SA must shun patronage
The article “Beware of a shallow culture” (November 4) by Joel Netshitenzhe initiates a vital debate. Where exactly are black South African culture, and South Africa, heading?
Netshitenzhe is concerned about a loss of direction in South Africa. He stresses the need to continually hold an ethical vision of a future country that will motivate society, and particularly its economic actors, to strive towards that ideal. He is concerned about the danger of a rapidly developing culture of conspicuous consumption in the black politically connected elite, while the generality of the population remain off the radar screen except during elections.
Liberation from apartheid has been achieved but will modern South Africa decline and disappear, like the cultures of Mapungubwe, Thulamela and Dzata?
The emerging malaise of avarice and corruption among some of the elite in South Africa, at the expense of a socially inclusive ethical vision, mirrors similar developments in many other African societies as they emerged from European domination.
The system of post-independence governance practised in these societies was unable to mitigate the universal human instinct of self-centredness, resulting in fragmentation of the national focus. Such fragmentation underpins the numerous conflicts across the continent.
It is proposed that at the heart of African governance lies an acceptance of a systemic form of patronage. For example, the black empowerment strategy in South Africa seems designed to enrich a limited number of politically connected individuals. This clique of new businessmen has become immensely wealthy in a very short space of time, not particularly by dint of their own entrepreneurial talent or hard work, but because of patronage.
There needs to be a redistribution of South African wealth, but a few well connected people will get the lion’s share while the middle class project is delayed, or derailed, to accommodate these lucky few.
Patronage is the antithesis of democracy. Democracy enshrines the equal value of each citizen; everyone has a vote; everyone has an equal right to a slice of the cake; everyone has equal time to be heard.
Patronage is for those few around the king who can protect him, guarantee his stay in office, funnel wealth to him. In return, he manipulates the levers of state power to enrich them and shield them when they break the law.
Patronage is an age-old system — all societies function to some extent on patronage, as it lies at the heart of human nature to help your friends first.
But patronage must always be subservient to democracy. It must always bow before the law, never supplant the national vision, and cannot trample over fairness or equity. If South Africa is to succeed in the long term, real democracy must be embraced, and government by patronage must be rejected. — Richard Owen, Harare
Zuma-ites are leftists in Levi’s
As a leader, Jacob Zuma has shown lack of judgement in his personal finances and a willingness to engage in corrupt commercial relationships to obtain the expensive life he cannot afford.
His failure to see when people are dishing out favours in a way that compromises him as a public office-bearer is worrying.
He is further willing to exploit the ignorance of the masses and build support on their emotions. He is always singing Umshini wam (My machine gun), a revolutionary song that evokes rebellious behaviour from the people.
Zuma’s support in KwaZulu-Natal borders on a personality cult. His supporters have made it clear they are willing to use violence.
He is effectively leading a revolution in the media against the African National Congress and party leaders. He is also building support as a contingency plan, in anticipation of a possible guilty verdict in his trial.
By suggesting he will not get a fair trial, Zuma displays dangerous characteristics of corrupt leaders who cast doubt on election processes in anticipation of a defeat.
Zuma has support from people who call for “socialism now!” The current state of affairs could lead to a situation where a strong left element comes into leadership and attempts to transform the country into a socialist state, with disastrous consequences. The left’s leaders have repeatedly shown they are out of contact with global politico–economic realities.
Zuma makes high-sounding, poor-oriented promises without getting into detail about how they can be implemented. One battles to understand the socialist understanding and commitment of his Levi’s-clad, Samsung D500-carrying consumerist supporters. They are threatening to remove S’bu Ndebele as the KwaZulu-Natal ANC leader, despite his efficiency as former transport minister and currently as premier.
Because of the Zuma saga, the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the Communist Party have effectively hijacked the ANC, are setting the agenda and silencing ANC leaders.
While one understands their frustration about the lack of delivery and job losses, they have not diagnosed the problem correctly. Many government departments could generate jobs, but underperform and underspend their budgets. As many public sector workers are Cosatu members, the federation is conspicuously silent on these issues, instead blaming “the capitalists” in the ANC leadership.
As in the 1980s, the people have become fertile ground for revolutionary movements because of dissatisfaction with the government’s lack of delivery. They are led to believe that this is because the few at the top are reaping the benefits while they remain poor. They are then taken advantage of by opportunists like Zuma to further their own agendas. — Tennyson Mahlambi
We won’t forget Zuma’s contribution during the struggle, but he is becoming a danger to the ANC and the country. He wants us to forget what his case is about — his alleged corrupt relationship with Schabir Shaik.
I fully support Mbeki’s bold step in sacking him. The country commends him for this decisive move.
In his image-cleaning attempt, Zuma is using dangerous tactics. He has led his supporters to believe he is innocent at all costs.
He concentrates on the flaws in the Scorpions investigation, without affording us an opportunity to hear whether, on merit, he is innocent. He has employed obstructive tactics, including allegations that Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid spy.
The Scorpions were over-zealous and allowed the media too much access to information privy to them. And Ngcuka may have been injudicious with his now-famous “prima facie evidence” without being willing to prosecute. This does not divert from the need to get to the bottom of allegations against Zuma.
Zuma has tacitly blessed the undermining of the law in this country. That we will not forget. — Norman Mabasa, Kagiso
Of course, the ANC is not a one-man organisation. But if Mbeki collapsed today, most self-anointed popular leaders would be found wanting and show no backbone.
The corrupt would have a field day, indiscipline and populism would reign supreme. The rand would plunge under the impact of popular economics. Personal ambition would be the ruling philosophy, advancing people towards self-aggrandisement through state power.
Mbeki has fought against these tendencies with vigour, and always with little support and ever-mounting criticism. — Walter Mothapo, Polokwane
The conflict between Mbeki and Zuma could lay the foundation for a new party arising out of the ANC, which could become an effective opposition. Socialists and capitalists in the ANC are mapping out a divorce that could birth a new and vibrant political environment.
The socialists believe the capitalists are abandoning the ANC’s bible, the Freedom Charter, and that the economic system must radically respond to poverty. The capitalists believe one needs robust economic accumulation before considering the broader community.
Some ANC cadres feel that differences within the party are too sensitive to be identified, but I’m convinced history will champion my argument.
The continuity of our democracy and the sustainability of our freedom depend on a strong opposition party, which the cracks in the ANC mountain could be the start of. — Mokgophana Ramasobana, Newtown
Who’s the real buffoon?
In “Mbeki reaps as he sowed” (November 4), Drew Forrest claimed that “buffoons such as denialist campaigner Anthony Brink imagine the pressure on the president came from white journalists”. Actually, Forrest is the buffoon.
I argue in my forthcoming book, Just Say Yes, Mr President: Mbeki and Aids, that it has been white liberal journalists’ appreciation of their irrelevance in forcing the adoption of Aids treatment policy in South Africa that accounts for their extraordinarily vicious animus towards President Thabo Mbeki in their columns — their base style epitomised by Forrest’s latest dismal offering.
Forrest describes me as a “denialist campaigner”. I’m not denying anything. What I’ve done for nearly a decade is to bring to the government’s attention an enormous, growing corpus of little-known research literature in the medical and scientific press concerning the exceptionally serious toxicity of AZT and nevirapine. And that unborn and newly born children, mostly black, mostly poor in this country, are at particular risk of being killed or crippled by these drugs.
But readers of the Mail & Guardian wouldn’t know about this, because such information has been banned.
“This newspaper has always supported the need for an effective anti-retroviral programme and will not in future [publish anything] which dilutes this message or creates confusion in the minds of readers,” editor Ferial Haffajee told me last year. “Our newspaper has been at the forefront of the push for anti-retrovirals in this country. Our brand has suffered [from the publication of an article pointing out that hundreds of studies have found that AZT is profoundly toxic to all cells of the human body, and that numerous studies have found that children exposed to AZT in the womb and after birth suffer brain damage, neurological disorders, paralysis, spasticity, mental retardation, epilepsy, other serious diseases and early death.] … Publishing [another article referring to the side effects of extremely toxic pharmaceutical drugs like AZT and nevirapine] will continue to damage our brand,” Haffajee said.
M&G chief operations officer Hoosain Karjeiker spoke the same way: “We are proponents of AZT … Yes [it’s objectionable to] cast aspersions on AZT and nevirapine … it’s dissident.”
In other words, the M&G has decided to black out these unpleasant facts about AZT and nevirapine to protect its brand. — Anthony Brink
Super-fast train impractical
Your article about the Gautrain (November 4) came as no surprise. Over the distances involved, a super-fast train is impractical: it would spend most of the trip speeding up and slowing down.
The Shanghai maglev train does exceed 400kph for a short stretch of the distance between the city and the airport. But it is clearly intended to be a technology demonstration, not a practical project.
In China, with a huge population and vast distances to cover, a super-fast train network is a reasonable future alternative to domestic air travel. The Shanghai train was developed as a prototype for such plans.
In Gauteng, a decent urban transport network would be far more sensible than a fast link to the airport. In London, you can speed to the city at 160kph, jump off the airport train, and connect to anywhere in the city via the tube or bus. In Gauteng, what would you do after getting off the train? Rent a car? You might as well do that at the airport. — Philip Machanick, Taringa, Australia
The minibus taxi represents a successful adaptation to conditions — but those conditions are bad ones.
The taxi is identical to the private car as regards its physical requirements. Whatever we do to discourage one will also hamper the effectiveness of the other. Cities that are not car-shaped will also not be minibus-taxi-shaped. — DG Coetzee, Claremont
Mediation
Your article “Infighting puts party at risk” (October 21) claimed that the British ambassador in Harare had been in telephonic contact with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) president, Morgan Tsvangirai and his deputy, Gibson Sibanda, offering to help resolve differences in the party. This is incorrect.
No offer of mediation has been made to anybody at the MDC by the ambassador or any other representative of the British government.
We believe it is for Zimbabweans to exercise their own democratic choices, and for Zimbabwean political parties to run their own affairs. — Paul Boateng, British High Commissioner