The United States holds the highest incarceration rate in the world, with over 2 million currently in America’s prisons, and millions more on parole and probation. The majority are in state prisons, around 60 percent, and roughly 10 percent are held in federal prisons. In 2011, one out of every 34 adults [7 million+] were being supervised by the criminal justice system, at that time there were over 2 million incarcerated, 854,000 on parole, and 4 million on probation.
In 2009, the US held roughly 4.5 percent of the world’s total population, but housed 23 percent of the worlds prisoners. California and Texas hold the first positions for having the most prisoners, both have over 100,000 inmates. Thousands of individuals are serving severe time for non-violent, and often victimless crimes. Timothy Jackson, an inmate from Angola prison in Louisiana, has served over 16 years, and still looking to spend the rest of his life in prison for having stolen a jacket from a department store that was valued at $159.00.
Other individuals have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole for crimes like siphoning gas from a truck, trying to cash a stolen cheque, selling marijuana, and stealing tools from a tool shed. Although legislation varies from between the states, the federal government has increasingly taken a zero-tolerance approach to crime, even victimless crime such as marijuana possession. The infamous three-strike rule has also proved ineffective at reducing recidivism (or repeat offenses). Surprisingly, violent crime rates have declined for the past several years, which may perhaps be due to fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals that were engaged within the system received stricter life sentencing, and they are therefore permanently caged within the criminal justice system, removing their participation as a criminal statistic.
After three decades of steady increase, crime rates have been in steady decline. Aside from stricter sentencing, rates may also be in decline in response to soaring gun ownership rates. Or, perhaps the violent crime rates are in decline because self-report is in decline, or the statistics themselves are not reliably accurate, or laws are not being strictly enforced. The answer no doubt is a myriad of factors which all contribute to the overall effect seen. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], violent crime rates have declined by roughly 25 percent. Regardless of the decline seen in crime rates though, prison population continues to soar and remain at an all time high, with alarming numbers of juveniles being detained and held in solitary confinement.
Imprisonment is a costly endeavor for society, indeed the States spend well over $45 billion in tax dollars on corrections, it costs an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone for a year, according to data from 2005, the total cost varies among the states. While the taxpayer is footing the bill to house “criminals” within the various institutions [strategically separated] within their communities, prisons are immorally profiting off the labor of their inmates.
Tens of thousands of inmates are being “generously” employed, some for as little as 20 cents an hour, within numerous prison systems. Starbucks, Nintendo, Victoria’s Secret, Wal-Mart, and JC Penny are just some of the mega corporations that are invested in, and profiting from, the labor of individuals who have become one more statistic as part of America’s soaring incarceration rates. This system encourages and creates a demand for arrests, and enables the prison industrial complex to feed off of them and continue to increase profits. With such a system in place it is reasonable to assume that incarceration rates may not decline, even if violent crime declines, as long as the prison is established in such a way that it makes a higher profit along with the increase in the rate of their incarceration.
The expectations of our justice system to both punish and rehabilitate, is a conflicting objective which leads to internal conflict and contradiction. The system aims to prevent crime by instilling fear on the offender, but recidivism remains high and states with stricter punishment still see high incarceration rates [e.g Texas]. The “fear” of prison isn’t sufficient to prevent crime, or even to reduce recidivism. Meanwhile rehabilitation, especially utilizing methods which incorporate members from the community, has a lasting effect at deterring individuals from engaging in a life of crime. Programs such as meditation have also shown to drastically help inmates cope with daily anxiety and stress.
One popular form of rehabilitation is a program of meditation for inmates referred to as Transcendental Meditation, taking part in such activities can help inmates to cope with their frustration, anxiety, and anger. Transcendental Meditation can significantly reduce crime, criminal aggression, violence, recidivism, terrorism, and even international conflict, while simultaneously developing higher levels of psychological functioning (Alexander et al., 2003). Victim-offender mediation has also proven beneficial, in some instances mediation will occur between the offender, the victim, and perhaps other family and community members. Every individual gets a chance to address their concerns over the event, how the crime made any impact on their life. This type of rehabilitation effort encourages justice, accountability, restoration, and community involvement. Even allowing the inmates to help train stray dogs seems to a highly therapeutic effect and actually saves money by extending how long the strays can be kept. Instead of locking up the offender as a caged animal, shunning them away from society and making them feel uninvolved with the community, it takes a more positive approach in encouraging the offender to be a part of that community.
A fiscally responsible nation cannot afford such a dysfunctional criminal justice system. Getting “tough” on crime doesn’t prevent crime, nor does it decrease recidivism. This mirrors how violent parenting strategies often don’t produce more able or responsible children. And the fear of prison initially is not sufficient enough to prevent crime either: fear is only effective in motivating criminals to avoid being caught as instead of avoiding the crime. When the individual is ostracized from the community, they forget how to be a part of it, this only adds to their troubles.
When inmates finally get out of prison, many don’t have a place to live or means to get a job or even to print a resume for one. Even for tasks as simple as buying groceries, many of these individuals never learned the basic skills which would enable them to create a monthly budget, or to plan out meals and necessary life costs, so that they could better manage to cover their daily needs without finding themselves short and feeling the need to resort to crime. Many individuals within the system also suffer from some mental impairment or drug addiction, and simply caging these individuals doesn’t solve any underlying problem.
Our current criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail not just the prisoners, but society overall. It conditions the guards to treat others as less than human, it creates further resentment and anger in the hearts of the prisoners, and almost no one comes out alright, let alone rehabilitated, on the other side. This is literally only “working” those investing in private prisons. Isn’t it time we focused on solving problems, on rehabilitation, and not solely on punishment at a high financial to all involved?
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Nkandla report: The real reasons why ministers took on Thuli
The fight between Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and the security cluster is about much more than her provisional report into state expenditure at President Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla homestead.
It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.
Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.
In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.
What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.
Principle of secrecy
He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”
Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.
Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”
Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.
What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.
In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.
In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.
In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.
Further litigation to come?
In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”
In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.
Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”
Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.
The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.
That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.
Top secret
The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.
The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.
After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.
In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.
An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.
The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.
It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”
Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.
A sign of things to come
In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”
This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.
In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”
He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”
Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.
Source: Mail & Guardian
It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.
Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.
In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.
What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.
Principle of secrecy
He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”
Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.
Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”
Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.
What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.
In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.
In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.
In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.
Further litigation to come?
In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”
In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.
Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”
Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.
The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.
That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.
Top secret
The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.
The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.
After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.
In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.
An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.
The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.
It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”
Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.
A sign of things to come
In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”
This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.
In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”
He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”
Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Parliament should reject Robert McBride's nomination as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate
Dr Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang SA, calls on Parliament to reject the appointment of disgraced former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid).
"McBride has tarnished his copybook with too many criminal charges that he has managed to escape in the past, making his potential appointment to such an important public institution highly questionable," she said. "South African citizens deserve better - they deserve clean government that looks after the interests of every citizen, not the political elite," she said.
Dr Ramphele, who addressed a meeting in the Strand district of Cape Town last evening, called on South Africans to vote for a clean and professional police force - one of the key issues Agang SA is championing in the run up to the 2014 elections.
At the meeting, she praised the Strand Broadlands community for the way in which they had managed to root out a scourge of drug dealers by working together with the police in a peaceful and effective campaign over a period of seven months.
Her message follows the alarming event last week in Khutsong, west of Johannesburg, where residents took the law into their own hands against gangsters, and killed six people.
"This country desperately needs to respect its public institutions, including the police, so that we can have law and order. We need a country that is free of corruption and crime - a country that trains and pays its police force well and expects the best of them," Ramphele said.
"Imagine we could have a country where everybody feels safe on the streets. It is possible, if we all insist on the best services our nation can deliver to us all."
Statement issued by Dr Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang SA, November 13 2013
Source: Politicsweb
"McBride has tarnished his copybook with too many criminal charges that he has managed to escape in the past, making his potential appointment to such an important public institution highly questionable," she said. "South African citizens deserve better - they deserve clean government that looks after the interests of every citizen, not the political elite," she said.
Dr Ramphele, who addressed a meeting in the Strand district of Cape Town last evening, called on South Africans to vote for a clean and professional police force - one of the key issues Agang SA is championing in the run up to the 2014 elections.
At the meeting, she praised the Strand Broadlands community for the way in which they had managed to root out a scourge of drug dealers by working together with the police in a peaceful and effective campaign over a period of seven months.
Her message follows the alarming event last week in Khutsong, west of Johannesburg, where residents took the law into their own hands against gangsters, and killed six people.
"This country desperately needs to respect its public institutions, including the police, so that we can have law and order. We need a country that is free of corruption and crime - a country that trains and pays its police force well and expects the best of them," Ramphele said.
"Imagine we could have a country where everybody feels safe on the streets. It is possible, if we all insist on the best services our nation can deliver to us all."
Statement issued by Dr Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang SA, November 13 2013
Source: Politicsweb
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Protecting our public protector: We need to defend the space for Thuli Madonsela to work without fear or favour
Durban - The public protector is under siege from many quarters and has had little vocal support from citizens whose interests she is tasked to protect. We need to play our role in defending the space for her to work without fear or favour.
Our political environment reminds me of Machiavelli’s words that: “There is nothing more difficult, nothing more doubtful of success than to initiate new ways of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old ways, and only lukewarm support from those who would profit from the new way. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not actually believe in anything until they have had experience of it.”
Change agents like our public protector are up against a political culture that has still to grow into the promise of freedom embedded in our constitution. Holding those in public office accountable is only possible if citizens demand it and support organs of state responsible for protecting the public interest.
The biggest challenge facing chapter nine institutions such as the public protector is the tolerance by citizens of the confusion deliberately created by the ANC between the state, the government, the governing party and the president. When ministers in the security cluster invoke the risks to “state security”, that the release of the public protector’s report on the upgrades of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence would entail, are they focusing on the “state” or the person of the “president”?
The state represents the “commonwealth” that belongs to all citizens. How can this commonwealth’s security be put at risk by the exposure of improprieties in the procurement processes regarding the expenditure of a significant amount of taxpayers’ money in excess of R200 million? How does exposure of the suggested presence of a cattle kraal worth an estimated R1.2m jeopardise the security of our commonwealth as citizens?
It is the concealment of wrongdoing in public procurement processes that is putting our commonwealth at risk. In my travels across the country in villages, townships, universities, workplaces and corporate offices, my fellow citizens point to corruption as the biggest threat to our future as a society.
They identify corruption as the reason we have not come far enough and fast enough in living out our aspirations as a society in the past 20 years. Disclosure is like sunshine that disinfects hidden wrongdoing and eradicates corruption.
Young people who comprise the largest segment of our population can shape the country’s future in next year’s elections. Yet many are not sure that registering and voting will have any impact on their future. A big part of their misgiving comes from their perception that the state, government, ANC and president are an unmovable corrupt monolith that is destroying the country. This misgiving represents the biggest risk to our democracy.
The fearless work of the public protector’s office is essential to restoring the hope in young people that no one is above the law and that citizens’ rights matter and will be protected.
Moreover, there was a worrying phenomenon among poor communities this past weekend. In some areas, people refused to register or to allow registration to take place in their areas until their demands are met. They, too, do not distinguish between the IEC, a chapter nine institution, and the government.
We must stand up and defend the space for the key institutions of our democracy to operate without fear or favour. It is a question of “for whom the bell tolls” – it tolls for all of us. Today it is the public protector, tomorrow it is the judiciary, then it will be citizens without the protection of those key institutions. By then, it will be too late to stand up.
We have been through similar moments in our history and must not return there. When I was banned and banished to Tzaneen, my lawyer was told it was not in the state’s interests to disclose why I had been banished to that area.
Are we again ready to tolerate threats to our democracy in the name of “state security” as defined by those determined to secure their positions in power? Are we willing to protect abuse of power and resources in order to protect those in public office?
We can stop abuse of power by those who should be serving us who instead focus on serving themselves. We must not shy away from raising our voices in protection of the public protector so she can do her work to secure the public interest. We have seen how her report on the IEC chairwoman’s impropriety in procuring the lease of property for IEC offices has been attacked on procedural grounds. Are we to condone wrongdoing in this and many other matters through political procedural stonewalling? Where will these stonewalling tactics end?
We have seen enough signs of the president’s lack of capacity to take responsibility for executive action at too many levels: the Schabir Shaik case, his rape trial, Guptagate etc.
His performance in Parliament where he trivialised accountability for Guptagate into a joke about it not being realistic for him to know who is landing at our airports was an embarrassment. Waterkloof is an airforce base that we have afforded him and authorised other officials to use – to serve us. It is not to be used to curry favour with his friends.
We need a strong public protector to keep the executive branch of the state accountable to citizens. We have to protect the public protector so she can continue to protect the “commonwealth” from those invoking “state security” to put our democracy at risk. We dare not fail.
Mamphela Ramphele
Source: The Mercury
Our political environment reminds me of Machiavelli’s words that: “There is nothing more difficult, nothing more doubtful of success than to initiate new ways of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old ways, and only lukewarm support from those who would profit from the new way. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not actually believe in anything until they have had experience of it.”
Change agents like our public protector are up against a political culture that has still to grow into the promise of freedom embedded in our constitution. Holding those in public office accountable is only possible if citizens demand it and support organs of state responsible for protecting the public interest.
The biggest challenge facing chapter nine institutions such as the public protector is the tolerance by citizens of the confusion deliberately created by the ANC between the state, the government, the governing party and the president. When ministers in the security cluster invoke the risks to “state security”, that the release of the public protector’s report on the upgrades of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence would entail, are they focusing on the “state” or the person of the “president”?
The state represents the “commonwealth” that belongs to all citizens. How can this commonwealth’s security be put at risk by the exposure of improprieties in the procurement processes regarding the expenditure of a significant amount of taxpayers’ money in excess of R200 million? How does exposure of the suggested presence of a cattle kraal worth an estimated R1.2m jeopardise the security of our commonwealth as citizens?
It is the concealment of wrongdoing in public procurement processes that is putting our commonwealth at risk. In my travels across the country in villages, townships, universities, workplaces and corporate offices, my fellow citizens point to corruption as the biggest threat to our future as a society.
They identify corruption as the reason we have not come far enough and fast enough in living out our aspirations as a society in the past 20 years. Disclosure is like sunshine that disinfects hidden wrongdoing and eradicates corruption.
Young people who comprise the largest segment of our population can shape the country’s future in next year’s elections. Yet many are not sure that registering and voting will have any impact on their future. A big part of their misgiving comes from their perception that the state, government, ANC and president are an unmovable corrupt monolith that is destroying the country. This misgiving represents the biggest risk to our democracy.
The fearless work of the public protector’s office is essential to restoring the hope in young people that no one is above the law and that citizens’ rights matter and will be protected.
Moreover, there was a worrying phenomenon among poor communities this past weekend. In some areas, people refused to register or to allow registration to take place in their areas until their demands are met. They, too, do not distinguish between the IEC, a chapter nine institution, and the government.
We must stand up and defend the space for the key institutions of our democracy to operate without fear or favour. It is a question of “for whom the bell tolls” – it tolls for all of us. Today it is the public protector, tomorrow it is the judiciary, then it will be citizens without the protection of those key institutions. By then, it will be too late to stand up.
We have been through similar moments in our history and must not return there. When I was banned and banished to Tzaneen, my lawyer was told it was not in the state’s interests to disclose why I had been banished to that area.
Are we again ready to tolerate threats to our democracy in the name of “state security” as defined by those determined to secure their positions in power? Are we willing to protect abuse of power and resources in order to protect those in public office?
We can stop abuse of power by those who should be serving us who instead focus on serving themselves. We must not shy away from raising our voices in protection of the public protector so she can do her work to secure the public interest. We have seen how her report on the IEC chairwoman’s impropriety in procuring the lease of property for IEC offices has been attacked on procedural grounds. Are we to condone wrongdoing in this and many other matters through political procedural stonewalling? Where will these stonewalling tactics end?
We have seen enough signs of the president’s lack of capacity to take responsibility for executive action at too many levels: the Schabir Shaik case, his rape trial, Guptagate etc.
His performance in Parliament where he trivialised accountability for Guptagate into a joke about it not being realistic for him to know who is landing at our airports was an embarrassment. Waterkloof is an airforce base that we have afforded him and authorised other officials to use – to serve us. It is not to be used to curry favour with his friends.
We need a strong public protector to keep the executive branch of the state accountable to citizens. We have to protect the public protector so she can continue to protect the “commonwealth” from those invoking “state security” to put our democracy at risk. We dare not fail.
Mamphela Ramphele
Source: The Mercury
Parties denounce McBride's nomination for IPID head
Opposition parties have criticised a decision to recommend former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).
The Democratic Alliance would "vehemently" oppose the appointment in Parliament, MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said on Tuesday. "IPID is responsible for investigating police officials in positions of authority and deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, thus the executive director must be a person free of scandal."
Lobby group AfriForum said Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa should resign for nominating McBride. "Minister Mthethwa, with this step, clearly indicated that the efficacy and integrity of the police is not a priority for him," said spokesperson Ian Cameron.
The Freedom Front Plus said the recommendation made a "farce and mockery" of Mthethwa's comments that he would eradicate corruption in the police. "IPID investigates corruption in the police and the head of this institution should not be a controversial person and should have an irreproachable character," spokesperson Pieter Groenewald said.
Christian Democratic Party leader Theunis Botha said the recommendation was "a serious challenge for being the sickest joke of the millennium".
"This makes a mockery of all the ANC promises that the policy of cadre deployment will be based on merit."
Shortlisted
Mthethwa said earlier that Cabinet decided at a meeting on Wednesday to recommend McBride as IPID executive director. "We believe Mr McBride's appointment as head of IPID will help this important institution to achieve [its] ... mandate," Mthethwa said.
He said McBride was the successful candidate following shortlisting, an interview process, and Cabinet's endorsement. "However, in line with the IPID Act, the appointment can only be finalised once Parliament has concurred."
Kohler Barnard said Mthethwa had requested that the portfolio committee on police consider McBride's nomination in a letter published in Parliament's announcements, tablings and committees on Tuesday morning. According to the IPID Act, the nomination must be considered within 30 parliamentary days.
She said the IPID should not be led by "such a controversial figure".
"The executive director must be suitably qualified for the position, not have previous convictions, and be a person of integrity."
Cameron said Mthethwa's decision had jeopardised the integrity of the police. "McBride had been previously arrested for arms smuggling, drunk driving and defeating the ends of justice. Now he must investigate and control corruption and malpractice in the police ...," he said.
Groenewald said Mthethwa was violating the public's trust with the recommendation. "McBride is extremely controversial and definitely not suitable for the position. The public should be able to trust the head of the IPID because a lot of complaints are against the [South African Police Service]."
Fired
Botha said Mthethwa should be fired. "Surely, no other minister is as determined to destroy his or her department," he said.
"If President [Jacob] Zuma does not now fire this bungling minister, the ANC should not be surprised when the world likens the Cabinet to a bunch of clowns."
McBride, who is a former MP and government official, won an appeal in March against a conviction of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.
He was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party. In September 2011, a Pretoria magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and in effect three years' imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
In 1998, McBride was arrested in Mozambique on charges of gun-running. He spent seven months in a Maputo prison and was later cleared of all charges. He claimed he was investigating illegal gun-running with the National Intelligence Agency.
In 1999, McBride faced an assault charge after he, underworld boss Cyril Beeka, and another man visited an escort agency and allegedly assaulted an employee.
McBride was part of an Umkhonto we Sizwe group that bombed the Why Not Restaurant and Magoo's Bar in Durban on June 14 1986. Three people were killed and 69 were injured in the explosion. He was captured and convicted, and sentenced to death.
In 1992, he was released after his actions were classified as politically motivated. He was later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Democratic Alliance would "vehemently" oppose the appointment in Parliament, MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said on Tuesday. "IPID is responsible for investigating police officials in positions of authority and deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, thus the executive director must be a person free of scandal."
Lobby group AfriForum said Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa should resign for nominating McBride. "Minister Mthethwa, with this step, clearly indicated that the efficacy and integrity of the police is not a priority for him," said spokesperson Ian Cameron.
The Freedom Front Plus said the recommendation made a "farce and mockery" of Mthethwa's comments that he would eradicate corruption in the police. "IPID investigates corruption in the police and the head of this institution should not be a controversial person and should have an irreproachable character," spokesperson Pieter Groenewald said.
Christian Democratic Party leader Theunis Botha said the recommendation was "a serious challenge for being the sickest joke of the millennium".
"This makes a mockery of all the ANC promises that the policy of cadre deployment will be based on merit."
Shortlisted
Mthethwa said earlier that Cabinet decided at a meeting on Wednesday to recommend McBride as IPID executive director. "We believe Mr McBride's appointment as head of IPID will help this important institution to achieve [its] ... mandate," Mthethwa said.
He said McBride was the successful candidate following shortlisting, an interview process, and Cabinet's endorsement. "However, in line with the IPID Act, the appointment can only be finalised once Parliament has concurred."
Kohler Barnard said Mthethwa had requested that the portfolio committee on police consider McBride's nomination in a letter published in Parliament's announcements, tablings and committees on Tuesday morning. According to the IPID Act, the nomination must be considered within 30 parliamentary days.
She said the IPID should not be led by "such a controversial figure".
"The executive director must be suitably qualified for the position, not have previous convictions, and be a person of integrity."
Cameron said Mthethwa's decision had jeopardised the integrity of the police. "McBride had been previously arrested for arms smuggling, drunk driving and defeating the ends of justice. Now he must investigate and control corruption and malpractice in the police ...," he said.
Groenewald said Mthethwa was violating the public's trust with the recommendation. "McBride is extremely controversial and definitely not suitable for the position. The public should be able to trust the head of the IPID because a lot of complaints are against the [South African Police Service]."
Fired
Botha said Mthethwa should be fired. "Surely, no other minister is as determined to destroy his or her department," he said.
"If President [Jacob] Zuma does not now fire this bungling minister, the ANC should not be surprised when the world likens the Cabinet to a bunch of clowns."
McBride, who is a former MP and government official, won an appeal in March against a conviction of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.
He was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party. In September 2011, a Pretoria magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and in effect three years' imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
In 1998, McBride was arrested in Mozambique on charges of gun-running. He spent seven months in a Maputo prison and was later cleared of all charges. He claimed he was investigating illegal gun-running with the National Intelligence Agency.
In 1999, McBride faced an assault charge after he, underworld boss Cyril Beeka, and another man visited an escort agency and allegedly assaulted an employee.
McBride was part of an Umkhonto we Sizwe group that bombed the Why Not Restaurant and Magoo's Bar in Durban on June 14 1986. Three people were killed and 69 were injured in the explosion. He was captured and convicted, and sentenced to death.
In 1992, he was released after his actions were classified as politically motivated. He was later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)