Government of the People, by the People, for the People

Does this expression still have any meaning? Government around the world is generally by proxy, often on behalf of the people hardly ever for them. Once in a while there is real interest in the politics and the politicians and then the people go out in greater than usual numbers, to vote. Generally, the voters are less than 40% of the population or hover around that. This statistic gets even more interesting if you look at how many of those who are eligible to vote, do register to vote and actually vote, come election day.

But that is only the beginning of the story as it were, more so in relation to our own political system. Of course we had a large turnout for the last elections – people love a good drama, especially when they can become part of it. There was excitement around the elections and some optimism that there will be some change. Will we have the same excitement 4 years from now? Or will it be the case of “the ANC always wins and they will win again then? What will be the draw-card then?

Whichever way I look at it, it seems to me that the majority generally impose their political will and their political candidates on the minority, more so under the proportional representation election system. Like most compromises (the national anthem comes to mind here), proportional representation was meant to leave everyone equally unhappy. By everyone I mean those who would have preferred winner takes all versus those who did not want to be overrun by a black government and therefore sought to have a way of keeping some seats in parliament. Some argued that “winner takes all” electoral system would have polarised the nation and would not be in line with the Madiba nation-healing magic. Proportional representation on the other hand would ensure that there will be a place for everyone under the parliamentary sun. I am not sure whether proportional representation did not result in the very polarisation that the peace negotiators attempted to avoid. That however is a subject of another post.

Consider this if you will: Once elected, members of the legislature go about the business of electing the president who then goes about the business of appointing the executive. Firstly, the legislature is the legislature of the Republic of South Africa and all its people regardless of their errant and somewhat irresponsible voting habits. Similarly, the president and the executive are all ours, warts and all. But this is not so under proportional representation. Each politician is answerable and accountable to the party that put her name on the list. Each politician can (and many have been), be removed from parliament and stripped of her title should the party believe it appropriate. What about the people, I ask. The party is in charge and what the party says goes. Does it mean that the Minister of Justice is in his position to carry out the policies and dictates of the party? I will need to go back and read the oath of office that the president, the members of the executive and members of the legislature take when they assume their respective honourable offices. Maybe there is something in there that allows them to heed the call of the party rather than that of the people, I don’t know.

Do they not swear to serve, protect and to uphold the constitution of the Republic of South Africa – without fear, favour, prejudice or political affiliation consideration? This of course goes back to the party list. The people may have whoever political representative they want; as long as such representative is on the list. I don’t know.

Consider the position of the president of the Republic. As soon as he is elected by the legislature, he then gives up his membership of the legislature and he then occupies the presidency. This I am told is because he now belongs to all of us regardless of his party political affiliation. Now, we all remember the last president and how he “was recalled”. Of course that is not technically true. The constitution only provides for the resignation and the impeachment of the president. We of course know that he chose to resign. Had he not, that would have been some dramatic development in the country’s history – that was not to be though. The man facilitated his own recall as it were. All of this is pretty confusing to me.

I do not know when it will be appropriate for this nation to get out of the meantime of nation-building and step into robust constitutional democracy, where the people say who, say when, say how and say how long. I don’t know when that time will be and whether such would necessarily be the right thing to do.

What I do know and believe is that government should only be of, for and by the people. I am also beginning to lean towards a belief that proportional representation gets in the way of the people and their right and duty to govern.
Is it not so that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians and their parties?

I don’t know.

Isn't it time we said enough?

Who exactly, is the media responsible to? Who do they account to for their actions? I believe there is some ombud or similar body that ordinary Joe Public like me may complain to and hopefully get some redress. The redress is often in the form of an apology and comes after the damage is done. I don’t know what the alternative should be so don’t ask me. The media houses are also businesses and the nature of such beasts is to make some money for their shareholders and other beneficiaries.

To think that somehow the media can (especially in an overzealous democracy like ours) be expected to behave honourably is probably foolhardy. So, I do not wish to write to the editor, be he or she of the public kinds or otherwise (ok maybe I should). I also do not wish to engage the services of some watch-dog. I wish to engage the media itself and appeal to the human beings (believe you me they are in there somewhere) inside the media houses. I do this with the full appreciation of all the other imperatives that they seek to heed, not least of which ought to be, at least in my mind, to be human.

In order to illustrate my plea (yes, it is coming just bear with me) to the media houses, I upfront and unreservedly beg the indulgence of the Sowetan newspaper. You see, this newspaper ran two articles in the Friday, 20 November 2009 edition about Mokgadi Semenya. Even before I read either, I found myself wondering: at what point do we collectively say that she has gone through enough already? I of course appreciate that the matters Sowetan reported on are news-worthy. I also appreciate that there are those who would like to know the matters reported on. However, I can’t help but wonder whether this and similar reports are really necessary or indeed fair. Maybe fairness is not and should not be test or what the media may or may not report.

Mokgadi is in her teens (very late teens but teens nonetheless) she has her whole life ahead of her. A life throughout which she will always have the debacle of her sex (please, pretty pleas not gender) constantly overshadowing all else that she does. At what point does the media say: folks, we have milked this one for all it is worth, maybe it is time we let it go. How about we let the poor kid go? Please, do not get me wrong, I have conceded in this very space that what was callously done to Mokgadi is of great benefit to our society. What happened to her has raised one of the issues our society refuses to deal with. What I regret is how the media went about it. To this day, the tests apparently performed on Mokgadi are still referred to as “gender tests”. Folks, Mokgadi’s gender needs no testing. She is a woman, that is her gender. She has lived her life as a woman (girl if you like). About this there should be little doubt. Her sex, like the sex of many of us, is another story. I have dealt with this issue in this space too.

This is not me dictating to our media what to print and what not to print (as if I would; as if they would care). I am suggesting that the (salacious) details of Mokgadi’s sex have surely passed their sell-by date. Whatever it is that the IAAF, ASA, SASCOC, Mr Malema, Mrs Madikizela-Mandela and whoever else, are in the future going to do or say about the tests, is no longer relevant, at least in my view. This to me takes the broader social issues no further and adds nothing to the fabric of our society (if there is such a thing). What the continued reporting of these details does do, is to inflict unknown pain on a human being that we all agree is innocent. I am yet to come across a report (not an op-ed or editorial) that seeks to re-assure Mokgadi, many others like her and us that she is not a freak. None of the reports I have seen even attempt to give her the benefit of the doubt.
The media plays both the information and the education role. It has the privilege and benefit of some of our brightest human beings. I appeal to them to use this opportunity to educate the rest of us on the matters and complex issues raised by the misfortune of Mokgadi. This, in the stead of constantly hanging her out to dry, as it were.

I ask that the media leverage its immense influence to teach the rest of us, and that way reassure Mokgadi that there is nothing wrong with her. That is the truth, there is nothing wrong with her, she is not a freak. She should not (like Saartjie Baartman many years before her) be put on show, probed, poked and debased. We need this message to come out loud and clear from our media.
We need some education on Sex, Gender and Identity rather than perpetuation of lies, inaccuracies and misinformation. Nothing illustrates the fundamental and crucial differences between sex and gender than this whole regrettable episode in Mokgadi’s life.

We cannot afford to miss these opportunities to contribute meaningfully to the development of our society. Especially the development of a culture of respect, tolerance and care.

We can do this, with the help of each one of us but more so with the help of those best placed to help – our beloved fourth estate.