Julius Malema the calf, is a bull of tomorrow . . .

This is according to Mr Thula Bophela, a decorated veteran of uMkhonto we Sizwe who was almost hanged by the then Rhodesian government after being captured following the famous Wankie campaign. This is not a person to be ignored where matters of the liberation of this country are concerned. He was right there in the thick of things and literally put his life on the line for his country. He has also co-written a book "Umkhonto we Sizwe - Fighting for a divided people" with his erstwhile comrade Daluxolo Luthuli. I trust that this provides adequate context and background to both the title and issues that I will deal with in this post.

Now, back to the point of this post. Mr Bophela writes in defence of Julius Malema, specifically the manner in which his conduct has been portrayed by the media and understood by the readers, viewers and listeners of the media. I urge you to read Mr Bophela's article which can be found at http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=749

According to Mr Bophela, thanks to the assiduous (I know, I didn't know the word either, until I came accross it in the article) efforts of the media has come to be regarded as a bumbling, brainless and disrespectful young man . . . I agree with Mr Bophela in all respects and trust me, there are many respects in which one may agree or disagree with him on how Julius Malema has come to be regarded; that however is a subject of another post. The article is quite lengthy and in many respects make valid points with which I agree. For an example, it argues that age, in an by itself is not a reason one should be respected; that being an elder, one must act as an elder and as a result will earn the respect of others (presumably young and old) - nothing wrong with that.

Then the article makes the point that what Julius Malema is doing is nothing but "introducing the culture of plain speaking" in the ANC. He is said to be saying what he thinks. Nothing wrong with that either. Mr Bophela then asserts that when Julius Malema (and for that matter Fikile Mbalula) speaks, their age becomes an issue and not the substance of what their saying. This, with respect has not been my experience of what the "disrespect" complaint against Julius Malema is all about. With the greatest respect to Mr Bophela (the man is old enough to be my father) I believe one can speak one's mind openly, firmly and unreservedly without being disrepectful - and I hope to do just that in this post. I believe this regardless of the age of the speaker or of the person being spoken to or about. I also do not believe that being asked or required to be respectful in the way you address others or talk about them, means that you are being silenced or censored. What one says is just as important as how one says it - it is a communication package made up of context, idiom, tone, etc.

I, like Mr Bophela, do appreciate people who do not mince their words. I appreciate more those who do so with respect. The point that Julius Malema made regarding Dr Skweyiya may well have been valid in the circumstances - I don't know, I do believe however that (as a comrade) to Dr Skweyiya, respect should have been the hallmark of the point he was making. The recent utterances Julius Malema made in respect of the minister of education were similarly disrespectful. Julius Malema himself accepted that not only were they disrespectful, they were uncalled for. That is notwithstanding the fact that the minister should indeed do what is possible to ensure peaceful learning and teaching.

As for the "kill for Zuma" speech by Julius Malema and "counter-revolutionary" statement by Mr Gwede Mantashe, I have to disagree with Mr Bophela's views. I must state upfront though that I am not a fan of the press for the manner in which they dealt with both these incidents. That however is besides the point. The point as I see it is that when both Mr Malema and Mr Mantashe made the statements concerned, they did so in their representative capacities of the party in government and one that is almost certainly to return to government - in the majority. In that capacity, the two gentlemen owe the ordinary South Africans some due consideration.

The very point of the Codesa settlement and the installation of the democracy that we now all cherish, is that we chose not to settle our differences through violence. Especially our political differences. Mr Malema's statement flies in the face of what I believe to be our national democratic choice. I believe Mr Bophela is far better placed to speak to the ravages and terror of killing than I am. As an ex soldier he would know that a threat to kill is never to be made lightly nor taken lightly. In fact, Mr Bophela will recall the terrible time in our history when the streets of kwa-Zulu Natal were covered in blood of those killing and being killed in pursuit of one political outcome or another. In as much as the press performed below par in respect of this incident, the ANC did not cover itself in glory either.

A judiciary without legitimacy will face untold challenges in the execution of its job. In line with the national choice made by South African, represented by a variety of political formations, that we will resolve our differences peacefully, the need for a well functioning judiciary cannot be overstated. The judiciary should be a place any South African can turn to for protection and enforcement of rights enshrined in our constitution. It is only when the judiciary is accepted as legitimate by all South Africans that this model of conflict resolution, protection and enforcement of rights can work. Statements such as the one made by Mr Mantashe, erode the legitimacy of our judiciary.

Knowing the short-comings of our media, it is required of all political and other leaders to pay a little more attention to what they say and do lest they be sujected to assiduous vilification. This I write with respect to Messrs Bophela, Mantashe and Malema - my disagreement with Mr Bophela and criticism of the conduct of Messrs Mantashe and Malema notwithstanding.