Brendan Boyle is wrong about Mbeki

The writer fails to support his arguments with convincing facts

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 10 March 2008

There are various half-truths in Brendan Boyle’s article, “Civil society must seize the moment to recreate debate” (Sunday Times, 09 March), but I’d like to draw his attention to only two of those.

Firstly, Boyle says, amongst other things, that: “The Native Club used its own uncertain definitions to ensure that only those who held similar views to Mbeki would be admitted to that influential talk shop.”

If it is true that the Native Club admits people with similar views to those of Mbeki, maybe Boyle would explain how known critics of Mbeki, such as Prof. Sipho Seepe, got admitted to the club.

Having attended almost all meetings of the Native Club last year, I know it as a matter of fact that not only are critics of the President welcome at the club; even non-blacks are invited to take part.

In one of the debates focussing on name-changes in the country, Kalie Kriel, spokesperson of the Afrikaner group, Afri Forum, was invited as a panellist. He came with several whites.

At the end of the debate, Native Club member Ngila Muendane invited Kriel to join the club in an effort to encourage a culture of debate in the country, especially amongst members of different racial groups.

Not surprisingly, Kriel turned away the invitation, not because he was inadmissible on the basis of his differences with Mbeki’s government or because of his skin complexion, but because he chose not to associate himself with the club.

Secondly, Boyle uses the controversy surrounding the re-launch of the Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) as an example to illustrate how Mbeki’s legacy as ANC president is tainted by “intellectual tyranny”, which, in simple terms, means stifled debate.

Interestingly, the said FBJ controversy involved new ANC president Jacob Zuma, who delivered an exclusive address to the forum’s controversial meeting, where white journalists were barred and sympathetic black colleagues labelled coconuts.

Boyle thus fails to support his arguments with convincing facts. And that’s typical South African journalism/political analysis: no research and, consequently, poor arguments supported by half-truths. The readers deserve better.