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.
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.
Posts
You ask why Jacob Zuma would want to debate a mayor? Dude, you must be kidding, right? She's the leader of the second biggest political party in the country, a party which 2m people voted for. Explain to me what is wrong with the leaders of the two biggest political parties debating each other? Mr Zuma has repeatedly said that these issues must be debated, so why is he afraid?
ReplyDeleteI would like to seriuosly disagree with you on this one. The ANC continues to show contempt for the what they call intellectuals. I think it would have been in their interest to attend this debate to shatter the myth that they are a threat to constutionalism in SA. It was an opportunity for them to show that the COPE is a sham they claim it to be. And it would be good for the to be a proper debate for the ANC to set the record straight on their often "policies are going to change, policies will remain the same" political speak
ReplyDeleteMay I remind you of JFK's wise comments "Leadership is action, not position". The other Helen may be a lowly mayor but it would be in the interest of the ANC not to ignore her. Just like they ignored and trampled on their members who supported Mbeki. The "broad church" is going to the dogs (is there a pun in there?)
ReplyDeleteWell I have to agree with your comment insofar as it encourages debate. My comments are premised on the assertion (maybe wrong but an assertion nonetheless)that this was a none debate. I would be behind you on the debate on policies, programs, crime, arms deal, the recall of Mbeki, the left versus the write, the communists in the alliance and a million other bones I wish to pick with the ANC. To suggest that there is a threat to the constitution is in my humble view 1990 scare-mongering politics - precisely at the time the ANC is more likely that ever to lose and not gain votes. Finally, the number of votes amassed by the DA were only enough to secure a municipality for them. What are they doing wrong, how can they grow into a south african as opposed to an apparent white party? These are the debates that will enrich our politics and hopefully diversify our voting patterns. As for JFK, I don't know enough about him to comment intelligibly. There is of course the Cuba issue, which I hope to learn about . . .
ReplyDeleteAll in all anonymous, thank you very much for your comments and pleas spread the debates around.
MoAfrika
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agreee with your post, thanks for saying it!
The ANC is really under no obligation to participate in any of these sorts of things. The Helen Suzemann discussion thing in particular - I *completely* agree with you. Why would the ANC want to discuss this mytical constitutional crisis? Perhaps the ANC felt that even by attending the event they were giving too much importance to the "constitutional crisis!!!!!" talk.
But,
although there is a lot I like and admire about the ANC, one of the things that I DO NOT like is this tendancy they have to be defensive in the face of public criticism, and perhaps because of defensiveness, not to engage with the country.
In their role as political party there is no requirement that they engage with the whole country. They are free to put out ANC today and speak to their branch members and whatever else they do and leave it at that. They have no responsibility to Joe Random on the street.
But the ANC in government DOES have a responsaibility to Joe Random on the street. The president does have a responsibility to Joe Random.
And because in SA at the moment, the government is basically the ANC, that means that the ANC needs to engage with everyone. They are not just governing ANC voters, they are governing all of us. They need to explain their policies to all of us. They need to justify their decisions to all of us.
When Mbeki was axed, for example, he was not axed from the ANC. He was axed as president. My president, from the government of my country. I may not have voted for him, but I deserved an explanation. Because he was *my* president.
So yeah sorry that got long.
I gues what it all amount to is the with that the ANC would care to engage with everyone. And even if it doesn't have to debate Zille (for example), that it would choose to. Because it would be good for us citizens to hear.