Until Death Do Us Part

By Kameel Premhid

The death of former Co-operative Governance Minister Sicelo Shiceka, labelled the country’s most corrupt politician by the Mail and Guardian, was interesting to me for two very different reasons.

The first is people’s general ability to forgo opinions of others in the case of death.

Whilst the newspapers on the whole were very balanced in summing up the man’s life (stellar career in the anti-Apartheid movement, huge potential, possible ANC President sadly ruined by personal greed and a contempt for the law), the willingness to forget and/or lessen the impact of what the man did in his life astounds me.

This is the man who used taxpayers’ money to go on a European jaunt to visit his girlfriend who was in jail at the time. This is the man under whose leadership a national government department that had a clean bill of health regressed to receiving qualified audit reports. This is the man who pleaded his innocence despite the damning report of the Public Protector that ultimately forced the President’s hand to get rid of him.

Perhaps it is my atheism that disallows me to understand why people forget such things when a person dies; or why I’m unable to understand the need to be nice about someone whom you could not stand in life. Perhaps it is a fear of one’s own mortality that makes one blunt the axe that one may have previously wielded against others.

For me though, consistency is important. Yes I can empathise that a man has died. But people die all the time. It is a fact of life. I refuse to wipe the slate clean merely because he has come to his physical demise. I refuse to let him be idolised and hero worshipped when what he did in his life amounted to directly robbing from the poor and treating the law so contemptuously, that he thought he was above it. To not let go may be considered offensive to him. Letting go, I think would be a greater insult to those he robbed from and the institutions he weakened.

Similarly with Roy Padayachie, the former Public Administration Minister. Whilst nowhere nearly as naughty as his former colleague, Padayachie was also afforded a hero’s send-off when we learned of his demise in Ethopia. Again, many were quick with their praise of such a marvellous man. The fact that when he was Communications Minister and was involved with the SABC and oversaw the greater politicization of our public broadcaster to his own party’s benefit seems to have escaped many. Much like how under his and others’ stewardship, the SABC’s Board continues its ruinous state.

We should not allow our sensitivities to deny the truth. If we do so, the effect will be disastrous for our collective memory will lose the important events that act as a precedent of accountability in the future. Ironically, the phrase by which we remember the truly noble and heroic actions of our war dead seem to me to apply here: Lest We Forget.

The second reason it was interesting to me, and this is a broader political observation, is how the ANC will use the death of those involved in the struggle to paper over the cracks that currently exist in its moral foundation.

This relates to the point I made above but goes a bit further. We cannot allow involvement in the struggle to exonerate poor performance in the present day. The effects of doing so are evident from the way Shiceka conducted himself: a belief that current political power derived from moral activity of the past will act as currency and downpayment for immoral behaviour of the present. If we do so, our government will continue to act as if they are unaccountable and will continue to treat anyone who dares to hold them accountable in as disdainful a manner as they do at the moment. The ANC must be made to understand that no one is above the law no matter how virtuous a cause they may have been part of. It must also be made to understand that our thanks for their participation and leadership of the struggle does not limit our ability to not thank them for the suffering and hardship that occurs on their watch. If we don’t, the heady days of nationalist fervour and glory from yesteryear will be used to our detriment: the highlight of moral superiority used to offset the immoral behaviour of today and the imposition of guilt on anyone who dares to stay anything about it.

A Scapegoat Worthy of Admiration?

By Kameel Premhid

Breaking news this morning is that Nazir Ali, former CEO of SANRAL, has resigned. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past 3 weeks, SANRAL is that much-hated government entity that wanted to tax our love of individualistic consumerism and charge us more per person for collectively emitting more damaging toxins into the environment. I know right, how very dare they!?

Anyway, tongue-in-cheek assessment aside, I think Nazir Ali deserves some praise. Not for the disastrous policy that manifested on his watch. Nor for the arrogant way in which he and his agency dealt with the public. But rather for doing a much unheard of thing in the South African political arena: he resigned.

Now, irrespective of what you may think of Ali or toll roads or SANRAL, Ali deserves praise for resigning. Sure the circumstances surrounding his departure are less than noble. But in a field dominated by individuals who know more about knifing each other in the back than they do about falling of their own sword, kudos must be given to him! Resigning is always a difficult choice – it limits one’s ability to right a wrong, probably extends the ignominy that hangs over a persons head and attaches to them a stench of failure that only serial political-crosstitutes seem impervious to. Of course, it also means a reduction in means and ways and I’m led to believe that percuniary considerations rather than reputational or rectification ones are why our primary guilty suspects (Ministers) have to be pushed rather than letting themselves willingly jump.

Allow me of course to take a naïve interpretation of this situation. Ali may not be falling on his sword as much as he may be being knifed by Sbu Ndebele, the Minister of Transport. The question still remains though, why is Ndebele still in office when ultimately, it is he who is responsible for this #omnishambles?

(Those interested in the use of ‘#omnishambles’ should go see the furore surrounding David Cameron’s government’s destruction in the media. On that note though, I find it despicable that our ministerial counter-parts in the UK resign for less than ours do. Compare and contrast: Chris Huhne resigning to fight allegations of perjury with our Ministers like one deceased, Shiceka who had to be fired by President Zuma rather than doing the honourable thing).

Follow Kameel on Twitter!

The GodFather, the Mafia and the Victims – Which one is FVZS?

By Deidré Baartman

The Bourgeoisie are everywhere! Opportunities on this very campus are everywhere, as are the Bourgeoisie. To those who stand by extraordinary leadership, how does the minority become suffocated by an RSVP filtering process and a 50 student seating arrangement for a session with one of the most profound commentators in our society today?

Positional leadership on campus has become a rotation schedule in the same neighbourhood between the same houses, between the same people, gangs and drugs. Once you are in the schedule, similar to gangs, you are never allowed to leave or betray the ‘family’.

Of 27 000 students, 1500 of them participate in active student leadership and 10 of them chooses who rule and who doesn’t. (And by these 10, I am not referring to the SRc.) Of course this society is democratic, but in it we are played by feudalistic ideals and an itching rash of irrational Bourgeoisie.

“The new black elites merely replaced the former white colonial elites, but the exploitation of the black masses continued as before, as did the exploitation of Africa’s resources…” (Architects of Poverty, Moeletsi Mbeki – Page 7).

I received an invite on the 18^th April regarding the Moeletsi Mbeki talk which will be held by the Frederick Van Zyl Slabbert Institute on the 11^th May at 10 am (STIAS – Wallenberg Research Centre): “Advocates for change. How to overcome Africa’s Challenges.” This invite stated that I needed to RSVP to this event, which I did. Later I found out SRc members already have reserved seating and that only 50 students will be able to attend the lecture. The rest of the people attending will be mostly academics of the university; the ‘previous leaders of our country’.

After this information was disclosed to me, a somewhat of a gunshot went through my mind. You know… like the scenes where the Mafia has to get rid of someone so they shoot them dead with the first bullet and dump them in the nearest river, leaving no evidence behind. In this case, the Victims are the uninformed students on campus, the non-Bourgeoisie of Stellenbosch University, the students who don’t receive the opportunity to attend the elitist events on campus.

I must say though, the GodFather planned his attack well. Sneakily sending out emails with the advertisement to the Mafia only and forgetting about the Victims. This way the GodFather can say, “We did invite students to attend”; but also, “Moeletsi Mbeki spoke at Stellenbosch University. Look! We are transformed!” This has become a bit of a trend lately. DASO Maties weren’t allowed to book a bigger venue when Aunty Helen came to campus for a talk. I am pretty sure the GodFather could have found a bigger room in his mansion for Moeletsi to speak to both the Mafia as well as the Victims. Or perhaps they thought, just as the GodFather of the University of the Free State didn’t want Thuli Madonsela in their guest dining room, that it is fair not to let Moeletsi into ours.

I guess next week I’ll be seeing the same Mafia members and we’ll probably have to wear our prescribed Mafia attire and sunshine smiles so that the GodFather can brag to his very prominent guest about the elite leadership at Stellenbosch Campus (which, ironically, his very prominent guest has been fighting against in society), and about how transformed we have become in terms of economic freedom.

It’s a family thing you know: being in the Mafia. Try to leave and you’ll face the wrath of the GodFather. So instead the GodFather asks nicely for the Mafia to wear their sunshine smiles on the 11^th May. Blood is after all thicker than water.

ATTENTION VICTIMS: Moeletsi is in the house but you’re not invited!

Follow Deidré on Twitter!

A Liberal Conscience: Why the DA should avoid AfriForum Like the Plague

By Kameel Premhid

Recent attacks by AfriForum Youth on DASO Tuks (alleging that they were in cahoots with ANC-aligned SASCO) got me thinking: as liberal parties grow, do we face a crisis between choosing the spoils of government and remaining true to our political value system? Is it possible that these things aren’t mutually exclusive, despite them seeming so?

Before I answer these questions, perhaps some quick context of this situation:

AfriForum Youth won the plurality of party-seats in the Tuks Student Parliament. However, given the rules of how the Parliament and the Executive is constituted, AfriForum needed a partner in order to make sure they controlled the majority of votes on the floor of the House so that they could elect an Executive that was acceptable to them and their prospective partner. Accordingly, AfriForum approached DASO and offered DASO the opportunity to do a deal. After initially agreeing to vote with Afriforum to ensure the continuation of DASO’s success with the Financial Aid portfolio at Tuks, DASO rejected the offer following the discovery of the well-publicised comments of AfriForum’s presidential candidate, Nikke Strydom, also President of the ‘separatist’ organisation the Orania Youth Movement, which were to the effect that Apartheid was not a bad political system, it was just implemented poorly.

Now before you start frothing at the mouth, any rational and reasonable person will concede that such comments are (in no particular order): (a) delusional, (b) disgusting, (c) disrespectful, (d) derogatory, (e) demeaning, (f) dire, (g) dreadful, and so on. The point of this article is not to prove that (it would be all too easy and not too controversial to do so). The point of this article is to contextualize the response of AfriForum and with respect to South Africa’s political wider climate especially for a liberal party like the DA.

On a self-congratulatory note, DASO went on to capture the presidency from AfriForum resulting in my friend Mthokozisi ‘Mtee’ Nkosi being elected President of the Tuks Student body. Those of you who like symbolism, you will appreciate just how much Mtee’s victory means: he holds the record for being the first person of colour to assume that position in many years. How apt for Ms Strydom. Beaten into second place by someone she thought was worthy of being treated like a second class citizen in the country of their birth.

Anyways, enough rubbishing AfriForum. They seem to do that pretty well on their own.

The point is that AfriForum’s vitriol (which was conveyed through a pamphlet that smacked of homophobia and racism – are you surprised?) brings a very difficult question to the fore: how does the DA deal with extremist views of people who are currently outside of its political constituency? How especially does the DA deal with this problem where those people seem to undermine the very space that the DA wants to occupy: the guardians of the rainbow nation as envisaged by Nelson Mandela and the ANC of old.

Because the choice is a real and difficult one: AfriForum is a powerful organisation that has access to voters and resources that could be useful to the DA in consolidating its position as the only alternative to the ANC. If the DA merely ignores it, it stands the chance of being rubbished by two key groups of people – the people whom AfriForum represents (who would see the DA’s silence as an inability to speak for them) and the people whom AfriForum seems to be the very antithesis of (the majority of black people in this country who would falsely see the DA’s silence as evidence of its non-existent racism). Note, I am not saying that AfriForum is racist as an organisation or that it has racist views. However, given that the core constituency it plays to happens to be those people who enjoyed significant influence and power pre-1994, it doesn’t take a Machiavelli sitting within the ANC ranks to paint the organisation or any organisation affiliated with them as being anti-black (as despicable as such a strategy is). Unfortunately, whilst we have a dominant political party that still seeks to play the race card against its opponents rather than deal with substance, even the impression of faltering when it comes to non-racialism is potentially political suicide. Politics aside, non-racialism is something that must be any party’s policy anyways. Anything which falls short of that deserves to be treated with contempt.

So what do we liberals do? For that is the problem be it AfriForum at Tuks; the MF in Durban or other organisations elsewhere that have a problematic relationship with non-racialism. Do we sacrifice our liberalism for a few extra votes or do we forego that and take the moral high ground?

The DA has proven its ability to do the latter. It is essential that as South Africa sees things more through the lenses of race, that the DA, as what many people consider to be the last bastion of liberalism in this country, hold its nerve and ensure that the democratic ideals which founded the birth of our nation continue to be a real experience for all. Through its commitment to liberalism and its successes in office for the benefit of all people, the DA can and will show (as it is showing where it governs) that racial divisiveness and identity politics has no place to play in the future of our country. By being an active agent for change that seeks to benefit the lot of people based on their inherent value as people and not merely because of the colour of their skin, the DA can align what is seen by many as being two mutually exclusive goals: political power and commitment to ideology.

Some may argue that in engaging with such organisations we may have the ability to change them and make them buy-in to our ideals. That is interesting but in this cynic’s view, it is never going to happen. Look at what happened when we joined with the NP: we won the hearts and minds of some, but most (ironically) ended up leaving the DA for the ANC because the ANC’s racial-nationalism and obsession with internal-representation quotas allowed them some chance of political importance where they were found wanting in open contests that the DA subjected them to. Even if we are able to work together, the danger in doing so is that we isolate ourselves from the new constituencies that we are increasingly resonating with and we also run the risk of losing the support of our core constituency (again look at what happens post-NP merger, alternatively look at what is happening to the Liberal Democrats after getting into bed with the Conservatives). Incidentally, I think that at that time in our politics, the merger with the NP was politically necessary although we paid severely for it. Now, as we are less able to be labelled as being racists and so on, any dodgy dealings with dubious organisations would take us right back to the ANC’s good old days. We are on the march in defeating the ANC’s typical attack against us that we are racist. We cannot give that up for a few more votes.

It is not an easy choice to make, nor is it necessarily rewarding in the short-term. But when the ANC was more than a mere shadow of its former self, it too had to make tough choices about non-racialism and inclusivity. Despite the practice of almost all other liberation movements around it, the ANC chose the moral high ground and in so doing earned the trust and respect of millions. In the face of political threats and populism (from entities such as the IFP, the PAC, and so on) it held its nerve and was ultimately rewarded for its hard choices and commitment in a resounding majority in 1994. Interestingly, as it abandons that noble mantle as it does today, so too do the voters abandon it. The unimpeachable moral high ground that the ANC once occupied is no longer there to protect it, for the people of this country on an ever increasing scale are starting to see the games that the ANC plays and are letting the ANC know that they will not stand for it.

Democracy, non-racialism, inclusivity and unity are in the lifeblood of this country. The party that comes to claim that as its philosophy and practice will undoubtedly be rewarded for keeping the true nature of the struggle alive. The DA will do itself untold harm if it were to bow to our critics who want to enmesh us in their identity games. We must not kow-tow to the desire to win office by giving up the noble ideals for which so many sacrificed and even more died.  My conscience, and I hope the conscience of every liberal, says to not go near AfriForum or any other organisation whose primary mode of engagement is race. To do anything but would be unconscionable.

Follow Kameel on Twitter!

Why I Cannot Vote for Ziba Jiyane

By Kameel Premhid
In what may be a career-limiting move, this is my take on why I think Ziba Jiyane is an unworthy candidate for Leader of the Democratic Alliance in KZN.

Despite being an impressive figure on paper (popular, well educated and with some experience), Ziba Jiyane’s attempt to be elected Leader of the DA in KZN must be treated with scorn by delegates to that Congress. As one of those delegates I know that I will not vote for him and will encourage every other delegate I know to do the same. I will encourage them to vote for the incumbent Leader (Sizwe Mchunu MPL) whom I believe has served the party with distinction for his term in office and will continue to do so when re-elected.

Jiyane is a former National Chairman of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), interim Leader of the National Democratic Convention (NADECO), Leader of the South African Democratic Convention (SADECO) and presently a member of the DA following SADECO’s decision to support the DA in the 2011 Local Government Election.

This significant national experience should be a plus for Jiyane’s candidacy. But scratching beneath the surface reveals a rather more concerning feature of Jiyane’s political career.

Whilst National Chairman of the IFP, Jiyane attempted to oust Prince Buthelezi from his position as Leader. Jiyane’s attempts were rebuffed soundly and he found himself out in the cold. Whilst internal attempts at democracy must be applauded (the IFP’s internal accountability leaves much to be desired), Jiyane’s handling of the process leaves two questions to be answered:

1. How effective is he as a leader/organiser if he could not oust Buthelezi at one of the worst low points of his career?

2. Why did Jiyane leave the IFP and form NADECO?

The first question is merely conjecture and more of a red-herring than a serious analysis of his organisational skills. The implication is significant however considering the DA’s need for KZN to be a vote-rich province if the overall national strategy is to be achieved.

The second question is the more serious one and highlights Jiyane’s more questionable characteristics.

Why could he not respect the outcome of a democratic process? His decision to up and leave, actively driving factionalism within the IFP and causing it a lot of damage in the process shows little concern for an organisation which he was a supposedly loyal member of. A decision to go nuclear with the IFP as a result of his personal loss potentially shows that he cares more for himself than for the party or the principles it stands for. Why, if there were such serious issues with the IFP (as was later claimed) did he wait as long as he did before he destroyed it publically? Why was this principled stand only taken when his own glittering career and future prospects looked, for lack of a better word, bleak?

Had this been the only incidence of Jiyane’s tactics I may have been willing to write it off. I would have been able to notionally accept the argument politicians to secure their finances in order to stand up to party leaderships and in forming NADECO, Jiyane was able to do that. However, such is not the case.

Jiyane was the interim Leader of NADECO until the organisation finally had an elective Congress. To much fan fare, NADECO was credited with being the end of the IFP and Jiyane was heralded as the best thing since the Constitution itself. However, probably much to Jiyane’s surprise, NADECO chose to elect Rev. Hawu Mbatha (formerly of the ACDP) as it’s Leader. Again, Jiyane’s agenda of self took centre stage and he left NADECO to form SADECO.

Whilst this habit of not being able to respect democratic decisions repeated itself, the mitigating circumstances as to why he chose to leave the IFP can’t apply here! NADECO was literally and figuratively his!

I’m not sure if I could vote for a candidate who could do that to me or my party in the future when things don’t go his way. I cannot risk the achievements the DA has made on someone who seems to either be after the political limelight or shameless self-promotion.

Two more quick points as to why I can’t vote for him:

• He has been a Member of the DA for less than 6 months. Whilst time in the party does not equate to ability to lead I would argue that he needs to acquaint himself a bit better with the Open Opportunity Society for All before he attempts to take a Leadership role in the DA. This is especially considering how philosophically different the DA is to all his former political homes.
• When Sizwe Mchunu was being shot at for being a Member of the DA and fighting in the trenches to take this party where we were not welcomed, Jiyane in his former political life was trying to destroy us. Such may be the game of politics, but I won’t forgive nor forget that as easily as other.

[Note the similarity between Jiyane and Magwaza-Msibi's relationship with the IFP. One wonders if the NFP and her career will go much the same way. NADECO was destroyed in the 2009 General Election and has since shut down]

Zwelithini Should Be Made a Pauper King

By Kameel Premhid

This article is in response to remarks made by Zulu monarch, King Goodwill Zwelithini as reported by TimesLive.

For a rabid libertarian like me, one that is sceptical of the state and state institutions in many instances, I rather like the monarchy. And no, not the British one (don’t get me wrong, I love them, being an anglophile) but I do, in principle, support the maintenance of traditional African monarchies. Yes they’re not perfect and by many Western standards they may not measure up (being polygamous, patriarchal and so on), but they are somewhat useful. (By the way, where they don’t measure up, as is evidenced by the article mentioned above, I think they should do so. Nor do I believe that the argument that “Western” standards are incompatible with traditional society)

Why? Well here’s a rapid fire (and woefully under-developed and response:

1) They usually act as a repository of culture, language and tradition. (Yes, some of them are questionable, but on the whole they actively militate against loss of indigenous culture and language as has been experienced elsewhere. Holding onto that history is pretty important)

2) They often provide access to communities that are too parochial and where the government has no presence at all. This access is a two-way street: people who are sceptical of government are more likely to buy-in to the AIDS messages that the amakhosi support (mostly) and conversely, the people who live in these vulnerable areas and have no access to government services are able to access them through traditional societal structures.

These positive outcomes make them worthy of some funding. Again though, I don’t think this means exorbitant, excessive nor profligate expenditure. Nor do I think it means monarchies can spend on activities/things which actively undermine the state’s attempts at non-discrimination and tolerance. Especially considering how influential they are in communities which are themselves rather opposed to homosexuality as it is. No government department or Minister for example would (or should) be able to enjoy taxpayers’ money having said something like this.

Zwelithini should lose every cent he is given for perpetuating such hate undermining the struggle for true equality for all people.

In the Land of the Free…

By Thorne Godinho

The stage is set; blue and red fluorescence blinds the audience; men in suits smile eagerly into the camera – these politicians must convince middle America that they can beat Obama. This mediocre crew of Republican candidates (now reduced to five forerunners – minus the belle of Tea Party conservatism, Michele Bachmann) has been battling it out, forced to stumble over answers and flip-flop towards the creation of a policy platform which would woo conservatives, and fight back against the so-called socialism of “Yes, we can!”

The rise of Dr Ron Paul, who came second in the recent New Hampshire primary, is indicative of a Republican Party, and America, in dire need of a new direction. Paul, a man who views the disbursement of pocket money to children as an extension of nanny state dependency, is an avowed ‘pro-life’ libertarian. He wants to end foreign military intervention and believes in the legalisation of drugs; he also wishes to reduce the size of America’s government. A Ron Paul Administration would scrap social security for the poor.

With an end to foreign wars, and the return of thousands of America’s troops, it is not difficult to see Ron Paul’s possible term in office resurrecting the proudly individualist post-WWI America of the 1920s. This was a time when unemployed soldiers, having just returned home from Europe’s trenches, formed giant squatter camps to protest government’s reluctance to provide welfare to an increasingly impoverished country.

It would take Roosevelt’s foray into Keynesian economics and a new world war to get America moving forward after the Depression. Barack Obama is in a position to implement a similar wave of domestic investment schemes to create jobs. But he’s proven to be an establishmentarian; Obama has not raised taxes for America’s wealthiest (the so-called one percent?) and the corruption that pervades Capitol Hill is as firmly entrenched as before.

But it would be foolish to think Obama has not initiated schemes to improve the lives of all Americans; he delivered on his 2008 promise to institute universal healthcare, and was summarily condemned as a socialist by hordes of  ‘Don’t tread on me’-flag-bearing housewives and conservative ideologues. Despite the fact that Obamacare, as it’s become known, served as part of Obama’s winning election platform, the American electorate angrily turned against it as soon as it became law.

The electorate is now seemingly aware of America’s escalating government debt, and Obama’s slow reaction to this issue has spurred voters (even those identifying themselves as the occupiers of Wall Street) to consider the politics of Paul, Bachmann and even Rick Perry – a man who was unable to name the three government agencies he’d like to axe as President.

Primary voters are participating in an election which will most likely result in less government intervention in the economy,  but will signal the re-commencement of increased intervention into the private lives (read: bedrooms) of ordinary Americans. The incessant flip-flopping of Mitt Romney, the most likely GOP candidate in 2012, is indicative of this – his former liberal stances on gay rights have turned rigidly conservative. And Rick Santorum, a former lobbyist and proprietor of all that is wrong with American politics, believes only in dignity – not equal rights for all.

Only in the land of the truly free would the vacuous and vapid, intolerant and incongruous, corrupt and corruptible, and decidedly hypocritical have a serious chance of winning the battle to become the leader of the free world.

Lord have mercy on us all…

Follow Thorne on Twitter!