the suspension of Adv Pikoli has not been established through the evidence submitted to the Enquiry.

This is what the enquiry finds in respect of the matters properly put before it and testified to and argue by counsel for both sides. And this is what I suppose the media reports referred to when they announced that “Pikoli has been cleared by Ginwala” or claims to that effect.

My goodness, how many Nicholsons can one have in one year? Apparently 2! Having considered the allegations levelled against NDPP and having found that there were not sustainable on the evidence put before her, Dr Ginwala proceeds to state:

However in the course of this Enquiry some deficiencies in the capacity and understanding of Adv Pikoli to fully execute the range of responsibilities attached to the office of the NDPP became apparent. I feel it incumbent to draw attention to these. They centre in the main on the lack of understanding by Adv Pikoli of his responsibility to operate within a strict security environment and to ensure that the NPA, and the DSO, operate in a manner that takes into account the community interest and does not compromise national security.

Dr Ginwala then proceeded to set out some examples of the deficiencies as perceived by her and gleaned from the evidence presented during the enquiry. Admittedly the good Dr wasn’t called on to decide on these matters but she found it important to raise these issues anyhow. It is sort of like being charged with assault and being found not guilty and then being told that you have a propensity to kick the neighbour’s dog so you should be found guilty of cruelty to animals. But this is not new; judge Nicholson did the same thing in his judgment, waxed lyrically about matters he was not called on to decide.

I am no expert in these matters and I proceed with caution and counsel. I sought counsel of a friend who among other things finds reading law reports entertaining such that he takes a few on vacation. He also enjoys musing about the law and its practitioners across the spectrum. I put it to him that the suspension of an NDPP is an executive order of a President. If I am correct (which is doubtful at best) then such an order cannot be transmissible and be binding on the next president. I believe that for the president to issue an executive order, he must have applied his mind to the circumstances that led him to make such an order. It is on this basis that the President decided that given the conduct of Mr Pikoli, he is not fit to hold office. When as it then happened, the President is asked to leave and another replaces him, that other should in my view, apply his mind independently to that executive order and decide whether in his view as President, the circumstances are such that Pikoli is not fit to hold the office of the NDPP.

An enquiry that is subsequently ordered by the President is in my view a forum that ought to afford natural justice to the suspended NDPP. Once again if I am right, then all rules of natural justice must apply. Put differently, all those other deficiencies should have been put to Pikoli and he should have been given an opportunity to answer them.

In response my good friend asserts that the order that suspended Mr Pikoli is not an order of the President but of the Presidency and consequently it is binding on the office of the president regardless of the incumbent. If he is right, which is likely, that’s the end of the matter – but what if he is not?

Now, based on the Ginwala report, and apparently in terms of the NPA Act, Parliament is being convened to decide whether to approve or reverse the removal of the NDPP from office. Let us take it back a few steps. The sitting president did not suspend the NDPP. Presumably he confirmed the suspension and proceeded to act to notify Parliament of the removal of the NDPP – apparently in terms the legislation. This he does, notwithstanding that the grounds on which the NDPP was suspended, were thrown out by Dr Ginwala. But I suppose the president has grounds and if you don’t like his grounds, he’s got other grounds.

What then is Parliament supposed to decide? Is it supposed to decide whether Pikoli is fit to hold office on the grounds advanced by the President when he was suspended or on the grounds discovered subsequently by Dr Ginwala? This is fascinating considering that a few months ago Thabo Mbeki was lambasted for interfering with the prosecution when he would not let the prosecution execute some warrants of arrest. It turns out that what Thabo Mbeki did was to request some time for him to attend to some matters of national security that would follow the execution of the warrants in question.

The confusion gets worse on my part. Can Parliament confirm the removal of Pikoli when the grounds put forward against him are not even good enough to sustain his suspension? Will Parliament consider the recommendations made by Ginwala? She does by the way recommend that Pikoli be restored to his position since government and not the President, failed to sustain its case against him. She then proceeded to recommend that those other issues that she raised should be dealt with through dialogue and other means. I believe it should follow that all those other grounds put forward, of her own accord, by Dr Ginwala do not amount to Mr Pikoli being unfit to hold office of the NDPP, otherwise she would not have recommended that he be restored to his position and that he should work on some of his bed-side manners.

In the meantime, the director-general of the department of justice was found by Ginwala to be not such a good person for the job he is required to do but hey, he gets to keep his job albeit for a time being, if what we are told by government is or can be anything to go by.

Me'thinks all this shows is that: it is not that Pikoli was ever loved but that Mbeki was hated more.

On Heidi Holland and the racist onslaught (a post by Moremogolo)

The article by Heidi Holland in the opinion and analysis pages of the Star (8 December 2008) is an interesting read. Interesting in the sense that it is a cleverly written lot of nonsense with lots of factual inaccuracies. I think it also betrays a lot of, yes, deep seated racism that is prevalent in the majority of whites in this country. You will notice that I say majority and it is not an error. In her eyes Black people are not meant to be ruled by intellectuals and intellectuals in this country aspire to be embraced by the west and suffer from identity crisis as a result of being intellectuals. Africa deserves to be ruled by “fools” like Zuma whose only ambition is to be a ruler one day.

This is both an insult to Mbeki and Zuma personally and serves generally to indicate how whites like Holland perceive the African people and their leadership in general. The intellectualism of Thabo Mbeki does not sit well with people like her and the rest of the West because he has challenged their perceptions about Africa and has pushed vehemently for Africans to find solutions to their own problems. The grip that the west has on Africa is slowly loosening thanks to Mbeki’s efforts. Mbeki is being ridiculed and misrepresented on the Aids issue because he dared challenge the pharmaceuticals and their western governments on their approach to tackling this crisis in Africa. Mbeki is also being called aloof because whites in this country and elsewhere feel that he escaped from their pockets once the ANC came into power.

Zuma is liked because he will help perpetuate the myth that Blacks are eternally stupid. His ambivalence on issues of policy and his constant stupid remarks is liked because it makes great writing on a typical of an African leader. The masses liking Zuma is typical of the African majority who stupidly follow leaders without questioning. Indeed if you read articles posted by readers on news 24 you will be constantly reminded how stupid Africans are by responses from white readers.

This patronising attitude by whites is very prevalent in the judge Nicholson judgement where he made pronouncements on issues he was not asked to make pronouncements on because he knows what is best for Africans. Africans are wont to fight against each other and he needed to put a stop to this and guide them on how they should conduct themselves.

Of course people like Malema and Mantashe have led credence to these notions that blacks are eternally stupid by pronouncing judge Nicholson “a sober judge” and the judges of the constitutional court, the majority of who are Black “counter revolutionaries” who “make their decisions at shebeens”.

But then again there are a lot of Mantashes and Malemas in our country who uncritically accepts the vile diatribe that is spewed by the Hollands of this world. And the nonsense that they write is hailed as good journalism. Nonsense riddled with historical and factual inaccuracies that have come to pass as fact and truth.

The Zimbabwean situation has become of the issues that is being advanced by people of Holland’s ilk and swallowed by the majority of this country uncritically. It is after all Claire Short, Britain’s Secretary of State for International Development at that time, with the support of her government, who could break a binding agreement between the Zimbabwean and British governments casually by saying that “I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers." (5 November 1997)
And of course the much revered Tsvangirai has learnt well from the colonial masters in casually breaking binding agreements. I am yet to hear the views of these self righteous people like Holland and the west on Mbeki’s response to the MDC’s letter.

In agreement with Andile Mngxitama’s article in the City Press (7 December 2008), there is an urgent need for a new kind of consciousness to counter these patronising perceptions that are being spewed by Holland and her masters.

De-Bait or not De-Bait, that is the question . . .

I am farcically reminded of a “joke” I read years ago in which the legendary Sipho was asked by his teacher to construct a sentence using the words, defence, defeat and detail. Sipho proudly stated that “de cow jumped over defence, defeat first and then detail”. The farce is brought about the latest election trail noises which sadly sacrifice true politics in favour of sound bites (this by the way was said by Julius Malema some 2 weeks ago, the part about sound bites), except he said Polotics, but we all get what he is saying.

There seems to be a belief that the ANC is somehow obliged to respond or agree or accede to any and all requests and demands made on it by political parties, the media and other civil society organisations. This is apparently so if the reports about the recent Helen Suzman’s round-table watchamacallit is anything to go by. It is reported that the ANC turned down the invitation to participate in the recent round of the table which was to discuss the threats to our constitution. There is apparently, at least as far as I can follow the noise, a link between the conduct of the ANC over the recent months, chiefly its decision to recall the then president of the Republic, and the mooted threat to our constitution. I ask sincerely, "which part of the constitution and how so?" Would somebody please offer guidance on the meaning of proportional representation! It is the Party stupid! Not the individual! It sounds to me like the invitation was akin to “come over to the table so that we can tell you how terrible you are and that way impress upon you to mend or to undertake to mend your ways". Incidentally, a similar invitation to one Julius Malema, an ANC NEC member, had the opposite effect. It’s true ask Justice Malala; the more he pressed, the more he looked bad – on his own show! But I digress, the issue is the invitation to Helen’s table.

As it turned out, the ANC was apparently more than ably represented by one Sipho Seepe, an academic and socio-political commentator of unknown political affiliation but apparent dislike of Thabo Mbeki. He apparently eloquently argued and demonstrated to those at the table that there is as a matter of fact no threat, current or pending, to our constitution. In support of this argument, so the reports go, Seepe pointed out (and was later echoed by Carl Niehaus on a different platform) that notwithstanding the dominance of the ANC, it never once set out to mess with the constitution even with more than two-thirds majority in the legislature. That may be so (notwithstanding some 12 or so amendments to the constitution, nothing serious) but we all should at least agree that those were different times. So, for me the threat to the constitution is neither here nor there. It is with respect a redherring.

Just so that we are clear, I am of the view that the ANC is quite entitled to choose the forums it wishes to participate in. If this diminishes its standing as a credible political party, so be it. The Helen table can for all I care be as disappointed as it wishes, but that is no dandruff of my scalp. Redherring, I tell you. This and similar debates are nothing but a platform for the well-known scare-mongering tactics. Every election since 1994 has been preceded with such claptrap intended to frighten South Africans into voting this or the other party. It is no surprise that the opposition attended at the table in their numbers, they have everything to gain – they can’t afford the publicity. This is similar to the invitation to a debate, by the other Helen to Jacob Zuma. Now why would the president of the largest and governing political party want to debate a mayor?

Believe me, I have a million bones to pick with the ANC but not this one. It is quite astute of it not to have taken de-bait – this time.

Individuals infect and get infected by HIV, not communities . . .

Today is Aids Day, everywhere in the world. Professor Malegapuru Makgoba is upbeat about the whole affair, where South Africa is concerned that is. He insists that this is no flash in the pan excitement either – No! his excitement is here to stay. In his own vernacular words he says “once you have woken up the chickens, you can’t put them back to sleep” (my translation).This is with reference to the change of government approach to HIV/AIDS since the appointment of Ms Hogan, the new minister of health – who in a few fundamental ways is not like Ms Tshabalala-Msimang, the previous minister of health.

The government of Thabo Mbeki, according to Professor Makgoba made it impossible to tackle the pandemic and apparently medics were not even free to say HIV causes AIDS. Some powerful fella that Thabo was, I’d say. He seems to have been one oppressive leader indeed. So oppressive scientists did not feel free to express the outcomes of what must have been their scientific results and conclusions – as opposed to Google search results. This is where I would like to leave it insofar as government and HIV/AIDS is concerned. My celebration or commemoration of this day is about the people, especially the individual.

Lucky Mazibuko is among many things a HIV positive and positive living columnist who writes for the Sowetan newspaper. One has to give it to that bustling metropolis, Soweto. Its own newspaper, radio station, television, shopping mall, marathon and soon will have its own street racing just like Monaco. I can imagine the miniature yachts during the race week – floating merrily on the lake near Rockville . . .

Lucky was recently on radio defending one of his articles on the subject of HIV/AIDS – at least that is what it sounded like to me. He apparently wrote something to the effect that we have beaten the “government must do something about aids” drum for long and loudly enough and that we must now switch to another drum. That way I presume the rhythm section will sound better. Lucky argued, correctly in my view; that individuals ought to take responsibility for their personal health. The counter argument went along the lines that the circumstances for personal choice are simply not conducive for others. I agree with that too. The proponent of the counter argument illustrated her point with reference to young girls who are forced into all manner of situations by their fathers, uncles and other family and familiar men. These children cannot find avenue to express their choices; in fact it is argued, they do not have a choice at all. So against their will and better judgement they get infected.

So, in our classic South African “either/or” approach, we should forget about this personal responsibility and choice nonsense until we have fixed the ills of our society that denies the majority of our people the choice to be healthy, celibate, promiscuous, responsible and so on and so forth.

It sounded to me like any mention of personal responsibility for one’s health, presupposes that the government will be excused from doing what it should in relation to the pandemic specifically and about other health matters generally. The personal choice and responsibility approach, one caller argued, will be supported by the capitalists and their surrogates who in his view have no respect for issues of the collective. I could not follow the rest of the caller’s views but I remember thinking how riveting it would be to have a beer with him while discussing the ills of our society.

Lucky, wherever you may be, in me you have at least one supporter. To the rest of our fellow sex loving South Africans (as if this is read by anyone other my wife dearest and her sister and one other friend) – it is really up to you. Whether HIV causes AIDS may be an interesting debate to engage in. You may even have objective scientific basis to demonstrate your view. You do have to concede though that there is overwhelming evidence that indicate that if you engage in sexual intercourse without a condom, you are likely to infect or become infected with the HI virus. What the virus gets up once you are infected, is in my view moot. There are a whole lot of other good reasons why one should practice safe sex – this is however not a post on morality, which turns out to be yet another personal and individual choice. There is a call for government to intervene here too.

In fairness to the counter argument, I must state a further illustration of theirs in support of the assertion that government should do more. It was pointed out that the smoking rate among South Africans has declined because of the laws prohibiting smoking in public places and around small children and at work, etc. As I listened to this, I tried very hard not to walk away in a huff. Now that I have calmed down, may I impress upon the proponent of the counter argument that we already have laws that prohibit sexual intercourse with a person who does not want to engage in sexual intercourse. This is the whole dreaded consent issue of which the least said the better. Furthermore, a tour of our public places, especially restaurant will show that the anti-smoking laws are hardly observed nor enforced. This is apart from the small technicality that we don’t generally get down on it in public.

This Aids day and the days coming each individual should please make a choice to lessen the opportunity to infect or be infected and most importantly, to help others make that choice.

Otherwise, you better be lucky.

Of governments and just deserts . . .

Mr Lekota, having accepted an invitation for a meeting from some business people of Stellenbosch, proceeded to arrive some 2 hours late. Not a good showing for a new deal kinda guy, I’d say. The hosts, even though some decided to vote with their time-conscious feet, were persuaded that the man’s personal safety is a good enough reason to be late – sort of like being late for golf because you first had to see to the birth of your child.

It is during this Stellenbosch meeting that he was asked whether there was any truth to the rumour that COPE was planning to go into bed with DA and produce democratic people with a congress. In response Mr Lekota mused out loud as to why Msholozi was picking on the white lady. Anyway, he was not going to take any of that. Who said chivalry was dead? For someone who has outsourced the safety of his loved ones to ADT I probably should shut up when it comes to matters chivalry related.

And then there was all that talk about dying and going to the grave in pairs. Once again for a new deal guy he really ought to choose his words wisely. This is said presumably to demonstrate the ultimate commitment to the defence of democracy. I don’t know about laying one’s life down for democracy or for a leader of your particular liking, what I do suspect is that Mr Lekota did not mean death like that. After all, he is not too keen to be without his police protection, a matter that led to him showing up late at the meeting under discussion.

The view of the hosts is that this man should be knighted or something close. In their words (paraphrased of course – I’m the one at the keyboard so complain all you like) they invited Mr Lekota to among others see who the saving grace for the country is or can be during these trying times. They wanted (probably still do) to satisfy themselves that we are not going to the dogs. I’m not sure how all that clever deductions and conclusions were reached. To each his own, I guess. All this, before the man and his new party have done or said anything to demonstrate that they are a new deal kinda bunch - with respect.

Seriously though, is Jacob Zuma really a racialist person? I suspect that there is a distinction between being racialist and being racist. According to Mr Lekota, Msholozi picked on the alliance thing with the DA because the DA is led by the white lady. I ask again are these racialist tendencies that Msholozi is showing, among his other attributes? Notably Mr Lekota cautions that the president of the ANC must judge the DA on its policies and not the colour of its leader. Methinks Terror doth protest too much. Surely both the colour and policies of the DA are known – they have a website for crying out loud.

As for the defence of democracy that politicians will be bandying about from now until the announcement of the election results – something tells me that the surest way to defend democracy is to practice it. I have this mantra (which I may have inadvertently plagiarised from somewhere or came up with during the time I went fishing with my friends from Durban): “Love thrives only in its own presence”. This however I have just come up with: “Democracy, like love, thrives only in its own presence”. As you accept democratic outcomes, however unpalatable and work to sway others to your side of debate, that way, democracy thrives. It follows however that, if there is no democracy around, it does not matter how much of a democrat you are, you best get out of the tent, piss into the tent and run.

Cope does not have the luxury of poorly chosen words and ill-considered statements and badly phrased proclamations. It will not, for very good reasons, be judged by Julius Malema’s standards. Besides, even Jacob Zuma agrees that we deserve better when it comes to standards of behaviour.

On the other hand the face and candidate for the president of the Republic of South Africa, of the ANC is Jacob Zuma. Not only was he the preferred candidate and now president of the ANC, he will (all things being equal) be put forward as candidate for the presidency. This much has been confirmed repeatedly. " . . . for as long as there is no guilty verdict against Zuma, he will be the face of the election campaign and the candidate for president . . ." so goes the official position. If the company one keeps remains an acceptable measure of judgement of ones character, then I have some unresolved petit bourgeois concerns.

In the end though, we the people, shall get the government we deserve, no more and no less.

Debate at Kaya . . .

Like most "firsts", the anticipation fuelled excitement promptly fizzles out at the reality of the actual happening of the "first" - for want of a better description. This was unfortunately no different with the debate conducted by his royal Phatness on his Kaya FM morning show. Take nothing away from the audacity of it all and even less from the gusto with which the participants went at each other - including sometimes off the point of the debate and into the realm of the private and the personal.

Whichever way you look at it, this was a good thing and we can only hope for more of such sparring of the minds or views. About the Phat one - you will remember that he won the adoration of many a media fundi when he came onto our little screens with that interview show of his, with Leo as his side-kick. Some of those episodes were memorable, so no surprises that he would pull something like the Dandala-Tsedu bout. Then there was the skit about the young politician with gout problem who claimed he did not know. Well done to Kaya FM. Enough with the sucking up . . .

I was somewhat disappointed by how the two gentlemen conducted themselves during the debate; I am of the pompous opinion that they really could have done better. Well, it may be the case that if one would like to influence the policies of the ANC, one should join the nearest ANC branch and make one's voice to be heard - as Mr Tsedu argued - but it is a different story when the ANC is vying for one's affections or vote. Similarly, it does not matter Mr Dandala - at least it does not matter to me - the HIV status of a woman the prospective president of SA chooses to sleep with. What does sit uncomfortably with my petit bourgeois morality is that he was married at the time and not to the woman who my reactionary views deems her too young for him. I only have one wife so take that whence it comes.

It became clear during the debate that COPE will have to do a lot if it hopes to make inroads into the mind of the South African voter. At this stage they just come accross a collection of disgruntled sore losers. As they say in the classics, if you take a shot at the king, do not - I repeat - do not miss. Kings do not take too kindly to attempts on their royal lives. The ANC too will need to come down a notch or two. Organisations are made and indeed broken by individuals. Despite the motives of those leaving the ANC - it shows the intricacies of relations and cliques within this broad church and how those are becoming less and less tolerant of each other. The little I watched of the Polokwane happenings, it was fairly clear that the utterings were a little more than robust - it looked like a quarrel of enemies and not of brothers - and sisters.

The good thing that this Kaya debate was is that we can and should continue to ask for more and better of our political leadership. It doesn't matter whether I am or am not a member of the ANC, if they want me to vote for them, well they better appeal to my wannabe middle class-reactionary leanings, failing which they have one vote less - under the current climate my pompous ass would like to believe that each vote counts - even a reactionary one. The same goes for COPE - I am not interested to hear how bad the ANC is, I want to hear how good COPE is. Let us see the emergence of real politics.

Kaya and the Phat one have done well here - now let's see if it can be sustainable. By the way it means that the next debate will or must not end unceremoniously leaving me and my beloved whether we should wait for the questioins from the audience as we were promised or just head off to our breakfast wondering what happened; did Hlomla really go and punch that guy for raising all those personal issues or did that guy declare the crowd too hostile and refused to come back on . . .

Whatever the case may be, the debate must go on and I look forward to the next instalment.

Not in my name . . . no more

“Nobody wants to kill the springbok” blah, blah, blah fish-paste, says the honourable Stofile, the minister of Sport and Recreation, etc. This he says in his capacity as a public official apparently on behalf of us dumb and sometimes deaf voters. Well, dearest honourable Stofile, I hereby recall all previous authority I may have granted you to speak on my behalf.

In case you think I have something against the honourable minister, I do and he is not the only one. In fact I take my axe-grinding right back to Nelson Mandela, Africa’s most loved statesman, prisoner, liberator, etc. Thanks to him this springbok nonsense still lingers, not to mention the fact that I now have to sing die stem right in the middle of my national anthem! I am not going to waste time and bandwidth on the good things Nelson Mandela did, that was the absolute minimum expected of him. It is what he cost black South Africans that matters to me.

Anyway, back to the minister of sport and the antelope.

When the honourable minister met with the rugby boss whose name I’m never sure of but think I know, he did so presumably in my name. Before we get into the meeting let me disclose my leanings to the reader where Oregon Hoskin (the rugby boss) is concerned. I don’t like the guy. No, I don’t hate him, I just don’t like the guy – big difference. My dislike of this gentleman is based on one news-clip. Just one clip, no context, no nothing. In this clip he shouts menacingly threatening at an elderly gentleman who seemed to be questioning one or other decision of the rugby leadership. He came across as a bully and I don’t like bullies. But that is not the point.

When the minister met with the bully, he smilingly told us that throughout the world national sports teams wear the national emblem on the left side of the shirt (of course I paraphrase). It had been previously suggested that the antelope was going to stay but will be moved away from the clutter on the left side of the jersey, to the right side. Remember this we are told by our elected official (yes I voted ANC) that this is an appropriate resolution to the matter. This according to him is what is done everywhere else in the world. I still don’t know why on earth the government of Nelson Mandela decided to cut a deal with rugby on the issue of what is the national emblem. It was probably done for the same reason the national anthem is what it is – compromise.

You can therefore imagine my absolute surprise to discover that the soccer team aka Bafana-Bafana, wears the national emblem on the right hand-side of the jersey. In case there is any doubt:

I know that the picture is small and it is not clear but you do get the point of my shock. I do not wish to give the honourable minister another opportunity to smilingly tell me what the rest of the world does when it comes to football.

I wish to ask the government to cease all negotiations and deal-making on my behalf until further notice. Until such time as there is a decision on what our national colours and emblem are, I would prefer it if the government was to just leave all sporting codes alone to put what they like on the jersey. Until there is an interest in sport as a means of nation building and as a means of getting our people to participate in sport equally and fairly, I propose we let each sporting code to do whatever takes their fancy. All this pretext of transformation and strong words and subsequent apologies just turns my stomach.

No more deals or pontifications in my name, please. Thanks.

Teachers and the question of the surplus value . . .

One of the privileges of being a member or an official of a trade union is the annual (or different frequency) wage offers and counter-offers aka wage negotiations. This is one of those fascinating phenomena of the modern economy, at least as experienced in SA. Grown men and women attend expensively arranged, even more expensively conducted meetings at which they have a contest of demands and denials. This carries on for a few days, while the business that supposed to fund the whole thing and the eventually agreed upon increase on wages and other benefits of employment, chugs along on the same basis and same rate of output as 5 years previously.

The management stick to their guns, the union escalates their demands and rhetoric and sometime in the future they all agree, shake hands and go back home or back to the head office. This unworkable and archaic method of interaction between the worker and the employer will be employed again in the next round of negotiations and for the forseeable future. In the meantime the workers will remain pretty much where they are at the moment - between the rock (the job) and the hard place (the trade union). There is of course the believe that the power and strength of the workers is the trade union. I believe the opposite - it is the workers that lend strength, power and legitimacy to the trade union. I can never understand how people who do not work the same, do not have the same dedication, do not have the same loyalty - should be rewarded the same. What do I know, I am just a middle class neo-liberal counter-revolutionary whose mind is shorter than his BEE shoes - the kind that arrive at the door before their owner, as Dr Nzimande eloquently describes them.

That the employers the world over exploit workers and treat them slightly better than the tools and machinery operated by the very workers is without doubt. Similarly, there is so much more to a working man or woman's life than wages. Yet wages remain the mainstay of any of these annual or however frequent meetings of demands. Trade unions in my view have the same effect on true worker power that the church has on true faith - but let us not unzip that pair of pants as yet.

This brings me to the point of this post, pretentious as that may sound, I do have a point to make and it is about teachers. Teaching is a proffession I love, contrary to popular believe. When I was still studying I had a few friends who were teachers. I remember having what I thought was a friendly chat with one of them about whether teachers should be organised or organise themselves like workers; whether teachers should form and belong to trade unions as they are known through-out our capitalist SA? This chat was inspired by my love for the profession in the face of what I believed to be an assault on the noble profession. He did not believe that I could be serious, he in his words thought I was making a joke - of course teachers are workers - just like my father who at the time was working for a rugby head-honcho who made kunsmis (scientific shit) and money as a hobby. My friend, who started work at 8am and finished at 3pm (I know I'm being generous but for the sake of this post I will equate being at work with working), pretty much determined his work routine and outcomes - believed that he is no different to my father. That fateful afternoon was the end our relationship as we both had known it. We disagreed and parted ways having said things we both lived to regret.

I tried to impress upon my friend (thanks to liberal arts under-grad education) that the whole fight between the bosses and the workers (pronounced "whackers") is the surplus value and that it is this surplus value that the bosses seek to increase and the workers wish to eat into. Having spend considerable amount of time fielding all manner of questions about Marx and his comrades and what I thought was a straight-forward determination of surplus value in any profit-driven enterprise, all I managed to do was to really anger my friend (as he then was).

If the teachers are workers just like those who produce scientific shit, then they will need bosses. The bosses in the teachers case shall be the government represented by the minister of education and of public service. Workers are paid out of the funds of the company that employs them or out of the overdraft of that company (the latter more so lately). Workers' salaries and benefits are part of the cost of production - the idea is generally speaking that the workers should meet the cost of production and then leave the cream of the income otherwise known as profits for the bosses to enjoy. I am not sure what the production is where teachers are concerned and how the cost of that production is to be measured. If teaching be the enterprise, what is the income side that is meant to mirror and balance the expense side? Ok, maybe school-fees, taxes, fund-raising and maybe even donations. It is not like parents pay more for teachers who do their job well and produce good results. This is another debate because fundamentally the good results are produced by the learners/pupils with the guidance of the teachers. Just in case the reader got lost, I am not talking about private schools here - in any event those schools are never affected by such noble causes as teacher trade unions and chalk-downs.

The era of teacher-trade unions have reduced what used to be a noble profession to a toyi-toying mass of shame-less lemmings. I had the benefit of a township education back in the day when teachers were professionals and commanded respect and/or fear. The fear inducing type commanded less respect and are remembered accordingly - nevertheless, they were teachers and occupied a special place in society. They also appear to have been rewarded accordingly - that seems to have changed somewhat dramatically over the years and maybe that is the reason there is a belief that trade unions is the way to go. A poor solution coming from those we trust to train the minds of our young ones.

There is of course a great benefit to our goverment, specifically the ANC and the tri-partite alliance that teachers, police and nurses form and belong to trade unions. With a constituency that large, one can't go wrong in national elections - that too is another story for another post.

Regardless of the incoherent pontifications of Mr Nxesi and the other comrade-educators, they are members of the professional class where labour is unrelated to production and surplus value is not part of the equation. The existence of the teaching and other administrative strata is to support and to created aspiration for capital. Comrade-educator does not focus the minds of the learners on the assembly line or underground drilling and excavation type of work. The target, we are led to believe is scientist, philosophers and other such like great callings.

There is also the interesting position of the old-school type teacher who does not want to belong to the trade union, to put his chalk down or to toyi-toyi. The sad stories of these teachers are too sad to repeat. All of this is made even worse by the fact that as the teachers chant Marx (whom they hardly ever read) their own children are happily chanting a sonet in the comfort of a school and under the supervision of a teacher that does not belong to or support a trade union. In the meantime, the child of the Cosatu comrade is loitering and passing time until he is old enough to replace his or her parent as another worker.

It is I believe Marx who said something uncanny about how each class reproduce itself.

Integrating Prof Jansen's theory

It does not get more dangerous than when a failed engineer takes on a professor of education on the professor's views about education. A few disclaimers are called for at this stage. I am fond of the good professor, not of him really because I don't know the man like that, but of his writing and views on education and other social issues. This post, I hope, will reflect the respect and fondness I have for the prof, his writing, his views. As in maths I hope to integrate the good prof's views where the limit of his view tends to zero (that is at least my recollection of the integration formula) - something like lim x=0. Where x is the prof's views.

The good prof recently wrote in The Times newspaper that we ought to be cautious when we integrate children from different races and culture into one school - a school that in typical South African style, was previously white. He argues that children coming from different backgrounds respond differently to education and to discipline, etc. This far I do not take issue with Prof. Jansen's views. Strangely, this being his conclusion, I may be mistaken to be agreeing with the whole article, which I don't. It is how the good prof builds his argument that his conclusion belies his thoughts.

According to Prof. Jansen, the schools that stand to suffer the most from ill-considered integration, are the poor Afrikaners' schools. These schools he opines, although poor, are functional and produce the goods - presumably through discipline and hard work. There is something in the sub-text that suggested to me that the discipline and good performance of these school is almost genetic as much as it is in the nature of the Afrikaner. This of course concerned me somewhat. There are of course well-run poor, primarily Afrikaner schools, I am sure of that. This to me is more a testimony to the management of the school and the parents maybe but definitely not the nature of the children. Children I have learned are just that - and their conduct is in the majority of instances the explanation why certain species eat their young.

Prof. Jansen then continues to say that integrating black children from poor black township schools into these Afrikaner schools is a bad idea. This, after he stated that by default, the poor Afrikaner schools attract children from these very poor black schools (rich blacks are already in posh schools and the almost rich don't go to the poor Afrikaner schools). He then says that children from the dysfunctional poor black schools do not respond well or positively to discipline that is imposed by the Afrikaner school that they are now being integrated into. Fights break out on the playground, in the toilets; knives appear at school; drugs and other ills, which appear to come to the hitherto well-run Afrikaner school concealed in the backpacks of the black children. In the end the school suffers the most. This is so because at the first sight of the knives or the throw of the first punch, the Afrikaner parents yank their children out this previously well-run school and the previously white school soon becomes a poor black and dysfunctional school. This is so notwhithstanding that the teachers do not follow the white children in exodus. Apparently not only do the children not respond to discipline, the teaching staff cannot bring this lot to heel.

As indicated at the beginning of this post, I may well have misread the good prof but I doubt it. With respect Prof. I believe that you overstated the goodness of the poor Afrikaner kids and the badness of the black children from dysfunctional school. The casualness with which his article is written (quite uncharacteristic of him I must say) condemns the black children and not the poorly-run schools that they come from. This is not about the children, it is about those with authority over them. It is in my view an unfair and glib assertion that the poor children bring all manner of ills to their new school.

There are enough reports Prof. that suggest at least to me that the children, white and black, are thrust into racially charged environment, which the adults do nothing to defuse but infact make it worse. You will remember the Huhudi (Vryburg Prof) incident. The parents, teachers and unemployed officious bystanders all behaved poorly - they made what was already a difficult situation worse. They were all of them, worse than the poor kids at that poor school.

The difficulties the prof raise in his article are real and need to be addressed. They are however not problems of integrating unruly black children from dysfunctional schools into the poor well-run Afrikaner schools. They are about those who are in charge of our children's education taking their jobs seriously and jealously protecting our children's right to learn.

In this instance Prof. I'm afraid there are no problem children, just problem adults.

SADC Leaders . . . what leaders?

Which part of "Mugabe lost the elections" do these guys not get. I am hard-pressed not to refer to them as anything more disrespectful than "guys". Here are the gentlemen (I am not aware of any ladies among that lot) who go by the title "SADC leaders" or "cowards" according to another gentleman who would like to become a SADC leader - having a meeting apparently to resolve the problems of Zimbabwe, but unfortunately missing this rather fundamental point. Talk about the elephant in the room!

The MDC, having won the presidential and parliamentary elections is apparently expected by the leaders of our region to now share power with uncle Robert - he of murderous fame. It seems to be the new African way of governing - sharing power with the party that lost the elections but that can cause the death of many of the citizens. Kenya, Zimbabwe, who will be next I wonder. There is no point making peace with a war-monger, war is about the only thing Mugabe has to offer for his (sic) people. How does one even begin to engage Mugabe? I would have thought that the legislation was very clear on what should happen should the run-off elections not take place within the specified time limit. That of course is another story for another camp-fire.

There is no community, no development and definitely no leadership. A lot more can of course be said about the very people that the leadership of Zimbabwe ought to serve. It has been said that fundamentally, it is the people of Zimbabwe who can rid themselves of the tyranny of Mugabe. Notwithstanding the damage he has done to country and people, Mugabe still has the support and loyalty of the state functionaries. Well, this may well be evidence of what Mr Justice Malala flambouyantly refers to as "dipolotiki tsa mpa" (tough one to translate but it is something along the lines of selfish interests of the functionaries - looking after their often large tummies).

What is to be done when there is suffering at such a large scale. I have a friend who has just returned form Zimbabwe - "it is really sad to see old people dying of hunger", he said. Life does go on in Zimbabwe though and for some, lucratively so. There is always some interests served by large scale mayhem and suffering. This reminds me of the tall gentleman with the shining military boots waving a stick as he strolls through the blood-drenched jungles of the DRC. Those that having the best of this tragic situation do not care about the extend of the suffering their actions or inactions causes. Whatever happened to that great weapon of public international law - the doctrine of recognition. Is it that difficult for the SADC leaders to simply declare that they do not recognise the government of Mr Mugabe. Surely no-one would hold it against them. I would personally applaud anyone who refuses to recognise a government that kills people.

What is it that SADC spent the time discussing with Mugabe? What is his bargaining position? Does he threaten to go home and kill more Zimbabweans if he does not get his way. What about fresh SADC sponsored and monitored elections then? The money spent on meetings so far could have run an election! What are the constitutional, legal or other constraints that prevents these leaders to do the right thing? I am not advocating breach of sovereignity or other such like Bush diplomacy. I am not asking for invasion of Zimbabwe or the deposition of Mugabe (although the thought has crossed my mind).

I am asking for the leaders to live up to their title. I am asking for courage and integrity. I am asking for compassion for the suffering masses of Zimbabwe. Of course the British did a number on the people of Zimbabwe and were quite happy to ditch the country after paralysing it. Of course the land issue was never properly resolved. Of course white Zimbabweans continued to live as if nothing had changed. Come to think of it, kinda like the situation in South Africa - rugby like before, farms like before, control of the economy like before, white schools like before, white areas like before, etc. But I digress . . .

None of the evil perpetrated by the colonial powers is excusable, far from it. I would like to see dignity restored to the people of Zimbabwe, by the man they supported for over 2 decades. I would like to see his human side. This is the only basis one keeps the conversation going - on the basis that there is a human being on the other side, listening - engaging, empathising. I believe the time for the conversation has pretty much come to an end. Some would argue that if the dialogue stops people will die. I struggle with that too. The sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe, the food that is not getting to the people - all this, is killing the people of Zimbabwe and has no effect on Mugabe. I infact would argue that all this, is strengthening his hand. He remains the only source of food for those who support his murderous cause.

In Africa it seems whenever there is a choice between saving lives and power - power wins all the time. I am not sure what it is that makes us Africans so tolerant of tyranny and oppression, especially when perpetrated by our own on our own. Do not get me wrong, these are complex issues with even more complex vested interests. The tyrants and the war-mongers get food, amunition and all other creature-comforts - they sell their souls for it but they get them. I would love to know who is providing the arms to that Laurent fella (another one). Complex as these things may be, they cannot be too complex for SADC to say "let us go out there and save lives!"

Now, would the real SADC leaders please stand up . . .and please don't all rush at the same time.

And then came Obama . . .

"Things like this do not happen but for the Grace of God" my wife says this morning as we sat watching the celebrations accross the US, following Barack Obama's speech. I hesitate to refer to that speech as a victory speech.

It is not long ago that he was described as a 1 term senator with no experience. Apparently, so the competition asserted, all he had was a speech. He was not ready, he would not know what on earth to do when that 3am telephone call came.

During what was probably the most protracted election campaign the US has ever seen, this man has been as audacious as he was hopeful and as courageous as he was clear in his vision. He faced attacks on many fronts and an assortment of reasons were put forward in support of why he was not right for the job of the president of the United States of America. He in his own words described how he was said to be a little different from all those other presidents on the dollar bills.

This is not a backward-looking rant about the opponents that Obama has had to face in this nothing but legendary election campaign. The adversaries were worthy opponents in their own right - but this was not their time but his. Each of them with the history and the pedigree - he with audacity and a speech.

The post election analysis has gone to some length to caution Africa that she should not expect to be prioritised by the Obama presidency. He said in Berlin that it is time to bring down the walls of rich nations and poor nations; he also said that we should give some meaning to the phrase "never again" for the people of Darfur. These are not Africa's expectations but words of the 44th President of the United States.

Africa may well not benefit from Americas 44th president, at least in the way that the intelligent people on TV may have thought. Africa has already benefitted from the validation bestowed on her by this man and his mantra "yes we can". The young African-American men now can surely do other things - it does not have to be athleticism, performing arts or gang-banging.

All this through, because and from a man without pedigree or history.

Granted, no former president of the Harvard Law Review would ever need to be affirmed or to be given a hand up. Membership to that exclusive club is reserved only for the finest of us, with even finer minds. This much each one of us know is true from the last 21 months or so that we spent in the company of this fine human being.

The time for an idea of the US being governed by a black man had come and we all know how powerful such an idea tends to be. America had pretty much fallen from grace. We carried on watching CNN and drinking Coke pretty much from habit and addiction than choice. Invariably we drink water and watch Aljazeera. The 43rd president is generally accepted as an under-achiever and a war-monger with no sense diplomacy or intellectual appreciation of the gravity of his office. The US was rapidly becoming irrelevant and even more broke. It became less attractive to be associated with the US and Canadians became more insistent when distinguishing themselves from the Americans. As if the problems (mostly self-inflicted) were not enough - what with the 2 wars and shrinking economy - the sub-prime crisis, like an explosion, came onto the scene and shouted: "Surprise!" And my, was Mr Bush surprised.

Among all the despair and the trying times the US kept hurtling towards disaster with wild abandon. There was the 700 billion dollar bail-out, the collapse of the once great Lehmann Bros and the credit freeze.

And then of course came Obama and he made a speech, and as has come to be the case everytime he speaks, not only the US but the world, listened.

Bad guys don't make us Good . . .

Good is a character discernable in its own right. Being human, we have the ability (apparently) to tell good when we see it. For completeness' sake, we apparently can also tell bad. The presence of one does not however indicate the absence of the other.

I am reminded of a poster I read some years ago: "there is so much good in the worst of us and so much evil in the best of us . . ." Good has unfortunately become somewhat bad. Allow me to develop this. Over time the demands placed on one to be a good person have gradually become less honerous. By way of an example, being a child in the township I grew up in, meant that you greeted older people as a matter of course; and whenever you got up to no-good, you did it in hiding. When you were in high school, you were not old enough to be seen drinking or smoking - not that there was no smoking and drinking among that age group, it just wasn't in your face. Even then it was limited enough to make the headlines if discovered.

Today, a child that greets is celebrated as a saint. The measure of goodness has become watered down.This measure became watered down when we started being good by comparison. When we became good husbands because we at least don't beat our wives in public; or because we at least pay for our children's school; or we at least have only one affair and not a string of affairs.It is this relative goodness that our political leadership seems to be engaging in lately. "This leader is good because he is not as bad as the other guy." The South African electorate surely deserves (and must demand) much better than this. What good is a leadership that cannot argue its case for goodness' sake?

The ANC is a voluntary organisation governed by a constitution which I believe gives the body of its membership certain rights and impose on them certain obligations. Each member of the ANC has a right to vote, to stand for election, to debate matters openly without fear or favour and most importantly, has a right to be protected by the very constitution against intimidation and oppression. At least that is how most democratic organisations function. How then will this leadership argue my case against the big bad world that is South Africa (if the free press is to be believed)? Whatever faction it is that Mr Lekota and Mr Shilowa previously represented or aligned themselves with within the ANC, was outwitted and out-strategised. They went into an election that they could not win because the candidate they put forward was wrong for what the organisation needed at the time. These two gentlemen could not be silenced by the brutal apartheid state at the threat of being maimed or killed. They now claim to have been harrassed and intimidated into silence and submission by the bad guys in the ANC; the bad guys who would not let them speak and who would not let them adhere to the Freedom Charter. So they quit.

All this is of course speculation on my part as I am neither a member of the ANC nor was I present at the now legendary Polokwane conference. What I have seen and heard from the new organisation is how bad the other side is; and this supposedly makes the new guys good. A word of advice to these two fine gentlemen - these are the politics of defeat. Ask Tony Leon, seriously, ask him. He should in all honesty tell you that you need your own identity, strategy, policy and views. Those are the things that will define your failure or success. Forget about how terrible Mr Malema performed in matric or how other people intimidate others. Tell us that you will encourage good matric results, that you will not intimidate anyone, etc. Put differently, be good in your own right.There is a substantive portion of the South African voters who are not impressed by or attracted to the fighting talk that characterises our politics. Whether it is Helen Zille, Mr Vavi or any other of our politicians.

The good that the new party can and should bring to our political landscape is something akin to what the Arch once said "if you know what you are saying, you would hardly find a reason to shout". On paper, there is exciting potential for the South African politics to mature - who knows, we may even end up with a South African political party.
Will it be good?

What do you think will happen?

Some wealthy American Caucasian is credited for having coined the statement: “in the business world, the rear-view mirror is a lot clearer than the windshield”, or words to that effect. In the same vein may I please be credited for: “in South African politics the rear-view mirror often blurs the windscreen”.

I have read somewhere or heard somewhere that, apart from the Polokwane and the Durban High Court outcomes, the apparent split in or of the ANC has to do with some anti-communist sentiment among the dissidents. I am not sure how true all this is but one of the trade union leaders, responding to a question about Sam Shilowa’s departure, said something to the effect that those who are leaving the ANC do so because they had removed themselves from the masses that put them in power in the first place. He said further that they (Shilowa and Lekota) had become an elitist class hence their rejection by the people. What does this have to do with the rear-view mirror you may ask? Well this is where it gets all blurry.

Thanks to Benjamin Pogrund (and he is not the only one), there is some record of the previous split of the ANC which led to the formation of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). The disquiet within the ANC back then is said to have been as a result of the adoption of the Freedom Charter by the ANC. The very Freedom Charter that Mr Lekota accuses the ANC to have deviated from. Incidentally, a certain Jomo Mogale is of the view that Mr Lekota and Mr Shilowa are the ones that have deviated from the Freedom Charter. Mr Mogale is one of the leaders of the Khutsong Anti Demarcation organisation. He argues that Shilowa was part of the authority that sought to cleave Khutsong from the Gauteng Province and to dump it into the less resourced North-West Province without consulting the people of Khutsong. Please dear reader if you would, have a look at an earlier post commenting on the demonstrations and protest actions that went on in Khutsong. Back to the 1959 split of the ANC.

The ANC was until then a movement born of a union of various factions with different views and political principles but that had one common goal – the eradication of Apartheid. This common enemy was to a large extent the glue that kept the learned class, the Communists, the Africanists, and the Traditionalist all stuck together. The union was largely if not exclusively under the leadership of the intelligentsia. The ANC and its predecessor was to a large extent a movement of the elite rather than of the masses. This element of the ANC continues to trouble it somewhat; at least I think it does. Prior to the adoption of the Freedom Charter there was the 1912 programme of action that had as its goal the emancipation of the Black people, to paraphrase. The Africanists, so the reports of the time go, viewed the adoption of the Freedom Charter, among others, as a deviation by the ANC from the programme of action. The adoption of the Freedom Charter, so the argument goes, was counter to the 1912 programme and would make less of the struggle for the freedom from racial oppression of the Black people. There are also some reports that cite as a reason for the split, the ascendancy to leadership positions by white people. A sort of reverse “who feels it knows it” type of argument. I am no authority on these kinds of things, but I am simply not sold on these latter reports. I am more inclined to buy the reports that make the fact that the white folks were communists an issue and not their being white (something they can’t help). We should bear in mind the number of the then mission school educated leaders within the ANC and their consequential reluctance towards communism.

The Communists and the Charterists carried the day back in 1959 in Soweto and similarly carried the day in 2007 at Polokwane. Similarly, as in Polokwane, disorder and ill-discipline was the order of the day at the special general meeting of the ANC chaired by O R Tambo. I was completely astounded by the realisation that the leadership of the ANC back then as it seems to be the case today, was prepared and in fact was ready to use violence to settle its differences with the Africanists; and by the way, so were the Africanists, who incidentally were out-maneuvered and out-gunned. The threat of violence remains ever present. There seems to be some valour in brute force and violence or at least the threat of violence.

Looking back does not, alas, seem to provide our leaders with foresight; it seems to provide grounds for being more obstinate. Looking back throws up examples of Bantu Holomisa, who it is said has amounted to nothing. The PAC is also mocked in a similar vein. I think, whatever that is worth, that the difficulties of the PAC are much bigger than its split from the ANC in 1959. The rear-view mirror, while providing a clear view of the assassination of Lumumba, the madness of Bokasa, the massacre of the Matebele, the mayhem on killer road Soweto and later that same day, the death around Shell House – does not seem to make the windscreen any clearer. Specifically it does not seem to clear the minds, eyes or windscreens of the leadership. The history keeps blurring the windscreen.

Looking back on South African political history, often times when there was a difference of opinion between two political groups, people died or became subjected to all manner of violence. These clear rear-view mirror events still leave the windscreen blurry. As recent as yesterday, there were threats of disruption of meetings and Mr Mogale (yes he of Khutsong fame) declared Khutsong a no-go area for Lekota and his mates. I ask myself with some exasperation: “do we not see what we are doing?” Do we not at least see the probable consequences of our actions or in some instances in-actions?

With perfect hindsight, we continue down the road that has led to mayhem and slaughter, which will probably end in some protracted power-sharing negotiations following some failed elections.

Maybe I am just being presumptuous, maybe there isn’t even a rear-view mirror on this taxi and the only clear window, is the passenger side window – the windscreen is covered with dead insects from the past. Maybe we are unable or unwilling to look back or maybe, even when we look back we clearly do not see and when we look forward, it is with blurred vision.

In the meantime, the taxi with the broken rear-view mirror and the soiled windscreen keeps hurtling down the one-way street the wrong way.

The curious Mr Malema . . .

There was once a disruption of the Johannesburg central business district. Well, the city was pretty much brought to a standstill. The details are a little scatchy to me now but it apparently had to do with unhappy high school pupils, apparently members of Congress of South African Students (Cosas), then under the leadership of among others, Mr Julius Malema. The march was in protest of the department of education's directive that school gates be locked during teaching time for security reasons; so the newspaper reports go. It was also reported that the march turned nasty as the pupils smashed cars, shops and looted.

This is old news, probably forgotten now like most things painful. The story of mayhem and destruction on that fateful Friday in 2002, is not the point of this post. I am just intrigued by how curiously all this had turned out. Eventually the indomitable Winnie Mandela had to step in to quell the disruptions and mayhem on the streets of Johannesburg. Strong words were spoken about the terrible behaviour of the youth. Such behaviour was not to be tolerated. This was however not an unexpected turn of events - historically whenever Cosas took to the streets, mayhem followed. Invariably unruly elements whom we are told are rouge elements who are not members of Cosas, are blamed for the mayhem. Later in life Mr Malema is again at the centre of controversy - threatening to kill and crush those who get in the ANC's way. A lot has been made of what Mr Malema meant when he made that and similar statements. It is even said that this issue was resolved between Mr Malema and the Human Rights Commission - as if it were ever between him and the HRC. He accuses an SABC reporter and the management of the SABC of being against the ANC. He calls Dr Skweyiya an old man who pretty much talks behind his back and is afraid to speak to him directly. He calls another elderly gentleman a liar. He pretty much brings the ANC into disrepute.

How then does an organisation of the ANC's pedigree come to have Mr Malema as one of its leaders? On the other hand is it out of the ordinary for the ANC to have the likes of Mr Malema among its leaders? I think that both these questions are unfair on the ANC, they are however important questions for the ANC to ponder carefully if it is to graduate from a liberation movement to a 21st century political party. As a liberation movement, membership of the ANC was a badge of honour. It was being on the right side of history, being on the winning team. Today, the ANC like political parties the world over fights for votes more than membership. The liberation job is done, badly or well it is done. The liberation job involved rendering the apartheid state ungovernable - the current job is all about governing and governing well. The voting public continue to align itself with the ANC based on the role it played in bringing about the right to vote; this however will not be the case in the near future. Reputation and current performance by the ANC through its membership is becoming more important. As my grand-mother would say, "show me your friends and I will show you, you". Show me your leadership and I will decide whether I would like to be associated with you. This however does not seem to be of immediate concern to the ANC.

These comments are not meant to muzzle Mr Malema, to the contrary he should speak and criticise and disagree to his heart's content. Curious as it may seem, it is important for our country that the right of the likes of Mr Malema to speak is secured without qualification. In return for the freedom of expression, Mr Malema, the public deserves common decency. The public needs assurance that Mr Malema will not lead a demonstration similar to the one he led some 6 years ago - a reasonable assurance to ask for under the circumstances. The public also deserve assurance that it will not be crushed if it were to disagree with Mr Malema, lest the disagreement be equated to standing in Mr Malema's way.

This may come accross as unfair on Mr Malema; but it does make the point I hope. There are a variety of individuals accross the South African political landscape to whom this may apply. The point is that the voting public deserves to be taken seriously and to be treated with respect. The curious thing though is that Mr Malema seems to thrive on doing and saying the very things that puts him at odds with the public. The same things puts the ANC at odds with the very public that will go (or not go) to the polls in 6 months or so. So far there has not been a resounding denouncement of not Mr Malema, but of his conduct by the ANC. My recollection is that discipline has historically played an important role in the ANC. It cannot be that Mr Malema is above that discipline; but then again there has been a great deal of ill-discipline in the ANC lately.

Maybe Mr Malema is not that curious after all . . .

In the end, a scholar and a gentleman . . .

Now that I have had an opportunity to familiarise myself with the provisions of our Constitution that deal with the removal of the President and related matters, I appreciate even more the resignation of Thabo Mbeki. In his own words, he chose to abide by the decision of the ANC as a member of the ANC.

A quick look at the provisions of the Constitution show that had he decided not to co-operate with his colleagues in the ANC, it would have taken some work on the part of those that chose to remove him from office to get it done. With only six months to go for his term to come to an end, he could arguably have stayed in office until the next election. That would have in my humble opinion, had terrible consequences for our country.

Be that as it may, he did the honourable thing for which I will always remember him with respect. Whether he should have been asked to leave, is of course a different matter; but that he can be asked to leave, is a matter to be appreciated. Our brand of democracy is one that places the group above the individual; it is one that we all were at some point madly in love with. Before we get all despondent and judgemental as only us South Africans can be, let us take a collective moment to appreciate that our democracy (warts and all) works. Let us appreciate more the fact that Thabo Mbeki, when called on to do so, put us and the country first. Most of all, let us take a collective moment and recall that proportional representation was intended to preven "winner takes all" and to protect minorities, to wit white people. It is party uber all, except of course where floor crossing is concerned and that is a matter for another blog.

As for the various socio-political commentators; has anything changed in the last two months or so. Unless, I am mistaken, there seems to have been a general consensus that Thabo Mbeki should go. The general consensus held that he was not good for South Africa for a million and one reasons, chief of which was that his quiet diplomacy in Zimbabwe was not working, etc. To now suggest that the re-call of Thabo Mbeki by his organisation is a crisis or will plunge the country into crisis is with respect disingenious. Stha reminds me that the British Labour party unceremoniously booted out Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is barely hanging on. I believe the minister of transport over there has resigned and with no offer of assistance to the new guy.

Like many South Africans (I hope) I was infatuated by an intellectual "Afrika first" president. I was excited that the Mandela honeymoon was coming to a close and things will meaningfully change for black people in South Africa. I was like many others to be disappointed repeatedly by some of the decisions and actions of the President I have come to idolise. He has taken a lot of criticisms and has been called various names, dictator being one of them. Rajeni can and has with scorn and contempt set out the failures of this man. Marc on the other hand has set out the triumphs and talents of this tragic man. Rajeni maintains the "Friends of Jacob Zuma" website. Marc is the author "A dream Deferred".

The achievements of Thabo Mbeki like his failures speak for themselves but in the end, he remains a scholar and a gentleman.

There will be shouting, there will be accusations, there will be frustration . . .

. . . and then, there will be blood. This is generally how it goes, at least in my limited experience of our world; and no, this is not the stuff of Afrika only, it is the world order as we know it. So the last few weeks I went out to find good news, good writing, good humour - hell anything good.

It is in this search that I stumbled on Mr Harber's (he of the Weekly Mail fame) thought-provoking piece on the Sunday Times. The piece is by no means a revelation neither is it anything new to most followers of the news (as presented by the South African media). It is however written by one of the better and more respected social commentators. The fact that he is a white, better and more respected of our social commentators also helps.

What he wrote is something several others, including yours truly (but as previously typed: no one gives doughnut what yours truly says) have stated albeit in different ways. That piece to me boils down to simple common decency; the stuff grand-mothers used to teach grand-children back in the day. I concede, it is presumptous of me I guess to assert that in this our rainbow-no-black-or-white nation, there could be some common teaching dispensed by grand-mothers. This could be sexist and ageist too. But, dear reader, you will do well to remember that this is the hunt of all things good. Back to the grand-mothers; mine and those of her ilk taught me and those of my ilk (ok, most of them) that "lefoko ga le boe, go boa monwana". The language is Setswana, the direct crude translation is "a word does not come back, it is a finger that comes back". This was ordinarily said when one is talking about another in their absence or behind their back; and generally saying not so nice things - but generally when making a statement about another. You see, when you point a finger, you can withdraw the finger but when you say something, you cannot take it back, it is out there and if it is bad news, it will spread like wild fire. So, if common decency be the thing that guides editorial decisions at the Sunday Times, the reporting standard quickly jumps out of the gutter. Of course editorial courage, free press and all those good things must come with it too. The good news is, some wise white guy said it and something will surely happen.

Then there were the news that the springbok coach wants to resign and "give the job back to the whites". This was of course good news of a different kind. The kind that one says very little indeed. In a similar vein were the news that Bafana-Bafana would play agains Nigeria at a stadium, on a pitch that were not acceptable for a PSL game. All good news wouldn't you say?

As theses and similar stories unfold, there will be shouting and accusations; sometimes there may even be blood. In the meantime, I will be looking for good news.

We ignore resentment at our peril . . .

Ours is a beautiful country, at least so I am told. Well, often Table Mountain is pointed out and some unspoilt beach, a botanical garden or some panoramic view in Mpumalanga. Ok, I concede, it is a beautiful country and largely, with beautiful people in it. It is also a place where resentment thrives . . .

It is also only 14 years ago that I could call it my country as opposed to just living here. Less than 20 years ago, my fate was in the hands of less than a third of the population of this country, who by whatever other description you choose, were to vote yes or no to the proposition that I am human and worthy of citizenship. And then there were the negotiations preceded by a shameless scramble and subversion of my claim for freedom and fairness. This was of course lauded as courgeous act of self-less forgiveness. All of this personified in one man, a great man but one man nonetheless. From then on, you were either like him or against what he stood for. The political negotiators agreed a peaceful resolution of the preceding conflict. With white privilege safely secured, we all embarked on the road to the new South Africa. A South Africa that was to be colour-blind lest it noticed the plight of Black people or the privilege of White people.

Then there was the expectation, the optimism that things would now turn for the better for everyone; which meant for Black people, considering that things were pretty much ok for everyone else but Black people. There were also some belief among young people that they could now go wherever they want whenever they chose, to do whatever took their fancy. "Admission Reserved". In the meantime history slowly started to decay, Dorkay House, Kippies, Sobukwe's home - Does anyone remember who Zeph Mothopeng was, or what he stood for? A commemoration of a massacre swopped for some cosmetic nation building public holiday, an unforgettable winter of butchered children and innocence lost, swopped for some neutral day of song and dance. These things take time the youth is told; it took us years to get us into this mess, it will take years to get us out - in the meantime, let us go about it the least disruptive way - we have lots of time. Besides, by the time it really begins to matter nobody will remember where or how all of this came about. Rwanda just happened because that is what happens on this continent. Mobutu had nothing to do with those that killed Lumumba, nothing.

Everywhere else in the world is better than here. Here with the crime, the corruption and lawlessness, is the worst place on earth. Vietnam, Block-5, Sayana-Porto - all names of a small section of an even smaller township, none of which conjuring images of peace let alone security. All these names but one pre-date my birth. The Drum era gangsters - msomi gang to the wire gang to the hardlivings, all as old as the neighbourhoods they terrorised then and continue to terrorise in one guise or another today. Now I read that the only other places in Africa that are less safe than SA are those at war or struggling with ceasefire arrangements. Whichever way you slice it, this is a pretty terrible place. I guess not all crime is equal. Violence, murder, rape, slavery, grand scale theft - none of it is new. It is the equal opportunities approach that all of these now take that seem to have woken us all up to the sins of our fathers. It is never understood when I show confusion at being told just how safe this country used to be. I suppose being attacked by students (pupils) from Volkskool Potchefstroom - just because. Maybe I just don't know what safe means. How about having a university campus being turned into an army barracks - a student leader falling out of the window of his 3rd room? Maybe I'm looking at this thing the wrong way- these are the very actions that made this country safe.

BEE was of course another of a list of elastoplast solutions to a problem that required reconstructive surgery. Further confirmation of the kindness of white capital and business reaching out to help the poor "previously disadvantaged". The disadvantage that presumably had nothing to do with white capital and business. Bystanders during the brutalisation of the wretched of the earth, unable to help then and now ready, willing and able to help. In the meantime, it is business as usual in good old SA. This is the very BEE that has resulted in the brain drain; that is making it impossible for gifted bright white South Africans to get jobs. Between crime and BEE they had no other option but to go overseas and take a job with Lehman Bros.

Like love, resentment thrives in its own presence. In our country, resentment is a beneficiary of much love and naturing - everyday.

The present did not just materialise. The present resulted from deliberate choices and actions deliberately carried out. It will similarly take deliberate actions and choices to arrest the decay and turn the tide towards a country we can call home.

Who am I kidding . . . none of this really matter, or does it?

Olympics are gone . . .

And I am pleased to have my wife and the television remote control back.

Elsewhere in South Africa there are questions about the performance of our athletes (the Proteas) or maybe their lack of performance, whichever way you may wish to read it. I am reminded of a spat that occurred between those that are in charge of the national olympic team and those that are meant to be in charge of those that are in charge of the national olympic team. If that does not ring any bells with you, I am referring to the little tiff between one Mashishi and one Khompela, he of parliamentary standing committee for sport and such matters. He who was said to have lost all senses of his extent of power. You will also recall that the two gentlemen (and presumably their respective offices) kissed - ok, hugged - and made up on national television and newspapers.

I still don't know what the apology meant. Was it that SASCOC was not full of Whites and Indians or that it did know what it was doing? I guess we will never know. What for me was telling though, was the statement by SASCOC, through its fearless leader, to the effect that it will take lots of money for our athletes to perform satisfactorily (i.e bring more than 1 medal from the next olympics). One is reminded here of the Great Britain athletes who apparently benefitted from loads of money from the UK lottery and the government. This I hope for SASCOC's sake, is not a recent discovery. The fact that the tennis players had to play their matches in their leisure T-shirts should have alerted them to this, at the very latest.

Just in case there is any confusion; please note that I am very pleased with the distance from which I comment on these matters - in the comfort of my home and not in the shoes of any of those involved. Having said that, I am inclined to think, like Mr Khompela before me, that SASCOC may well not know what it is doing. About the Whites and Indians, that's just a numbers issue and the facts are likely to spoil what is so far a rather nice story. Unlike Mr Khompela however, no-one gives a doughnut what I think.

I would however be interested to see the budget of SASCOC from the time that "operation let's get ready for Beijing" started, to the time everyone who did go to Beijing was safely back to his or her home. It would be interesting to see what the money was spent on and how and when - all of the questions us arm-chair sports administrators so love to ask. Do the members of the committee get paid, if so how much; does the committee have full-time staff, how many, who, where, doing what? You can by now see where this is going right? It is all supposed to be in the money isn't it? By the way, would it not just be absolutely entertaining to compare the budget of SASCOC with those of their Kenyan, Jamaican and Ethiopian peers?

This reminds me of one more thing, all the recent medals we got, at the last 2 olympics, did they really have anything to do with what the administrators (then and current) did? Is there one athlete's achievement that the administrators can honestly take credit for?

I ask again, what is it that they do, that the coaches in conjunction with the various codes' associations cannot or do not do? Ok, so we all make mistakes; and we all get lucky sometimes, should we not now get deliberate about our performance and actually formulate a strategy that will bring us some results? The memorandum and articles of association of SASCOC makes for rivetting reading though. There are objects, main purpose and even ancillary objects. There are even processes and protocols.

Hey, I can write and say these things, I have a computer and bandwith.

Sometimes a sword is just a sword . . .

And when thrust into a body of a human being it may maim or kill. By the time one gets to around age 10, one becomes socialised to understand the effect a fast moving sword will have if it were to collide with a human body.

Now, sometimes in a fit of rage, stupidity or callous selfishness we tend to forget these basic truths. Forget yes, but these truths are never "unlearned" they remain known to us. It is with this in mind that I watched all sorts of media reports which set out to prepare South Africa for a disclosure of an unusual murder. This was no ordinary murder, at least that is what we were being prepared to believe. I am unable to find another explanation of how the murder of a 16 year old boy at a school in the west of Gauteng, was treated by the media and how the report was run. For two days the reports did not even mention much of the victim. By the time the perpetrator was disclosed, there was a variety of excuses already lined up; from satanism, to rock music, to drugs.

This reminds me of another school stabbing, this time the weapon of choice was a pair of scissors. Admittedly it was not half as mythical as a samurai sword, in fact most classrooms have these lying in many pencil cases and chair-bags. Those who remember that report will remember how the young man involved was made to bear all responsibility for his actions, correctly so. And of course there were those who were baying for his blood and the blood of his ilk. You see, black people just kill out of primitive passion, they do not need the devil, rock music or drugs to cleave the skull of another.

Another useless trivia about how these events were reported is how long it took for the identity of the perpetrator to be revealed. The young man from the far end of the north-west province was revealed immediately, face and name. The young man from western Gauteng was revealed, name only as far as I know, some 2 days after his rampage.

These are young people caught up in the turbulence of their time. They are indicating to us the trouble that is coming if we do not reach out to them. Their actions are abominable and for that they should bear all responsibility. You will also find that these violent children come in all hues, shapes and sizes.

Maybe all this much ado about nothing is because there are very few journalists among the electronic media news reporters; I don't know maybe the news are scripted badly or maybe there is no script and they are made up as the report goes along. Whatever the case may be, we rely on the news reports, especially electronic news to find out what is going on and what it is that we should read further on, on a given day. We therefore hope for accuracy and abscence of bias.

But then again, maybe we were meant to be kept in suspense, guessing and wondering. Maybe we were meant to consider the influence of satanism, rock music and drugs on our youth, maybe the news reports are just news reports that one should not pay much attention to.

A sword through your gut though, will kill you every time . . .

Time to leave the Boks alone

Back in the day when South Africa was white, had no crime and black people were meant to know their place, the Springboks were the national sportsmen and sportswomen who had the honour of representing the sporting aspirations of the nation. The springbok (a type of an antelope) was the emblem and a symbol under which the athletes representing the then Republic of South Africa competed against other nations. But for a few exceptions all the sportsmen and sportswomen who earned the honour of wearing the springbok colours and being Springboks were largely white and it was allright.

It did not matter what sporting code or discipline it was, those who represented the white republic wore only one colour and had one emblem, the springbok emblem. There were no proteas, no bafana-bafana, just springboks.

Then the Republic of South Africa became the new South Africa and with that came the protea as a national symbol. I am not sure how it all came about or how it was negotiated but, there were all sorts of noises and discontentment at the prospect of the national rugby team having to give up their past and their springbok emblem. This is the very team that is supposed to represent the sporting aspirations of all South Africans. That too, is allright.

Apparently more negotiations ensued and culminated in the government of Nelson Mandela allowing rugby to remain as springboks, how can any South African ever forget jersey No.6? Initially I thought the compromise was for a time being and with the passage of time all sporting codes will represent the new South Africa under one new emblem. That, however was not to be. The rugby players remain springboks, largely white and all is right.

It could be said that I am singling out rugby and turning sport into a whole race issue and so on and so forth. To that I say guilty as charged. I plead guilty even though such arguments are nothing but dishonest and self-serving. I plead guilty because all the goings on about rugby and other sports codes, including the olympic team are just tiring.

Every so often some politician makes equally self-serving statements about transformation of our sport and about some claptrap about creating equal opportunities for all in sport. In the meantime our olympic team is largely white and it's allright.

If I am understood to be saying that we should replace the whites players with black players; allow me please to state categorically that I wish for all such protestations to cease. Let the Bokke be. It is allright. The leadership of both the Bokke and of the country are happy with the things just the way they are. Any statement to the contrary is nothing but an insult to the good people of this country.

This of course goes for sport generally. It serves no purpose to second-guess the coach on his selection of the team. Leave the Bokke alone. The coach was not hired by the nation and does not answer to parliament. Leave the Bokke alone. His performance contract has nothing to do with the number of Black players on the field at any given match. Leave the Bokke alone.

Similarly, I wish Bokke would stop talking about transformation and just do what they want to do. I wish they would stop talking about competence as if it has colour, as if it is white. I really wish the Bokke could be left alone to do what they love to do - beating the All Blacks; because when they do everyone forgets about the emblems and transformation - suddenly everything is allright.

In the meantime, I'm off to go watch my son play scrum-half for the under 12 C's, praying that he never becomes a Springbok.