Open Letter by Over 70 Scholars and Experts Condemns US-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela

"For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents."

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government.

Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years.

This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions.

These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice.

By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides.

The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change.

If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections.

There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

Signed:

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona

Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy

Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University

Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney

Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives

Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years

Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician

John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University

Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies

Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College

Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University

Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University

Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies

Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University

James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University

Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom

Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK

Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University

Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University

Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College

Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University

Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis

Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University

John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY

Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany

Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín

Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh

Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University

Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico

Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA)

Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego

Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College

Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University

Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University

Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida

Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY

Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law

Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego

Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology

Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental

Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University

Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist

William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center

Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland

Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro

Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego

T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa

Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College

Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia

Kent Spriggs, International human rights lawyer

Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University

Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University

Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College

Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University

Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas

Source: Open Democracy

NGO statement on Helen Suzman Foundation raid

On Sunday afternoon the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) offices in Parktown, Johannesburg were the target of a military-style raid. Those conducting the raid clearly knew what they were looking for: computers and other documentation relating to the programmatic work of the HSF were taken. The brazen, coordinated nature of the operation and its targeted, selective focus are sinister. So, too, is its timing.

In its bid to promote constitutional democracy, the HSF undertakes vital but often politically sensitive and contentious activity. Among its most recent activities was the launch last Wednesday of an application in the Pretoria High Court to block the head of the Hawks from exercising any of his powers pending the outcome of its application to have his appointment set aside as irrational and unlawful.

We, the undersigned, are alarmed at the raid on the HSF. Thuggery such as this is probably intended to intimidate the HSF and others in civil society engaged in promoting constitutional democracy, advancing human rights, fighting endemic corruption and protecting the Rule of Law.

While the culprits of the raid have yet to be identified, we note that it takes place in a context of increasing hostility by some within the state towards civil society. Should it be established that the perpetrators of the raid are in any way linked to police, army or intelligence functionaries, it will represent an attack on our democracy of the gravest kind. Even absent such linkages, government is not without responsibility. The enmity currently characterising its relationship with outspoken NGOs helps encourage the view that NGOs are fair targets.

To discharge its responsibility, government will need to act swiftly and decisively. We call on it to ensure that the raid is properly investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted.

Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS)

Centre for Human Rights (CHR)

Centre for Environmental Rights

Corruption Watch

Freedom Under Law (FUL)

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR)

Legal Resources Centre (LRC)

Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI)

South African History Archive (SAHA)

Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)

Treatment Action Campaign (TAC)

Women’s Legal Centre (WLC)

The politics of Mohammed Morsi's trial

The trial of Mohammed Morsi is a political trial designed by the Egyptian authorities to disgrace, delegitimise and dispose of the Muslim Brotherhood from the Egyptian political landscape. In a seminal study widely regarded as the most definitive account of the political trial, the Frankfurt school jurist Otto Kirchheimer regarded the political trial as a strategic mobilisation of the devices of law and justice to attain political ends.

"The classic political trial", Kirchheimer argued, is one in which the regime "attempt[s] to incriminate its foe's public behaviour with a view to evicting him from the political scene". Morsi's trial is a classic political trial designed to evict Morsi and his movement from the Egyptian political space.

Political trials are inevitable consequences of revolutions. From the English and French revolutions the 17th and 18th century to the Chinese and Iranian revolutions in the 20th century, the courtroom provided a convenient space for a ritualised elimination of former regimes.

Courts are mobilised not so much to eliminate the defunct regimes but to clarify, rationalise, justify and finally authenticate the revolution in an act of judgment. This is what is at work in Morsi's trial - the use of the courtroom to validate and authenticate a contested revolution. The court is not concerned with the determination of guilt and innocence so much as the rationalisation and justification of the events of July 3, 2013.

A revolution, not a coup d'etat?

The rhetoric of law and order, terrorism, and national security are all smokescreens for the power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed regime. Beneath the rhetoric of terrorism and national security, there are the unfathomable purposes of history and power - a history of a botched revolution; conflicting accounts of what happened on 3 July 2013 (a coup d'etat, a counter-revolution or a second revolution); and the violence and crackdown that followed. The trial reduces these complex historico-political events into an either - or binary proposition that fits the self-referential logic of law.

The charges against Morsi and others - "incitement to violence" and "conspiracy to commit terrorism" - are charges carefully chosen to serve as fulcrums - narrative anchors in which to ground the regime's pedagogic stunts. The trial provides the event - the stage, the language, and the choreography - that lends bodily form, as Alexis De Tocqueville once noted, to the pedagogic enterprise.

As a truth-bearing platform with superior ability of image formation and saturation, the trial gives juridical reality and an appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the narrative of the state.

Within its own self-referential logic, the trial weighs the charges, assigns blame and attributes responsibility for the events alleged by the prosecution. It does not take account of the political and historical war that rages just beneath the invocation of its discourses. The objections of Morsi and his co-accused regarding the coup d'etat, the violence of the military, and the criminal origin of the regime are incompatible with "how the law thinks". For the purpose of criminal law, these are "objection[s] that cannot be heard": They do not signify within law's logic, its rationality, and modes of thought.

Order legitimation and power rationalisation

The immediate purpose of the trial is two-fold. Firstly, the trial is the most effective silencing device: By delegating the matter to a sympathetic judiciary, the regime silences all forms of criticism while it neutralises the political field from its adversary. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the trial has the aim of rationalising and justifying the coup d'etat by retroactively situating Morsi's defeat within a broader historical, political and moral narrative.

Using its truth-bearing discourses that allow it to create images that can neither be effaced nor rectified, the trial rationalises and justifies the power of the military regime. By presenting the adversary in the worst possible moral and political light, the trial both elaborates and consolidates a historico-political thesis in the image of the military and its civilian elites. What matters is not the validity or meaningfulness of the image so much as its effectiveness.

By accusing and judging the defendants for these crimes, the regime has a didactic goal that far exceeds the elimination of the Muslim Brotherhood: It aims to create a generative politico-historical thesis and an enduring image capable of instilling fear, prudence and obedience in potential foes. By projecting and amplifying a terrorist image of Morsi and his movement in the courtroom, a site of truth and justice supposedly elevated from the expediency of power and politics, the trial vindicates and authenticates a historico-political thesis in the image of the regime.

'I am your president. You have no legitimacy'

However, trials are not chess games that go according to pre-arranged rules. They can denaturalise, as to expose its flimsy facade of legality. In exercising the authority to judge its enemies, it submits itself to the accusation of its adversaries and the judgment of history. Just as the state uses the devices of law as political weapons, Morsi too can turn to these weapons.

The device is not equally available to the state and Morsi, but the deliberative framework of the trial and the principle of calling to account means that the defendant has a speaking position from which he can give an account of himself and the charges. Indeed, if Morsi's first day in court is any indication to go by, his trial could well be the trial of the military regime.

In his first court appearance, Morsi rejected the legitimacy and the authority of the court to try him. He argues that he is "the legitimate president" of the republic and accuses the military of a coup and treason. He challenges the court to justify how an illegal action - a coup d'etat - gives rise to a legal right that enables the criminals to judge an elected president: "This coup is a crime and treasonous, and the court is held responsible for it."

Morsi's defence will ask questions the prosecutor and the court cannot answer legally: According to what law, according to what rule of judgment and principle of justice do the courts and the social order they serve exercise the right to judge and punish an elected president? For Morsi and his supporters, "This is a military coup whose leaders must be put on trial in accordance with the constitution."

If an elected president can be called to the court to account for these acts, what of the military leaders who committed a treasonous offense? In other words, can the military bring Morsi to the court without calling the Revolution to the court? It is this question that law is ultimately incapable of answering without sliding into the abyss, to its origin in self-help. It is also here that the disjuncture between law and revolutions becomes most manifest, exposing the government and its courts to the judgement of history.

Regardless of how the court frames and ultimately settles these destabilising questions, Morsi's trial brings both the military and the revolution into the courtroom. The narratives and the verdict leave behind traces or remainders that cannot be integrated, or contained by the trial. It is this remainder, this excess, that exceeds the trial's ability to conceal and suppress, that returns to haunt Egypt and unsettle it from within.

Awol K Allo is a Fellow in Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera

Obama's tribute to Mandela: The full speech

To Graça Machel and the Mandela family; to President Zuma and members of the government; to heads of state and government, past and present; distinguished guests – it is a singular honor to be with you today, to celebrate a life unlike any other. To the people of South Africa – people of every race and walk of life – the world thanks you for sharing Nelson Mandela with us. His struggle was your struggle. His triumph was your triumph. Your dignity and hope found expression in his life, and your freedom, your democracy is his cherished legacy.

It is hard to eulogise any man – to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person – their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.

Born during World War I, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by elders of his Thembu tribe – Madiba would emerge as the last great liberator of the 20th century. Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success. Like King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed, and the moral necessity of racial justice. He would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and reached the final days of the Cold War. Emerging from prison, without force of arms, he would – like Lincoln – hold his country together when it threatened to break apart. Like America's founding fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations - a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power.

Given the sweep of his life, and the adoration that he so rightly earned, it is tempting then to remember Nelson Mandela as an icon, smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men. But Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait. Instead, he insisted on sharing with us his doubts and fears; his miscalculations along with his victories. "I'm not a saint," he said, "unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying."

It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection – because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried - that we loved him so. He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood – a son and husband, a father and a friend. That is why we learned so much from him; that is why we can learn from him still. For nothing he achieved was inevitable. In the arc of his life, we see a man who earned his place in history through struggle and shrewdness; persistence and faith. He tells us what’s possible not just in the pages of dusty history books, but in our own lives as well.

Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals. Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, "a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness" from his father. Certainly he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, "a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments … a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people."

But like other early giants of the ANC – the Sisulus and Tambos – Madiba disciplined his anger; and channelled his desire to fight into organisation, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand-up for their dignity. Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price. "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination," he said at his 1964 trial. "I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Mandela taught us the power of action, but also ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those you agree with, but those who you don’t. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet. He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and passion, but also his training as an advocate. He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement. And he learned the language and customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depended upon his.

Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough; no matter how right, they must be chiseled into laws and institutions. He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of conditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that, "prisoners cannot enter into contracts." But as he showed in painstaking negotiations to transfer power and draft new laws, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of a larger goal. And because he was not only a leader of a movement, but a skillful politician, the Constitution that emerged was worthy of this multiracial democracy; true to his vision of laws that protect minority as well as majority rights, and the precious freedoms of every South African.

Finally, Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa – Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us. We can never know how much of this was innate in him, or how much of it was shaped and burnished in a dark, solitary cell. But we remember the gestures, large and small – introducing his jailors as honoured guests at his inauguration; taking the pitch in a Springbok uniform; turning his family’s heartbreak into a call to confront HIV and Aids – that revealed the depth of his empathy and understanding. He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.

For the people of South Africa, for those he inspired around the globe – Madiba’s passing is rightly a time of mourning, and a time to celebrate his heroic life. But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection. With honesty, regardless of our station or circumstance, we must ask: how well have I applied his lessons in my own life?

It is a question I ask myself – as a man and as a president. We know that like South Africa, the United States had to overcome centuries of racial subjugation. As was true here, it took the sacrifice of countless people – known and unknown – to see the dawn of a new day. Michelle and I are the beneficiaries of that struggle. But in America and South Africa, and countries around the globe, we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not done. The struggles that follow the victory of formal equality and universal franchise may not be as filled with drama and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important. For around the world today, we still see children suffering from hunger, and disease; run-down schools, and few prospects for the future. Around the world today, men and women are still imprisoned for their political beliefs; and are still persecuted for what they look like, or how they worship, or who they love.

We, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us who stand on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.

The questions we face today – how to promote equality and justice; to uphold freedom and human rights; to end conflict and sectarian war – do not have easy answers. But there were no easy answers in front of that child in Qunu. Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done. South Africa shows us that is true. South Africa shows us we can change. We can choose to live in a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes. We can choose a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice and opportunity.

We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again. But let me say to the young people of Africa, and young people around the world – you can make his life’s work your own. Over thirty years ago, while still a student, I learned of Mandela and the struggles in this land. It stirred something in me. It woke me up to my responsibilities – to others, and to myself – and set me on an improbable journey that finds me here today. And while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be better. He speaks to what is best inside us. After this great liberator is laid to rest; when we have returned to our cities and villages, and rejoined our daily routines, let us search then for his strength – for his largeness of spirit – somewhere inside ourselves. And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, or our best laid plans seem beyond our reach – think of Madiba, and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of a cell:

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

What a great soul it was. We will miss him deeply. May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela. May God bless the people of South Africa.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Mamphela Ramphele launches new party political platform

DR MAMPHELA Ramphele on Monday announced the formation of a “party political platform” whose first order of business would be to call for reform of South Africa’s electoral system and with the aim of contesting the 2014 national elections.

Speculation had been rife for weeks that the activist and doctor — a former MD of the World Bank — would enter the country’s political space through forming her own political party.

She will challenge the 2014 election, although she admits to having a staff of just five people, and expects funding, always an elephant in the room for political parties, to come largely from “supportive” South Africans.

On Monday, she delivered a hard-hitting speech on how the dream of a democratic South Africa had been derailed by poor governance, corruption, nepotism, poverty and powerlessness.

“Our country is at risk because self-interest has become the driver of many of those in positions of authority who should be focused on serving the public,” she said.

The platform — to be called “Agang” in Sesotho, meaning “Build SA” — will embark on a 1-million-signature campaign to ensure that electoral reform is the “first order of business” for Parliament after the 2014 election.

“I am here today to invite you, young and old, to reimagine the country of our dreams and to commit to building it into a reality in the lives of every South African,” Dr Ramphele said at the historic Women’s Gaol at Constitutional Hill in Johannesburg.

“I have said that I am no messiah. No single individual acting on their own can build our nation into the country of our dreams. But I am willing to be a bridge between my generation — those of us who fought for freedom who remember not only with their minds but also with their hearts — and that of my children. For us the dream remains alive as a link between those who sacrificed their lives for freedom to be born and those who live in the hope of seeing the reality of the dream come alive in their own lifetime.”

She said South Africans were being denied the right to govern by the current electoral system, and bemoaned the deployment of people to government by parties and the impact of being beholden to party leaders on their performance.

“We should be able to vote for the person in our own area we want to represent us in Parliament, so we can hold them accountable for the electoral promises they make,” she said. “We want an MP for Marikana, an MP for De Doorns and an MP for Sasolburg, so if the people are unhappy and the MP is not responsive enough, they will be voted out at the next election.”

The new party political platform would give citizens who stood on the sidelines an opportunity to become actively involved in building a South Africa to be proud of, Ms Ramphele said.

She blamed a passive citizenry for the direction South Africa had taken, saying she wanted to ignite South Africans to help pull the country back on track. This would be accomplished through “consultation” with those in villages, townships and suburbs, which would feed into her party’s policies.

An active citizenry would also aid in the party’s “war” against corruption. “If we operate as vigilant, active citizens, we can tackle corruption. We too are part of the problem,” Dr Ramphele said.

She added that the decision to enter party politics had not come easily. “I have never been a member of a political party nor aspired to political office. I however feel called to lead the efforts of many South Africans who increasingly fear that we are missing too many opportunities to become that which we have the potential to become — a great society.

“I have no illusions about the difficult road ahead. Bridges get trampled on. But I trust my fellow South Africans’ capacity to come together at critical times to do what others believe is impossible. I believe in our potential for greatness. I believe that greatness is within our grasp if only we can reach out across divisions and self-interests and put the country first.”

Dr Ramphele also said Marikana and De Doorns underscored the urgent need for South Africa to restructure its economic system — but such a restructuring should also focus on job satisfaction and a sense of fulfilment for workers.

Since last year, South Africa has seen a surge in violent and sometimes deadly industrial protests, often with demands for higher wages.

“What we want is an economy that works for all South Africans,” Dr Ramphele said.

She said Agang did not have a preferred economic policy at this stage as it was a work in progress and would be developed as consultation continued. She added, however, that the current economic structure undermined the country’s growth prospects.

News of Dr Ramphele’s political plans have created a buzz in opposition circles, though she made it clear on Monday that she was not joining any other political party, but consulting them widely with. “I am not a joiner,” she said.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) said on Monday that it took note of Dr Ramphele’s intention “to engage South Africans about the formation of a new political party”.

“Dr Ramphele shares the DA’s core values of nonracialism and constitutionalism, and her move is another step in the long process of realigning South African politics around these values,” said DA spokesman Mmusi Maimane, adding: “We will continue to engage Dr Ramphele in the coming months.”

Smaller parties such as the Congress of the People (COPE) can be expected to seize the opportunity of jumping on the bandwagon.

COPE leaders have said they are mulling ways to work with Dr Ramphele. While this could give her initiative a boost, it could also raise credibility questions, as COPE has battled with internal squabbles that have all but eroded its credibility.

Political analyst Susan Booysens said Ms Ramphele’s announcement on Monday was “odd and bizarre”.

Ms Booysens said she did not see Agang taking off as an imagination-grabbing political party. “I cannot even say refreshing because I cannot see how it fits into party politics,” said Ms Booysens.

Aubrey Matshiqi, political analyst and research fellow at the Helen Suzman Foundation, said Ms Ramphele’s first handicap was that she started with a party political platform. However, Mr Matshiqi said he was not surprised with the move as it appeared that Ms Ramphele and her team were “not able to settle for a very clear way of defining themselves”.

“But when you are consulting a broad range of people, defining yourself can be a problem,” Mr Matshiqi said.

Related files

PDF: Dr Mamphela Ramphele's full speech delivered at the launch of her new party political platform

Source:

XXIV Congress of the Socialist International

The XXIV Congress of the Socialist International will take place from 30 August-1 September 2012 in Cape Town, South Africa.

The Congress, which takes place every four years, brings together heads of government, leaders and delegates from the member parties of the SI alongside invited guests. This year’s Congress will be the first in the history of the International to take place in Africa, hosted by the African National Congress (ANC).

The Congress takes place under the heading ‘For a new internationalism and a new culture of solidarity’ with its agenda focused on four key themes, which are central to the concerns of the global social democratic movement, building on our message to citizens across the globe.

The themes are as follows: (1) For an economy with jobs, growth and social protection: the social democratic response to the financial crisis; (2) The struggle for rights and freedoms: strengthening representative democracy and gaining new democracies in the world; (3) For a common road to peace, sustainability and cooperation: the need to secure multilateralism; and (4) For a new internationalism and a new culture of solidarity among people and between nations. Discussions on each of these themes will incorporate keynote addresses, panel discussions and contributions from delegates.

The Members of the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society

• Ricardo Lagos
• Göran Persson
• Hilary Benn
• Elio di Rupo
• Mohamed El Yazghi
• Sigmar Gabriel
• Aleksandr Kwasniewski
• Sergei Mironov
• Cristina Narbona
• Beatriz Paredes
• Anand Sharma
• Marina Silva 
• Martin Torrijos 
• Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma

Source: Socialist International

Côte d'Ivoire envoy warns of 'genocide' threat

The first recognised ambassador of Côte d'Ivoire's internationally-backed president Alassane Ouattara said on Tuesday that the United Nations had to act to prevent "genocide" in his country. The envoy, Youssoufou Bamba, made the plea after handing over his credentials as envoy to the United Nations to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Ban promised the "full cooperation" of the UN leadership for the government of Ouattara who is in a tense stand-off with Laurent Gbagbo, who refuses to recognise the victory of his rival in Côte d'Ivoire's November 28 presidential election. The ambassador said Ouattara had "real concern" about attacks on his supporters. According to UN rights officials at least 173 people were killed in attacks between December 16 and 21.

The victims were only killed "because they wanted to demonstrate, they want to speak out, they want to defend the will of the people", Bamba told reporters. "We are on the brink of genocide, something should be done." Bamba said people's homes in some areas had been marked according to their tribe. "What will be next? So the situation is very serious and I have put that message across in all the meetings I have had, including with the secretary general. The protection of civilians is at the heart of peacekeeping and we expect the United Nations to fulfill its duties," he said.

There is a UN force of more than 9 500 troops in Côte d'Ivoire and 800 are deployed around the Abidjan hotel where Ouattara has his base. Ban made no comment on the Côte d'Ivoire crisis when he formally accepted Bamba's credentials in front of photographers at the UN headquarters. But he assured the envoy "of the full cooperation of the secretariat in meeting the challenges ahead". Ban was briefed again on Tuesday by the UN mission in Côte d'Ivoire on efforts to persuade Gbagbo to peacefully stand down, his spokesperson Martin Nesirky said.

The UN chief also held telephone talks with Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan, current chairperson of the West African regional bloc Ecowas, which has threatened to intervene militarily if Gbagbo does not quit. Bamba, who was previously ambassador for the Gbagbo government at the UN in Vienna, is the first ambassador named by the Ouattara administration to have started work. He hinted that he was not yet being paid, saying that as a career diplomat "I have savings."

Meanwhile, Gbagbo's most notorious street lieutenant has vowed that the country's youth will rise up from Saturday and seize Ouattara's headquarters. "From January 1, I, Charles Ble Goude and the youth of Ivory Coast are going to liberate the Golf Hotel with our bare hands," the leader of Gbagbo's radical Young Patriots told a cheering crowd in Abidjan on Wednesday. "It's the moment to liberate Ivory Coast," he declared.

Political showman and faction leader Ble Goude is now Gbagbo's minister for youth and employment, but he is best known for stoking bloody anti-French riots in 2004, a role which saw him placed under United Nations sanctions. "We are ready to die for this Ivory Coast," he declared, while insisting that his supporters were unarmed and hoped to triumph through strength of numbers and will against Ouattara's men. "We are mocked by rebels," he complained.

Tension is mounting in and around the Golf Hotel -- a waterfront resort on the outskirts of the port city which Ouattara and his supporters had turned into an election headquarters. The shadow government in the hotel is guarded by a small contingent of former northern rebel fighters dubbed the New Forces, and the grounds are shielded by armed UN peacekeepers backed by armoured cars.

Access to the area is blocked by Gbagbo's regulars, the Security and Defence Forces (FDS), working alongside what UN observers say are mysterious masked militia fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades. UN supply convoys are regularly blocked as they try to cross Abidjan -- one patrol was attacked on Tuesday a mob of pro-Gbagbo youths and a Bangladeshi soldier was hurt -- and the hotel is supplied by UN helicopter.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Ivory Coast: Summary

The strife-torn West African nation of Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) was once a beacon of prosperity for the region. But since a 2002 civil war, the country has been divided between north and south and wracked by years of political confrontation, coups and countercoups, and street violence.

It was hoped that an oft-postponed presidential election in November 2010, the first in 10 years, would be a force for peace and unity. Instead, competing declarations of victory and clashes between supporters of rival presidential candidates have destabilized the country further.

Alassane Ouattara, a former prime minister, banker and leader of the opposition, has been recognized as the winner of November’s election by the United Nations, the African Union, the United States and the European Union. The incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo, 65, a leftist university professor-turned-populist strongman whose term ended in 2005, has resisted repeated calls for him to cede the office, clinging to power amid rebellion in the north and disputes among the country’s top political leaders

The country’s top elections officer proclaimed Mr. Ouattara the winner on Dec. 2, by a nearly nine-point margin. Only a day later, the head of the Constitutional Council, who is a close ally of the president, threw out vote totals from parts of the north — the stronghold of Mr. Ouattara — because of what he called “flagrant irregularities,” leading both men to claim the presidency.

The deadly standoff between the rival presidents appears to be broadening. Armed forces associated with the Ouattara camp have clashed with Mr. Gbagbo’s forces on the streets of the nation’s economic capital, Abidjan, as well as in a town in the center of the country. Security forces loyal to President Gbagbo have opened fire on demonstrators. After men in military uniforms fired on a United Nations patrol on Dec. 18, President Gbagbo ordered United Nations and French peacekeepers to leave the country immediately. Analysts fear the departure of some 10,000 United Nations peacekeepers would increase the risk of a return of the civil war

Once-gleaming downtown Abidjan, a magnet for immigrants from all over West Africa in the days when people spoke of the Ivorian “miracle,” has become a forest of darkened high-rise windows. Investors have pulled out; jobs have vanished. More than four million young men are unemployed in a nation of some 21 million people, according to the World Bank.

Rebels continue to control the partly Muslim north, feeding off smuggling and illicit taxation, while the west remains a substantially lawless domain of robbery and rape, a recent Human Rights Watch report said.

Source: New York Times

The ANC – a party in decline

The African National Congress (ANC) turns 99 next month. This means that, on January 8, 2012, South Africa’s ruling party will be celebrating its 100th birthday. This is an important milestone by any standard. This also means that the ANC, as a historical force, has lived through and shaped some of the most important events in South African history. The ANC was a direct product of the responses of the African majority to colonial conquest and, during apartheid, it benefited from a judicious selection of tactical and revolutionary approaches, the dynamics of the Cold War, fraternal relations with other liberation movements and the heroism of anti-apartheid forces to become the most dominant political force in South Africa. And with its dominance and revolutionary credentials came the expectation that it would represent, and translate into reality, the aspirations of those who were oppressed by white minority apartheid governments.

Has the ANC delivered on this expectation, given the fact that the hopes of the oppressed in South Africa later became the hope for political and economic freedom for millions outside our country? It is for this reason that the ANC is the only liberation movement and political party in the world that has produced two Nobel laureates and Nelson Mandela has become a global icon for freedom. And it is for these reasons that, with the advent of democracy in 1994, there was the expectation that postapartheid South Africa would become the conscience of the world.

But how should we judge the ANC? Broadly speaking, the ANC should be judged against the following goals:
• Has the party succeeded in uniting the people of this country?
• Is the dream of a better life becoming a reality for all South Africans?
• Is the quality of our democratic experience improving?

Whether your contention is that the postapartheid democratic project is failing or succeeding, there is plenty of evidence to support either view. Therefore, the best answers are those that are nuanced enough to appreciate the complexities of our postapartheid democratic order. To argue that the ANC is either an unblemished success or an unmitigated failure is to miss the point because the ANC is neither. Despite this, there is no doubt that the change in the relationship between the ANC and State power has changed many of its members and leaders in ways that are a betrayal of the principles which drove the struggle against apartheid. The relationship between money and internal ANC politics has become one of the defining features of battles for leadership positions in both the party and government.

Obviously, a divided ruling party with only 16 years of experience in governance cannot deliver optimally. In other words, the ANC is a party in decline for all the wrong reasons. The subjective interests of too many of its members have become more important than the national interest. In a book chapter, I argued that: “Some commentators may be motivated by the racist belief that dictators and one-party States are part of the DNA of African politics. But this should not detract from the fact that democratic deficits could emerge in South Africa because internal contradictions in the ruling party may . . . undermine the separation between State and party, harming the quality of the democratic experience of ordinary citizens.”

The harm, however, seems to be happening more at the level of the substantive than the procedural. In other words, our democracy at the moment is delivering less than it promises with regard to changing the lot of the poor, the working class and the unemployed class. The challenge this presupposes cannot be met by a divided ruling party and society. In other words, without unity, it will be difficult for the country to achieve its developmental goals.

The launch of the framework for a new economic growth path by Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel will test the country in this regard. While it is not possible to agree on everything, a common economic and developmental vision will not be possible unless we succeed in transcending the race and class cleavages that are still part of South African life. This we must do in addition to transcending the vested interests of powerful policy communities in this country. Success in this regard will depend on leadership – that of the ANC and President Jacob Zuma.

Because the ANC will probably remain a party in decline in the period spanning the next four general elections – unless it achieves a change in the content of internal political and leadership battles – the best we can hope for is an impasse equilibrium in the state between those who are driven by values of delivery and those whose interests are defined by the values of politics. Otherwise, collapse is the alternative.

Source: Polity: Aubrey Matshiqi

Alassane Outtarra has been declared winner of the Ivory Coast presidential election

After days of turmoil and uncertainty, the Ivory Coast Election Commission Chief, Youssouf Bakayoko, has announced that Opposition candidate Alassane Ouattara, has won 54.1 percent of the vote against the incumbent Laurent Gabgbo who managed a 45.9 percent share. But as expected, the supporters of the incumbent president described the announcement as an attempted coup d’état. This has led to the country’s border being closed and foreign journalists banned from reporting within the country.

In a statement immediately after the results were announced, Alassane Outtarra said “I remind my brother Laurent Gbagbo of our mutual engagement to respect the results proclaimed by the independent electoral commission,” he said. “I’m proud of my country which has resolutely chosen democracy today and I hope this leads to a durable peace in Ivory Coast.” The veteran opposition politician also called on his supporters to be calm and respect the outcome.

Apparently, for the result to become legitimate, they must be validated by the country’s constitutional council. But concerns have been expressed by analysts who are questioning the impartiality of the council as it is led by a ruling party loyalist called Paul Yao N’Dre. He (N’Dre) has already been quoted saying on state-controlled television, that the results announced by the electoral commission are invalid because they (the commission) missed a constitutionally prescribed mandate to make the announcement before the midnight deadline this past Wednesday.

Local state-owned media are accusing foreign governments of interference in the election and have denounced the electoral commission’s announcement. But it seems Laurent Gbagbo has lost the support of the international community and that of his own people, and it is extremely difficult to see him making any attempt once more to hang on to power as the writing seems to be finally on the wall that the people want change. Any further attempt to use violent means to stay in power might provoke all-out war in a country that has seen its own share of brutal civil conflict. The African Union should intervene immediately to ensure full democratic transition of power and prevent the country slipping into anarchy.

Source: Newstime Africa

Assange said to be hiding in Britain

An international manhunt is under way for WikiLeaks supremo Julian Assange, who is believed to be hiding in Britain. Interpol issued a “red notice” for the internet whistleblower who is wanted for questioning by police in Sweden after two women accused him of rape and sexual molestation. The 39-year-old Australian was added to the worldwide wanted list amid growing fury in Washington at the mass release of more than 250 000 classified US communiques.

Mark Stephens, Assange’s British-based lawyer, has questioned the timing of Interpol’s warrant, saying his client was being persecuted. But On Wednesday Scotland Yard launched a probe into the fugitive’s whereabouts after it was claimed he was holed up in a secret location in Britain. If he is held in the UK, he could face proceedings to extradite him to Sweden.

Assange lives a rootless life, has hardly any possessions and uses his Australian passport to stay with friends in various countries. Prosecutors in Sweden want to question Assange over alleged attacks on two women during a visit to Stockholm to give a lecture to the Social Democratic Party in August. He is accused of attacking one woman in Stockholm and then sexually assaulting another woman in the town of Enkoping, about 60km from the capital, three days later.

Stephens said his client had repeatedly offered to meet Swedish investigators either at the Swedish embassy in London or a UK police station. “The allegations against him are false and without basis,” he added. “In 28 years of practice I have never come across a prosecutor, whether in the third world or even in a totalitarian regime, where there has been such casual disregard by a prosecutor for their obligations. “Given that Sweden is a civilised country I am reluctantly forced to conclude that this is a persecution and not a prosecution.” He highlighted the fact that the Interpol alert was issued just two days after the WikiLeaks first release of US diplomatic cables.

An adviser to Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper has suggested Assange could be assassinated. Professor Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something” to rid the world of the Australian. Although he later rowed back from the remarks, it shows the growing anger in North America. Former US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Bradley Manning, the US army private thought to be behind the leak, should be executed. Manning is in military detention.

In other news, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday hit out at a “slanderous” leaked cable that described him as Batman and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as the comic book hero’s sidekick Robin. Putin - widely believed to be the real power broker in the Kremlin - took exception to America’s portrayal of him as being the one in the political tandem who called the shots. Speaking to CNN host Larry King last night, Putin said the caped crusader portrayal was “aimed to slander one of us”. It is the most high-profile condemnation of the leaks. The combative Russian leader hit back after one secret US document released by Wikileaks described him as an “alpha-dog” and another said Russia was a “virtual mafia state”. He said US Defence Secretary Robert Gates was “deeply misled” in saying, according to the cables, that “Russian democracy has disappeared”.

Source: IoL

Karl Marx on press Freedom Support the Right to Know Campaign

Simon Spoor alerted me to this excellent article by Karl Marx on press freedom. The Right to Know campaign is mobilising local and global public opinion against the government’s Secrecy Bill. What Marx says about press freedom is also true for the right to access information. The Marx article is difficult but worth working through and it also makes good points about law. It tells me why a socialist prefers a judge to a state official and why we prefer “the rule of law to the rule of men [and some women]“.

This quote from Marx romantic though it is captures the discussion and shows why we should resist any attempt to muzzle the media and to deny us access to information.

The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises their crude material form. It is a people’s frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews its soul.

Democratic rights are not for sale to private interests nor to be sacrificed for political expediency. The government of President Jacob Zuma must withdraw its assaults on our freedoms.

Source: Writing Rights: Zackie Achmat

Civil society takes up fight against info Bill

Civil society organisations are willing to take the fight over the proposed Protection of Information Bill, currently before Parliament, all the way to the Constitutional Court should the Bill be passed in its current form. Speaking at the launch of the Right2Know campaign on Tuesday, Idasa's (Institute for Democracy in South Africa) Judith February, a member of the campaign's working group, said that should the Bill become law in its current form it would be a "slight on our Constitution".

The Right2Know campaign was unveiled at St George's Cathedral in Cape Town, and encompasses more than 180 organisations and professional bodies, as well as prominent individuals, opposed to the Protection of Information Bill, or "Secrets Bill" as it is known. "We have the critical mass of support to take it to the Constitutional Court if needs be," she said.

The Bill aims to create a new framework of classification for state information. However, the campaigners argue the Bill extends the veil of secrecy in a manner reminiscent of apartheid-era secrecy legislation. The organisations steering Right2Know include Idasa, the Institute for Security Studies, the South African History Archives, the South African National Editors' Forum, the Freedom of Expression Institute and the Mail & Guardian Centre for Investigative Journalism (amaBhungane). Bodies such as the Black Sash and the Treatment Action Campaign have also thrown their weight behind the campaign.

In addition, more than 400 individuals, including prominent public figures such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, author Nadine Gordimer and former minister of intelligence Kadar Asmal, have also declared their support for the Right2Know campaign. Further backing has come from international bodies such as Global Witness, Access Info Europe, the African Information Centre and Transparency International. Allison Tilley of the Open Democracy Advice Centre, another member of the campaign's working group, said while it did not believe that the Bill would be passed in its current form, it was "ready and able" to go to the Constitutional Court if need be.

The campaign highlighted major problems with the Bill as it currently stands, including: the power of any state agency, government department, parastatal and even municipality to classify public information as secret; the extent to which even ordinary information to do with service delivery can potentially be classified; the power to classify commercial information, making it difficult to hold business and government to account for inefficiency and corruption; the threat of prosecution of anyone involved in the "unauthorised" handling of classified information. It demanded that amendments be made to the Bill, including limiting secrecy to state bodies such as the police, defence and intelligence agencies; limiting secrecy to strictly defined "national security" matters; and excluding commercial information from such protection.

Tilley said that the Bill could follow two paths going forward -- it could be withdrawn and returned to the Department of State Security for review, or it could continue through Parliament's more transparent processes. Should the document be returned to the department, however, Tilley warned that it would have to follow a process that allowed for the open and transparent interaction with the public and stakeholders.

During the week of October 19, a public awareness week will be launched that will include a public march to Parliament to coincide with the announcement of the mid-term budget.

Source: Mail & Guardian

The ANC is not the state

Living in a constitutional democracy can be unsettling and complicated – especially if one has not embraced the values underlying a functioning constitutional democracy. In such a democracy all role players must accept that there are competing views of what constitutes the public good. They also have to accept that it is legitimate for members of different political parties to advance alternative versions of what would constitute the public good or how to achieve it.

Even if one passionately believes that one’s own version of the public good (or the version of the public good espoused by the political party of ones choice) is the correct one, one has to embrace the idea that other, competing and even radically different visions, are legitimate – even if one believes that these alternative versions are dangerously misguided and immoral or that pursuing such alternative versions would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the majority of the citizens (or the majority of citizens who voted for the party of ones choice).

One must also accept that the political party of one’s choice has to compete for votes in free and fair elections and that the party who wins the majority of votes at an election (even if it is the party that one belongs to, supports steadfastly and may have been one of the parties involved in the struggle for a just South Africa), has no divine right to rule and holds power only temporarily and at the mercy of voters.

One must accept (even if one is its leader and the President of the country) that the current ruling party’s continued rule is subject to the continued support of the majority of voters who at any future free and fair election can reject the vision put forward by that party and vote into government another party or parties to rule the country.

What flows from this is the need to accept that there is a fundamental difference between the ruling party and its interests, the government and its interests, and the state. If the ruling party is voted out of office the state will continue functioning; ID books and passports will continue to be issued, social grants will continue to be paid, judges will continue to interpret and enforce the law and the constitution – even if the party of one’s choice is rejected at the ballot box and a new party or parties (temporarily) take over the government.

In a constitutional democracy the health and wellbeing of the ruling party is not to be equated with the wellbeing of the citizens. Taxpayers can therefore not be required to pay for party political activities – except to the extent that all political parties in the legislature are funded in a fair and equitable manner. The party in government cannot utilize government resources to fund its activities. If it did, it would be abusing its powers to gain an unfair electoral advantage and this will make free and fair elections impossible.

Where the party in government abuses public resources to advance its own party political interests it therefore acts in an anti-democratic manner and undermines the basic values underlying the South African Constitution. When the governing party abuses state resources to keep itself in power, it signals the death of democracy.

Where one political party dominates the political landscape (in, what is called a dominant party democracy) and continues in office for a considerable period the distinction between the majority party, the government and the state tends to get blurred. Members of such a governing party have a tendency to begin to believe that the party, the government it leads and the state are the same thing and that the state and the government are there to further the interests of the party (because the party is the embodiment of the aspirations of the people).

Because it is wrongly assumed that such a governing party’s vision of the public good is the only legitimate vision and the only one that could possibly be morally valid (because the majority party has won successive elections with large majorities of the popular vote), members of such a majority party can begin to believe that the interests of the party, the interests of the state and the interests of the citizens of the country are all one and the same thing.

Only the majority party is then seen as being capable of advancing the interests of the majority of citizens and a belief may take hold that the majority party has a right to continue ruling the country in perpetuity. The party and the state becomes difficult to distinguish from one another because it is assumed that the party will continue in government for a very long time (or even for ever – remember Iain Smiths comment that his party would rule “Rhodesia” for a 1000 years) and that it therefore “owns” the state.

This view is deeply problematic because it negates the essence of democracy, namely that a political party does not own the state but only temporarily holds the reigns of state power, serving the people as the governing party until the next election – when it can be returned to government or can be rejected by voters while the state continues to function in its normal fashion.

It is against this background that reported remarks by President Jacob Zuma at the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the ruling ANC last month must be viewed as rather disturbing. President Zuma is reported to have proposed that ANC NEC members should be allowed time off to advance the interests of the ANC:

If it is necessary, for example, to release NEC members in government to do organizational [thus ANC] work for two weeks every quarter, then we should agree to do so. People may be concerned that government work will suffer as a result. But it will suffer far more if there is no viable ANC to drive the process of social change.

These reported remarks illustrate, rather alarmingly, the tendency I have highlighted above. Because the ANC is (righty or wrongly) seen as the only body who can legitimately drive valid social change, the roles of members of the ANC government are equated with the roles of these members as leaders of the majority political party.

If President Zuma was reported correctly, he is clearly not a democrat in the sense that the term is usually used. The remarks suggest that Zuma fails to understand that in a constitutional democracy members of the government are elected by the voters and their salaries are paid by tax payers to do government business and that party business and government business is not the same thing.

Party business relates to activities aimed at mobilizing and promoting the political party to allow it to remain in power. Government business relates to the running of the country and implementing the policies of the governing party. Neither the party or the government “owns” the state.

The suggestion that ANC members in government must be allowed to do party political work for 8 weeks a year, assuming while they are being paid a salary by taxpayers, because the ANC is the only party that can drive social change, is therefore quite outrageous and anti-democratic. It conflates the party and the state and also assumes that the interests of the party and that of the government are the same.

President Zuma’s proposal is clearly not in line with what is allowed by the Constitution. Several provisions in the Constitution recognizes the fact that we live in a multi-party democracy in which free and fair elections forms the basis of the legitimacy of the government of the day. If President Zuma’s reported proposal is adopted it would completely subvert the multi-party nature of our democracy and would bring an end to any semblance of democracy in South Africa.

If President Zuma was reported correctly, he is not a democrat as envisaged by our constitution. In any case, his proposal would be unconstitutional. Someone should whisper in his ear and tell him this. Maybe it is time for the democrats in the ANC (of which there are many, along with the Stalinists and the kleptocratic nationalists), to stand up to our President (as they eventually did with Thabo Mbeki after he had embarked on a catastrophic and murderous questioning of the link between HIV and Aids and refused to roll out life saving ARVs to those who could not pay for it).

The ANC does not own the government or the state. Suggesting, as our President reportedly did, that it is, is just as troubling as the moves by the ruling party to muzzle the press. If he was reported correctly, every true democrat in South Africa would rightfully be outraged and a bit scared by his comments. Maybe its time for someone like Jeremy Cronin to show the same kind of backbone he showed in speaking out against the dictatorial tendencies of Thabo Mbeki.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking: Pierre De Vos

Why now?

There is no doubt that the media is facing the greatest threat to its freedom since the advent of democracy. The proposed Protection of Information Bill and Media Appeals Tribunal, the proposed Protection from Harassment Bill (which thankfully seems to have been put on hold), the proposed Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Amendment Bill and the proposed Public Broadcasting Service Bill all aim to tighten the control of the government over the free flow of information.

We are far from the dark days of apartheid (see picture below) when the Nationalist government muzzled the press to try and retain its illegitimate power. We live in a constitutional democracy now and our courts will probably play a pivotal role in preventing the muzzling of the media (or will at least limit the effectiveness of such attempts). They will do so, because most judges understand that the free flow of information is, of course, the lifeblood of any democracy.

The question is: why now? Why is the government of the day orchestrating this concerted effort to change the way in which our media report on government activities? It is tempting to find an answer by turning to the personalities involved and arguing that President Zuma and other ANC leaders are upset about how the media has reported on their own activities and actions. But another reason for this attack on the media suggests itself and can be found in the utterances and documents of the ruling party itself.

Perhaps the move against the free media is based on a realistic acknowledgement on the part of the ANC that it is facing a crisis of legitimacy. It seems incapable of addressing this crisis, so some of its leaders might believe that the only way to deal with the problem is to stop the reporting on events that has precipitated this crisis.

I offer a few quotes below to illustrate this point. President Jacob Zuma at a March 2008 National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting:

When elected leaders at the highest level openly engage in factionalist activity, where is the movement that aims to unite the people of South Africa for the complete liberation of the country from all forms of discrimination and national oppression? When money changes hands in the battle for personal power and aggrandizement, where is the movement that is built around membership that joins without motives of material advantage and personal gain? When the members of the NEC themselves engage in factionalist activity, media leaks and rumour-mongering, how can we ex pect the membership of our movement to carry out their duties toobserve di scipline, behave honestly and carry out loyally the decisions of the majority and the decision of higher bodies?

From the admirably frank document on “Leadership Renewal, discipline and organizational culture” prepared for the ANC National General Council later this year, which highlights the following tenancies in the ANC:

12.1 Leadership in the ANC is seen as stepping-stones to positions of power and material reward in government and business (Organisational report to the 1997 Mafikeng Confe rence).

12.2 The emergence of social distance between ANC cadres in positions of power from the motive forces which the ANC represent, with the potential to render elements in the movement “progressively lethargic to the conditions of the poor.” (Strategy and Tactics, 1997)

12.3 Disturbing trends of “careerism, corruption and opportunism,” alien to a revolutionary movement, taking roots at various levels, eating at our soul and with potential to denude our society of an agent of real change. (Midterm Review, NGC, 2000)

12.4 Divisive leadership battles over access to resources and patronage becoming the norm and allegations about corruption and business interests of leadership and deployed cadres abounding (Organisational report to the Stellenbosch Conference, 2002).

49. Failure to build a New Person (continued the 2000 NGC document), among revolutionaries themselves and, in a more diffuse manner in broader society, will result in a critical mass of the vanguard movement being swallowed in the vortex of the arrogance of power and attendant social distance and corruption, and, ultimately, themselves being transformed by the very system they seek to change. An important challenge, among others, is thus to ensure a systematic intervention by the ideological centres and institutions of society, as well as mothers and fathers and the family as a whole in shaping social values and a new morality.

53. Strategy and Tactics (2007: par. 138) recognizes the challenges and ‘sins’ of incumbency (patronage, bureaucratic indifference, arrogance of power, corruption) and suggests approaches to the management of relations within the organization. Our ability to manage this minefield, it contends, will determine “our future survival as a principled leader of the process of fundamental change, an organization respected and cherished by the mass of people for what it represents and how it conducts itself in actual practice.”

From the various ANC discussion documents it is clear that the problem of legitimacy facing the ANC has long been acknowledged by the movement. As far back as the Stellenbosch conference in 2002 these “tendencies” were identified. But now, eight years later, the problem has become more acute and the movement has been unable to address them in any meaningful way. It is one thing to admit the problem. It is a completely different matter to deal with it effectively.

A culture of forgiveness (or some would call it impunity) starting at the very top of the leadership, makes it very difficult to address the problems and to take decisive action against ANC leaders in government.

Tony Yengeni, due to his admirable role in the struggle, is carried shoulder high to prison. President Jacob Zuma, due to his admirable stance against the dictatorial tendencies of the former President, is elected as leader of the movement despite the fact that he took money from a crook, did favors for that crook and then submitted a fake loan agreement to Parliament to try and justify this. Ebrahim Rasool is accused of handing out brown envelopes to journalists and, because of his good work in the Western Cape, is appointed as ambassador to Washington. MP’s abuse the travel scheme of Parliament, is convicted and remain in their positions.

The list is endless.

The only way the ANC is going to address the problems so frankly and admirably highlighted in the discussion documents is to fundamentally change its prevailing culture which rewards (or at least turns a blind eye) to transgressions, illegality and even criminality.

What is needed is a body (perhaps an improved version of the Scorpions) that will vigorously and impartial investigate corruption, nepotism and the like across the board. Such a body should instill fear in the hearts of every official and politician – whether it is the President or a ward councillor in Lusikisiki. For such a body to have any effect, no one should feel safe from investigation and prosecution. And once a person is investigated and successfully prosecuted he or she should be expelled from the movement – at least for a certain period.

But because the problem seems so widespread (one could say endemic) – as is made clear by the ANC discussion document – it will be very difficult if not impossible for the ANC to take this rout. That is why the Scorpions was abolished and, I would suggest, why the ANC is trying to tighten its grip on the media. Many ANC leaders understand that it has a problem and know that the movement is incapable of dealing with it effectively. The next best thing is therefore to try and hide this fact from the electorate.

But because we live in an open and democratic society this will not be possible. The attempts by the ANC to deal with the firmly entrenched master narrative (a narrative that suggests the ANC has become corrupt and heartless) by muzzling the media is therefore doomed to failure. But I guess some in the ANC believe it is worth a try.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking: Pierre De Vos

For democracy's sake, mistrust the government

Being politically ignorant has become symbolic of young people today, but, unless we wake up to a full understanding of how the African National Congress now poses a threat to democracy itself, we risk losing the freedoms we come to take for granted.

There are three things no person should ever boast about - being a drug addict, being a social media “expert” and being politically ignorant. It is, therefore, with a sense of disquiet that I note how many young South Africans proudly declare “I don’t know anything about politics, and I don’t want to know because it doesn’t affect me.” Is it any wonder then, that the ruling party can steamroll constitutional rights with gay abandon, safe in the knowledge that their constituency will do nothing to stop them?

A few columns ago, I defended political apathy among the youth by saying, “We are creatures of circumstance – we act upon and react to what life throws at us. Our circumstances allow us to become politically apathetic. Our struggle is not about politics – it’s about economics. Our struggle heroes are men like Herman Mashaba.”

Things have changed drastically since then. The government and ruling party have mounted one of the single greatest threats to democracy in South Africa by introducing a mass of new legislation, including the Protection of Information Bill and laws that would put in place a media appeals tribunal. Our circumstances have changed, drastically changed. Our situation no longer allows us to be politically apathetic.

Democracy is a demanding ideal. It requires an active constituency that keeps the government in check at all times. Democracy demands that the government should be fearful of the people. Totalitarianism on the other hand, requires nothing more than for people to do as they are told, to blindly follow their government wherever it leads and for the people never to question the government.

North Korea and Kim Jong Il have become the embodiment of the “cult of personality” in our times. We may be tempted to congratulate ourselves for escaping a similar fate in South Africa. But when I observe the almost unthinking adulation for the ANC by young people, despite the party becoming consumed by the naked plunder of state resources, corruption and the “African big man” mentality, then I begin to wonder whether there isn’t a cult of personality of sorts here, aimed not at an individual, but at a political party as a whole. It’s not as if it hasn’t happened in other African countries before.

The ANC is elevating itself to the position of sole protector of rights, as it is busy elevating itself to sole “liberator” of the people, and we are complicit in this perversion of history and government by not questioning and criticising the government. The ruling party believes that since it single-handedly wrested democracy from the hands of the apartheid government, the ANC alone can rule and alone can give or take away rights.

Not all is well in the media, but a media appeals tribunal is not the way to go about fixing these problems. Anyone who would think the way to solve problems within the media is through government control is throwing the Constitution into the dustbin, and abandoning all pretences of living in a constitutional democracy.

The saddest part is that my generation is not equipping itself with the tools necessary to become an active participant in the democratic process. We are not reading up on critical investigative reports that expose corruption and mismanagement of public funds. We are not reading at all. We are woefully ignorant of the erosion of our rights and our freedoms. We stand idly by as the government launches a broadside attack on the media because we don’t grasp how this could possibly affect us. We’d rather concern ourselves with what Khethiwe did on “Generations” than with the future of our country.

Is it any wonder that race still dominates political discourse in this country? It’s all we know. That’s where we’re safe, where we can hold our own ground with rank clichés and bumper-sticker slogans. When macroeconomic policy or the rule of law come up, we quickly hide behind, “I don’t care about politics because it doesn’t affect me”.

The woeful absence of anything that begins to resemble an attractive opposition party aside, we are voting with our hearts, not our heads.

What a dreadful, dreadful mistake we are making. We trust our government. We trust the ANC. If we were voting for the ANC because it presented the best policies and leaders of all, and if it stood to lose its grip on power at any moment if it did anything to upset the constituency, there would be no talk of a Protection of Information Bill and there would be no attempts to muzzle the media.

We can still save this country. It’s not too late yet. The first step is to stop blindly trusting the government and the ANC. They are in power for us, not for themselves.

Source: The Daily Maverick

‘Disturbing Events’ Marred Rwanda Leader’s Re-election, U.S. Says

The United States has expressed concern about “disturbing events” surrounding last Monday’s presidential election in Rwanda in which the incumbent drew 93 percent of the votes. The National Security Council said in a statement on Friday that progress has been made in Rwanda since the 1994 genocide of 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. “We remain concerned, however, about a series of disturbing events prior to the election, including the suspension of two newspapers, the expulsion of a human rights researcher, the barring of two opposition parties from taking part in the election, and the arrest of journalists,” said the statement, which was issued by the council’s spokesman, Mike Hammer.

The statement did not congratulate the incumbent, Paul Kagame, for his re-election. His nearest rival, Jean Damascene Ntawukuliryayo of the Social Democratic Party, won 5 percent of the vote, according to final election results released Wednesday.

Rwanda’s stability and prosperity will be difficult to sustain without broad political debate and open political participation, Mr. Hammer said.

Critics say the Rwandan election campaign was marred by government repression. Human rights groups pointed to mounting violence during the period before the election after the fatal shooting of a local journalist and the killing of an opposition official who was found nearly beheaded in July. The government denied involvement.

“Democracy is about more than holding elections,” Mr. Hammer said. “A democracy reflects the will of the people, where minority voices are heard and respected, where opposition candidates run on the issues without threat or intimidation, where freedom of expression and freedom of the press are protected.”

The statement also said that the council had “expressed our concerns to the government of Rwanda, and we hope the leadership will take steps toward more democratic governance, increased respect for minority and opposition views, and continued peace.”

Source: New York Times

The Auckland Park Declaration

We, the title editors of South Africa's major publications and members of the South African National Editors' Forum, are deeply concerned about attempts to curtail freedom of expression and the free flow of information in our country.

Free speech and access to information are the lifeblood of our democracy and were at the very heart of the struggle for freedom. Human dignity is indivisible from freedom of speech.

We vigorously oppose the restrictive clauses in the Protection of Information Bill and the proposed media appeals tribunal.

We appeal to the South African government and the ruling ANC to abide by the founding principles of our democracy, and to abandon these proposed measures.

We commit ourselves to join hands with all South Africans who value their freedom to defend these basic rights which are enshrined in, and are indeed the cornerstone of, our constitution.

1 Ainsley Moos, Volksblad
2 Alan Dunn, Daily News
3 Alide Dasnois, Cape Times
4 Andrew Koopman, Son & Sondag Son
5 Andrew Trench, Daily Dispatch
6 Angela Quintal, The Mercury
7 Barney Mthombothi, Financial Mail
8 Bongani Keswa, Sowetan
9 Bun Booyens, Die Burger
10 Charles Mogale, Sunday World
11 Chiara Carter, Weekend Argus
12 Chris Whitfield, Editor-in-Chief,
Independent Newspapers Cape
13 Clyde Bawden, The Independent on Saturday
14 Dirk Lotriet, Sondag
15 Ferial Haffajee, City Press
16 Fikile Ntsikelelo Moya, The Witness
17 Jeremy McCabe, Weekend Post
18 Gasant Abarder, Cape Argus
19 Heather Robertson, The Herald
20 Jovial Rantao, The Star
21 Liza Albrecht, Rapport
22 Makhudu Sefara, The Sunday Independent
23 Martin Williams, The Citizen
24 Moegsien Williams, The Star
25 Mondli Makhanya, Editor-in-Chief, Avusa
26 Nic Dawes, Mail & Guardian
27 Peet Kruger, Editor-in-Chief, Media24
28 Peter Bruce, Business Day
29 Philani Mgwaba, Sunday Tribune
3. Phylicia Oppelt, The Times
31 Ray Hartley, Sunday Times
32 Thabo Leshilo, Avusa Public Editor
33 Themba Khumalo, Daily Sun
34 Tim du Plessis, Beeld
35 Thulani Mbatha, Isolezwe
36 Zingisa Mkhuma, Pretoria News
37 Brijlall Ramguthee, The Post

Source: IoL

Journalists unite over media tribunal

The editors of major newspapers in South Africa have launched a campaign to fight what they have called attempts to curtail freedom of expression and the free flow of information. In a declaration published in a Sunday newspaper, 36 print editors said they were "deeply concerned" about proposed new legislation and a media tribunal. "We vigorously oppose the restrictive clauses in the Protection of Information Bill and the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT)," the declaration said.

In the statement, called The Auckland Park Declaration, they appealed to the government and the ruling ANC "to abide by the founding principles of our democracy and to abandon these proposed measures". They said freedom of expression and access to information were the "lifeblood" of the South African democracy and that the press was "at the very heart of the struggle for freedom". This comes as the ANC prepares to meet with the media on Tuesday at Lilliesleaf in Sandton to discuss, among other things, the tribunal.

According to a resolution taken at the ANC's 52nd National Congress in 2007 in Polokwane, the establishment of a Media Appeals Tribunal should be investigated.

Source: IoL

How corruption sustains the ANC – and is killing our democracy

Official opposition leader Helen Zille’s latest weekly newsletter offers up an essential analysis of why corruption within the ANC is endemic and how its deep, poisonous tentacles are steadily strangling South Africa’s constitutional democracy.

Read it below:

Why Zuma couldn’t stop corruption, even if he wanted to

The utterances of the ANC today have all the hallmarks of the double-think of George Orwell’s 1984. If you haven’t read the book, double-think involves holding two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. This means that when your actions contradict your words, you actually believe your own propaganda. Examples of ANC double-think abound, but nowhere is it more apparent than its stance on corruption. How often have we seen commentators praising ANC leaders, including the President, for their tough talk on corruption? It always ends with rhetoric. Action never follows.

When the President launched the ANC’s manifesto before the last election, he said: “Most importantly, the ANC will step up measures in the fight against corruption within its ranks and the State…this will include measures to review the tendering system, to ensure that ANC members in business, public servants and elected representatives do not abuse the State for corrupt practices.”

In his State of the Nation address this year, he said: “We will pay particular attention to combating corruption and fraud in procurement and tender processes…” He said the same thing the year before. Yet, we have seen no measures introduced to actually do anything about corruption.

These repeated anti-corruption promises are deeply ironic given the cloud of corruption that hangs over the President himself. Extreme double-think must be necessary for Zuma to speak of his “zero tolerance” approach to corruption when he knows how many quashed charges hang over his own head. More than that. As he attacks corruption, President Zuma knows that the ANC undermined the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority to avoid ANC leaders, including himself, having to answer corruption charges in court. The Constitution itself is being sacrificed to the ANC’s corruption.

What’s more, the ANC has even set up front companies to institutionalise corruption. Most notorious is Chancellor House. Its purpose is to channel tenders and contracts from the ANC in government to the ANC in business in order to enrich the ANC and its leaders. Straight, institutionalised corruption.

Chancellor House facilitated the deal between Eskom and Hitachi Africa, to manufacture boilers for the proposed Medupi Power Station, from which the ANC stands to make an estimated R1-billion tax free profit. Eskom will have to pay with taxpayers’ money. And, as a result, the ANC will become one of the wealthiest political parties in the world. Let South Africans remember this when they pay their inflated electricity bills.

So, while some in the ANC leadership rail against the proliferation of tenderpreneurs, the ANC has become the tenderpreneur-in-chief. A pattern is emerging here: the more corrupt the ANC becomes, the tougher its anti-corruption stance. Indeed, this is how double-think works. The graver the deed, the greater the falsehood required to neutralise it in one’s mind.

It is time for everyone to realise that corruption is not just an aberration in the ANC that must be ‘rooted out’ from time to time. The ANC needs corruption to survive, it is its lifeblood. It needs it to fund its election campaigns. It needs it to pay the loyalty networks necessary for ANC leaders to entrench their power. And it needs corruption to pay for its leadership’s lifestyles. ANC leaders in the party, the state, and in business have become an interlocked network of patronage and corruption. Everyone knows that everyone else is corrupt, so they cover up for each other, and abuse power to tighten their grip, undermining independent institutions and eliminating opposition both inside and outside the Party.

In the process, the ANC is turning South Africa into a criminal state. What will it take to get us out of this sordid mess?

The obvious thing would be for President Zuma to stop talking about corruption and take decisive action to actually expose and prevent it. He could announce anti-corruption measures such as preventing political parties from doing business with the state. He could announce laws which prevent government employees from doing business with government. And, he could stop the deployment of cadres to parastatals and institutions integral to the fight against corruption, such as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He could re-instate the independence of the criminal justice system to expose and prosecute corruption without fear or favour.

But he cannot do any of these things without exposing himself and his closest political allies to criminal prosecution. The criminal justice system has been perverted as an instrument for persecuting political opponents and protecting political allies. But even this selective use of the criminal justice system is becoming difficult because the entire ANC edifice — allies and opponents alike — are caught in what Allister Sparks calls a ‘corruption gridlock’. Senior ANC members have so much dirt on each other, that they dare not take action against corruption. If one goes down, he will take the rest down with them. This is precisely what Jacob Zuma himself threatened to do when faced with prosecution relating to the arms deal before he became President.

This explains why the corruption in the arms deal was so successfully covered up. It explains why Julius Malema was able to get away with what he did and said before any rebuke whatsoever from Zuma. It explains why Schabir Shaik is still on medical parole, despite no evidence that he is terminally ill.

In all of these cases, the ANC leadership is paralysed because of its dubious past and future interest in maintaining the status quo. Zuma cannot go beyond rhetoric and take real action against corruption for fear of alienating those who have enough information to bring him down. His time and energy is spent placating those who hold this power over him instead of governing. This is the consequence of endemic corruption.

Most people think Zuma needed to avoid jail so he could become President. Actually, the opposite is true. Zuma needed to become President so that he could avoid jail.

Now that he has succeeded, Zuma is paralysed as a President. You can be sure that nothing will come of his rebuke of Malema. There will be no tough anti-corruption measures taken while he is in office. And, in time, Schabir Shaik will receive a presidential pardon.

If we dig deep enough, I believe we would discover that Jacob Zuma continues to benefit from corrupt relationships to this day. The lifestyle of his family is too lavish to be affordable on his presidential income. We wonder how he can spend R65 million – which he has insisted is his own money – renovating his residence at Nkandla. And we marvel at how he can support his wives, his fiancée and 20 children on a single salary.

But we also know that his family members, including his wives, are involved in over 100 companies – some of which benefit from state contracts. It was therefore not surprising that Zuma missed the deadline to declare his financial interests by 10 months, and only disclosed his assets when public pressure forced him to. The irresistible inference is that his advisors were sanitising his business interests for public consumption.

All of this tells us why Zuma cannot get tough on corruption, even if he wanted to. The cronies he relies on for political support benefit from corruption too much. Not only this, the ANC benefits. Most of all, Zuma and his family benefit.

This week, the DA tabled private members legislation in the National Assembly that, if passed, would put an end to political parties doing business with the state. This would have prevented the ANC from using its influence at Eskom to grant a multi-billion rand state contract to a company it has a stake in.

Also this week, we announced new legislation in the Western Cape, where the DA governs, that will prevent state employees and their families from doing business with the state, because of the clear conflict of interest this presents.

I have challenged President Zuma to implement this legislation at national level and I look forward to seeing his response. But I am not holding my breath. After all, he is caught in a corruption gridlock. He has too much to lose from taking decisive action against graft.

But what Zuma and his cronies need to understand is that, if they do not act against corruption in their ranks soon, they will lose in the end. They must remember that we live in a democracy and that they are subject to the will of the people. The time will come when even the ANC’s staunchest supporters will realise what their party has become. The only remedy available in a democracy is to vote for an alternative.

As ANC NEC member Jeremy Cronin said this week: “The ANC should realise overwhelmingly that the honeymoon is over.”

Source: Afrodissident: Alex Matthews