No surprises and nothing to see here folks . . .

I am no authority on the history of our struggle against apartheid but I am old enough to have collected some fragmented memories of the days of mzabalazo. Thanks to these memories I am not particularly surprised by the recent mud-slinging between the ANC Youth League and the Democratic Alliance.

The Democratic Alliance pursues an agenda that seeks to bring the ANC to its knees, an agenda that seeks to defeat the ANC and to do so at all costs. The ANCYL pursues an agenda that seeks to destroy or crush, as Julius Malema said, those that get in the way of the ANC. The childish and deamening statements from both these organisations bears testimony to their respective agenda.

This is not news. I repeat, this is not news. For the love of the universe I wish e-news channel would get that. But then again maybe my good friend is onto something. He shared an observation with me that suggests that what is going on with the ANCYL may be more deliberate than accidental. He suggested that I look at the growth of tabloid reporting and the growth in circulation of the local tabloid publications in South Africa. I may be wrong but I suspect that The Sun newspaper is a very popular daily newspaper. Anyone who has ever bothered to page through this paper will know the kind of stories that it carries. My friend says that there seems to be a fascination with that which is vulgar and macabre. So, if the ANCYL seeks to endear itself to the tabloid readers (which seem to be a lot of South Africans), then it makes sense that it would walk the walk and talk the talk of the tabloid. I am not sure what to make of this but it has a ring of logic to it.

The militance of the youth is not news either. It is the same militance that in the mid-eighties saw young people terrorise their own communities in the name of the struggle for liberation. Bear with me. In my small township back then, a consumer boycott was called. My recollection is that my family and people I knew supported this campaign and did not buy from the white businesses. Please bear in mind that communicating with the community was not easy back then, you would have ended up in jail or dead for calling on the community to boycott white businesses. It follows therefore that communication was not good and some people may not have known about the boycott. It is also possible that other people may have decided not to support the camapaign. This did not make a difference to those mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who were accosted as they got off the taxis or buses and made to consume what they bought. People were made to eat or drink what they bought as punishment for not heeding the call of the people. They were made to drink fabric softner or cooking oil. They were made to eat soap and other terrible stuff. Back then, the inteded end justified the means employed to achieve that end.

What has not happened is a debrief of our militant youth post 1994 and by all accounts it is business as usual when it comes to matters of the struggle. Needless to say, it is after all aluta continua. Think of the recent taxi strikes, the labour strikes and the campus strikes.

The DA on the other hand has a proud history of support and maintenance of white privilege. They have used all manner of fancy terminology to cloud their true agenda without much success. The debates of access to campuses such as UCT that I was part of were always qualified by the like so Ryan Coetzee (chief strategist of the DA) with "the need to maintain standards". Take this comment to its logical conclusion bearing in mind that at the time, the Honourable Zille worked for the university concerned. Competence has long been used as a barrier to the entry of marginalised. Do not be surprised by Helen Zille being herself. I believe it was a fair call to question the composition of her cabinet. Of all the responses she could have given, she chose a vulgar demonisation of Jacob Zuma, a president under whom she serves. She has stated many times before and after the elections that her government will put the right people in the right positions in order to ensure delivery - whatever that means. These men must be the right people - so why is that not the answer to question posed. What does the president's sex life have to do with any of this?

These are the characters involved in this play and this is who and what they are. Nothing new and nothing to see.

Inaugural Observations . . .

The beauty of writing in a public space is that you can turn and twist words and phrases to your hearts content. Take the heading of this post for instance, it is somewhat catchy wouldn't you say? Even if I have to say so myself.

A previous post stated that the 2009 elections were as, if not more energetic than those of 1994. An amazing political energy criss-crossed our beautiful land with people putting their crosses where their proverbial mouths (and some would say their race and class) where. It was beautiful to behold. People followed the news and debated the newspaper reports in the run-up to the elections.

Similarly, the inauguration ceremony and festivities rivalled those of the inauguration of the first president of a democratic South Africa. A great majority of South Africans displayed ownership of the political process and they braved inclement weather to be part of the celebrations and the pomp of the ceremony. There were the dignitaries, heads of state, captains of industry and your usual socialites. The ceremony was somewhat schizophrenic in its attempt to be "African".

There was no difference between this and the other inaugurations of past presidents including those of De Klerk and Botha. Bear with me, I am not being judgmental and africanist or counter-revolutionary or bourgeois intellectual or whatever other invective may take your fancy. This is an observation. Consider this, the matters of protocol at this and other state functions is in the same hands (and probably the same office) as they were in the pre-1994 governments. I don't know but protocol seems to be determined by some immutable global norms. This reminds me of another but related observation: have you noticed how post-colonial Africa retains all the trappings of state institutions? The uniforms, the ridiculous uniforms (wigs and all), the brass bands (which I sort of like), the motorcades, the medals and gold chains; and of course the rules of protocol.

There was this lady explaining to the country, thanks to e-news channel, that as a matter of protocol, only one of the President's wives may be on the podium for his inauguration. Of course Msholozi the peacemaker and unifier he is reputed to be did not cause no fuss about this. Of course the media made a meal of this whole one man many wives thing; and Deborah Patter had to be obtuse. I take no umbrage with all this, it's tiring and I no longer have my student days communist inspired energy - I simply don't try to change the world no more. However, please allow me the space and a minute to say this: if you are a social commentator or any commentator at all, please make sure that when you comment on or critique many of our cultural and traditional matters, you do so in the discourse of that culture or tradition. Put differently, do not critique the culture and traditions of Amazulu using the English discourse, it simply does not work. I am not knowledgeable of these matters, being all counter-revolutionary and wannabe middle class and detribalised. What I do know is that mine is but one of many world views and not more valid than the next. So, I hope that as we continue to deepen our democracy, we will also seek to develop our own brand of protocol that works for our technicolour nation. Incidentally, there are just about enough ministries now, I am sure one of them will be up to the task.

On the other hand there was just pomp and ceremony. Nothing wrong with that. Apart from the prayers, everything else was done and happened in English. Nothing wrong with that either, I mean to have it in vernacular would simply have been unfair on the guests, the very important guests. For a detribalised native like myself, this augurs well for the future. I will no longer have to endure dirty looks for my english and fake accent. In and among the pomp and the english; and just in case some people may have forgotten what this is all about, there was much singing and dancing by the VIP guests and comrades. The songs were led (or appeared) to be led by Blade Nzimande and Julius Malema. The sound of Umshini Wam must have grinded the eardrums of Terror Lekota to no end. Of course the whole singing, dancing and sweating in a suit would not have worked for me, but hey who asked.

The President had a well structured and conciliatory speech and for that I had to applaud. The speech did not start with a quote from some literary great (this would have pleased Dr Mangcu), but it spoke rather to the people, ordinary and legendary alike. Nelson Mandela looked rather frail while Thabo Mbeki looked out of place yet formal as usual.

All in all, well auguring inaugural observations.

And the ANC shall Govern

Watching Gwede Mantashe or SG for those who know him personally or by affiliation, announcing the Premier nominees I could not help but realise that the ANC is going to govern. No, I don't mean that I doubted that the ANC had won the recent elections. It is just that over the last fifteen years, the ANC was not quite in the your face, you know. You had the benevolent saintly Nelson and he spoke to the change and the future and the manifesto and so on. After him was the napoleonic T-man. Never before did you hear or se the SG.

I could not help but think of those South Africans who did not vote for the ANC in the recent elections. How do they feel now that they will be governed by the ANC? Well, that’s democracy for you. It is not like these folks can pull a Terror Lekota and go establish their own country. But then again, we already have Orania – better not give people ideas. Back to governing:

The Premiers of each of the 8 provinces that the ANC won are hand-picked by the National Executive Committee of the ANC. They are hand-picked from a list of 3 names submitted by the branches to the NEC. The submission we are told, is in one or other order of priority but in the end the movement, the NEC makes the decision. It makes the decision as to who shall be the individuals that the President of the republic shall appoint as Premiers of the relevant provinces.“That is how it works in the ANC” – SG told us that much. Each one of these Premiers is a comrade, a cadre, a leader of the ANC in their respective rights. That much SG assures us.

Can you imagine how this whole talk of comrades and cadres is received in those homes that are neither ANC nor communist? But then again, that is democracy for you, our brand of group based democracy, that is.

So now that the Premiers have been nominated by the ANC SG tells us that, the president of the ANC and President-elect of the Republic will approve them by appointing them as he is empowered to do so by the constitution of the Republic. And from that point on, each one of the eight Premiers must be sure to serve the will of the people - of the ANC. Let us recall that the Premiers were chosen by the branches and sent up all the way to the NEC which then chooses one of the three names presented to it by the grassroots structures. Their terms and conditions of service are clear and come from Luthuli House. If these coincide with the interests of the citizenry of this here republic, then bingo. If not, such is the nature of our brand of democracy, the best we have I might add. Whichever way you look at it this brand of democracy is far better than the one presided over by De Klerk. But then again, that story is old and tired.

The function, duty and responsibility of the Premiers will be to carry out the policies of the ANC and its program of action as outlined in the manifesto of the ANC as stressed by the SG. These however will be for the people, all the people of the Republic. The people of this country, regardless of who they are, regardless of who they voted for, will benefit from the leadership of the Premiers. This of course does not apply to the people of the Western Cape; they will have to make do with the policies of the Democratic Alliance. And that too is the nature of our brand of democracy.

The Premiers must be sure not to cross the will of the people - of the ANC. They will be recalled if they do. They must remember that they are there to serve the movement first and the country second. Service to the country happens only through the movement. There are no individual decisions; decisions are made by the collective for the collective good. The individual Premiers will therefore serve at the convenience of the collective people - of the ANC.

This, SG tells us, is how it works in the ANC and the ANC shall govern.

A Brave New World

This has been a week of a hive of political activity that this country has never seen before. Not even 1994 can rival or even come close to what we experienced this week, as a nation and as a country. You see, 1994 elections were about laying claim to citizenship, about voting against wrong and confirming the right and the almost saintly. This past week saw the emergence of a new movement and a consolidation of another – all this, without a discernable threat to the incumbent, the ANC.

What is more interesting to me than the events of the past week is how members of the media reacted to it. Allow me to share my quick glance through the some papers with you. First is Bra Fred.

The Bra in Bra Fred (for those who may not appreciate) has nothing to do with undergarment of the lacy kind. It is my sign of respect to the man, this he deserves hugely. Fred Khumalo is among the eminent of the men of letters, he has been around for a long time and by the look of things, he will be around for a while longer still. It is consequently with disappointment that I read one of his two contributions to the Sunday papers. Something along the lines of some A to Z of being Zulu (sic) and being cool.

Thanks to Bra Fred, white South Africans can now talk of women’s breasts in more than two languages; and they would also be able to attest to the Zulu men’s love for the breasts. White South Africans will also have learned that Zulu men prefer an all round bigger woman, with big behinds and big breasts. Have a read at this column. You may enjoy it, it may disturb you but it is there as it should be. I took a view that the piece is ill-considered and probably inappropriate at this time but that is only my view. What is important is that Bra Fred carries on his trade and through it, share his views and those of his people (the “we” that he refers to). Whatever my views, they should not detract from Bra Fred’s right to get it wrong as he often has.

Second is Zapiro. He too has his own A to Z of South African Socio-Politics. Let me state upfront that I have always held the view that Zapiro’s depiction of Jacob Zuma, regardless of his journalistic, satirical or artistic intentions, is disrespectful, crass and insulting. Zapiro does not have to agree with me, does not have to change his mind on my or anybody else’s say-so. Reading his latest cartoon, I could not help but feel that he is driven more by sour grapes than social commentary. That however, is only my view. One that is not intended to dissuade Zapiro from waging his campaign, both as a citizen and as a cartoonist. He may not have a right to be disrespectful, crass or insulting but it is not mine or anyone else’s right to teach him manners. Zapiro has a right to express himself within his own moral context, a right I endorse and trust he will always have. The fact that I often disagree with his take does not come into it and the fact that 67 percent of the South African voting public disregards his take should also not come into it.

Between these two social commentators there are others like Mr Donaldson who I no longer read. I find him unnecessarily abrasive which in my view gets in the way of whatever message he wishes to share. He too has a place albeit one he often uses to spew unpleasantries – in my view that is. There is also Mr Malala who is often on the money but sometimes just childish; like the day he suggested that Mr Zuma is afraid to come onto his show. The point is, the people Mr Zuma sought to speak to during the campaign do not necessarily watch Mr Malala’s show and it was no skin off Mr Zuma’s nose not to be on Mr Malala’s show. This too is just my view; one that does not make less of the role Mr Malala plays. Then there is Dr Mangcu: a sharp mind at the best of times but sometimes too much of “I told you so” kinda guy. I also wish he would learn more than he opines when it comes to matters of the law. Each one of these commentators and those that I have not mentioned in this post have a place and a role to play. We would sometimes agree with them and other times disagree but never should we seek to silence them.

South Africa stands to gain a great deal from debate and differences of opinion on all manner of issues. I worry about the tendency to name people or groups in an attempt to silence them and deny them a right to speak their mind and to differ with whomever on whatever. I also wish that issues could be debated on their merits and not on conjecture and irrelevancies. As a case in point: whatever ones position on the issue of Mr Zuma’s criminal charges; the one immutable fact is that neither he nor anyone else ever has an obligation to prove their innocence. It is for the state to prove their guilty. The failure of the state to do so, should not be placed at Mr Zuma’s door. Any impropriety must be dealt with factually and not through sloganeering. Similarly, in the rough and tumble world of politics Mr Zuma and his supporters must expect and should concede that political point scoring will persist.

This is a brave new world and fortune will favour the brave – as they say in the classics.

Congratulations!

Congratulations are indeed in order. I am happy that I decided to vote. As I watch the results come in and listen to the analysts make their educated deductions and predictions; I am happy that I am part of the process.

I congratulate the ANC for running a formidable campaign based on what is a clear understanding of their constituency. I had my doubts but those have now be put to bed. The ANC understands that which drives their constituency - hope. Hope for a better future, hope that their party will change their lives for the better. The ANC sold hope and the people bought it. Nothing else seemed to be of much concern. Whatever else the media and other detractors of the ANC said did not move the people, the people voted for the party they believe will deliver for them.

I congratulate the DA. They too seem to understand their own constituency. They too seem to understand that which drives their constituency - fear. The DA sold fear, fear of a 2/3rd majority of the ANC, fear of the threat to the rule of law, fear of kleptocracy and their constituency bought it regardless of all else. The DA constituency voted for the party they believe will deliver them from the evil of an ANC government.

I congratulate Cope. With very little time to prepare for the elections and with little else to offer but a proposition for change, Cope has made its presence felt. I cannot say that there is any particular understanding of its constituency on their part, moreso the understanding of the South African voting population. Cope sold change, it sold difference. The change and the difference was not well articulated; even so their constituency gave them a chance albeit in lesser than number than anticipated.

I congratulate the people of this country for going out and making their voices heard. I congratulate the people for bringing a new dawn. The last time there was so much enthusiasm about elections and the democratic process was back in 1994 when the people rallied around Nelson Mandela and made a break with the past.

I congratulate all the other parties for doing their bit however modest, for our democracy, our country, our future.

These are early days but one thing is certain, our democracy has triumphed. These elections have confirmed the right of each and every one of us to differ without being branded an enemy of the other; the right to choose in accordance with one's beliefs. These elections have to me demonstrated the importance of participating as opposed to spectating and complaining.

Now, in a few coming days Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma will become the 4th president of the Republic of South Africa. He will preside over a democratically elected government, with a mandate from the people of this country to govern. He will appoint a cabinet in accordance with the powers vested on him by our constitution. A cabinet that will be empowered to execute on behalf of all the people of this country.

For that and barring all else, I congratulate and wish him well.

That's it, now I am going to vote!

Some time last year I decided that I am not going to vote in this year's elections. I also celebrated the fact that I am not a citizen of Australia. You see, down under, if you choose not to exercise your democratic right to pick which bunch you would like to abuse your loyalty, you are guilty of a crime, punishable by a fine. So, just because I could (well mainly because I could not decide which party to vote for) I decided that I am not going to vote and I am not even going to bother to register to vote (I moved provinces).

My dearest wife (bless her head and heart) insisted that I go register and if I still did not want to vote come election time, I am free to sit at home and watch democracy work - on television. With an interest in keeping my sleeping arrangements amicable, I went along with her and registered to vote. In addition to amicable (in fact better than amicable) sleeping arrangements, I am now able to change my mind and to vote, that is if I still feel that way come election day.

The source of my reluctance to vote in the forthcoming elections is as I stated, confusion. You know that state you find your self in when your mind seeks to override your heart's desire to strip all white people of their rights and possessions? That and only that was the reason I had decided some time last year that I was not going to vote. My confusion however, was caused by my ill-advised attempt at application of rational solutions to irrational problems. Allow me to explain:

You see, in the two previous occassions when I had been called on to do my civil duty and return the ANC to power, I had done so on a simple but irrational determination based on nothing other than the determination that this country must never again be run by white people. Call it racist if you will but this kept it straight and simple for me and off I went and voted for the government of the ANC.

This time I started or rather attempted a rational deliberation of my decision to vote for this or the other party. Of course some 95 percent of the parties standing for election were not even considered. I don't care what appellation I earn for it but I will not in a milllion and one years vote for anything led by Kenneth Meshoe or Rajbansi. I don't care what they say, I never listen and never will.

So I started to consider that which I know about the parties; that which my friends and family say about the parties; that which I find in the media (both print and electronic); that which I find on the internet; and so on and so forth. To illustrate: I learned that whatever spin anyone puts on it, the communists are in charge of the ANC; I learned that however hard Helen Zille screams non-racialism and democracy, she in fact means and can only mean protection of white values; I learned that Bantu Holomisa, Gatsha Buthelezi, Patricia De Lille, etc. all need a job and will do what they have to do. I learned that the image of the ANC is shot and pretty much in tatters. Now, I hope you are painfully aware of my situation. I am without a party to vote for so I cannot vote - at least that is the position I found myself in resulting in the decision not to vote or even to register to vote.

All of this was to come to an abrupt about face though. And it all happened this morning on my way to work. I was mindin my own business, listening to SAFM (half listening actually) when suddenly I heard a voice, a voice that has always caused rage to course my veins and hatred to replace what is ordinarily a fairly balanced humane constitution. I heard the voice of FREDERICK WILLEM DE KLERK. Yes him! The at-one-stage-almost-professor-of-administrative-law-at-Potchefstroomse-Universiteit-Vir-Christelike-Hoer-Onderwys. Yes him! The one time minister of education who said only a limited number of kaffirs permitted on this, that and the other university - and for those other universities, only kaffirs. Yes him.

I heard FREDERICK WILLEM DE KLERK say that we must protect the constitution, that Zuma must not do anything to damage the constitution, must not create unlawful hegemony, must stop the unlawful deployment of cadres. I waited for him to add "like we nationalists did . . ." and he never did. I went into a rage.

There and then, during that irrational rage I decided: fuck it, I'm going to vote and yes I am going to get me a government I deserve!

Just in case you were wondering what just happened

Advocate Mokoted Mpshe (shame Helen Zille had such a torrid time trying to say the surname and keep a straight face - wait her face is straight, anyway) is the acting National Director of Public Prosecution; his predecessor having been removed by (a sort of acting) President Motlanthe (another name Helen Zille struggles with) for not being fit to hold the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

By all accounts the job of an NDPP is clearly a tough one but also one that is very important, which may suggest that we should have our brightest and bravest on point. It is so important it is created and regulated by an Act of Parliament. Now, in terms of this Act South Africa has one prosecution authority headed by the NDPP. All prosecutions from Orania to Soweto, are carried out under the authority of the NDPP through the delegates of the NDPP. Well that is the way I think it is anyways, Orania court may be a bit of a stretch but we will consider that in a future post.

In carrying out his job the NDPP decides all manner of things including whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. This decision is made by the prosecution authority daily in various courts of this vast country. The prosecution authority normally considers the charge, the facts gathered by the investigating officer, the evidence available and the availability of witnesses. Taking all of these together, the prosecution authority may decline to prosecute or may (as it does more often than not) decide to continue with the prosecution.

Normally, the prosecution authority will decline to prosecute because in its view the case cannot be prosecuted successfully. Like the day I was stopped by the coppers on my way back from a bachelor party. I was pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence - at least that is what I was told by the police. The police then got into an argument about who was going to drive my car and who was going to take me for blood tests. This took so long, I fell asleep in the back of the police van, I think. I woke up in the cell, spend the night in the cell (or was it the morning?). The next day around mid-day, I was taken out of the holding cells at court and told to go home because the control prosecutor is not going to prosecute. Apparently there was something to do with the blood tests. As I said this whole "decline to prosecute" thing is quite normal.

Another normal occurence in the criminal justice system is the making of representation to the prosecution authority with the view of persuading the authority not to prosecute a case. Accused persons exercise this power all the time - mostly unsuccessfully.

Now what stopped Advocate Mpshe from just saying: "having considered the representations made on behalf of the accused, we are of the view that the matter cannot be successfully prosecuted and therefore we decline to prosecute". Well it simply would have been untrue. As untrue as the matters that he took into consideration in coming to his conclusion to decline to prosecute are irrelevant. What are we to make of all this?

Advocate Mpshe has either misconducted himself in relation to his duties as the NDPP or is not fit to hold the office of the NDPP. Either way, the president of the republic should remove him from that office. I would just like to know that when next I make representations to the prosecution authority, the authority will apply the correct test and consider matters that are relevant to the decision in question.

This, like the matter of the Judicial Services Commission and Judge Hlophe achieves nothing but to weaken our justice system. The only place all South Africans should be confident they will be treated fairly. The only place where each South African should be safe.

That among others is what I believe happened . . .