Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 23 May 2011
Based on the results of the recent municipal elections, various commentators in the mainstream media have started to marvel at what appears to be a definite shift in the voting patterns of the South African electorate.
In the last municipal elections in 2006, the African National Congress (ANC) obtained 66.3% of the national average. This year, the figure declined to about 62%.
Meanwhile, the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), has increased its support significantly from 14.8% of the national average in 2006 to almost 24% this year.
Based on these percentages, a presumption is being made that South Africa is heading towards a two-party state in which the DA may soon triumph over the ANC and become a ruling party at national level.
The possibility of a solidified opposition with enough muscle to defeat the ruling party at the polls is being marvelled at based on the benefits that may arise as a result of stiff competition between the two main parties.
It is generally acknowledged that when a ruling party faces the possibility of defeat at the polls, it becomes more competitive and that such competitive behaviour may ultimately benefit the voter.
Because of a variety of factors, however, South Africa is far from becoming a two-party state and is set to experience many more years of ANC domination.
Perhaps the biggest of those factors is the one most disdained by the minority elite; i.e. South Africans’ reluctance to accept that we have adequately addressed the legacy of apartheid and that we are ready to move forward as one united nation.
Many white people – especially the youth who repeatedly and desperately distance themselves from the atrocities of apartheid – do not understand why blacks continue to vote on the basis of what happened in the past.
On a Facebook friend’s discussion recently, a white man asked the question: “How much longer do us young generation of South Africans have to be taken back to apartheid?”
And my response: “Apartheid is still very fresh. There are people and institutions that are actively trying to maintain its economic, intellectual and cultural infrastructure.”
The man retorted with a familiar line. “I was not part of apartheid”, he said. “A black man who was not part of the struggle; how does he forgive?”
The discussion is one that should take place broadly and in an even-tempered environment, pure of the venom and bigotry that often characterises debates about past and present injustices as well as the bright, prosperous and just society that is envisioned in our constitution.
Unfortunately, we are not ready to speak with common purpose about the future we seek because we pretend to have dealt with our past despite glaring evidence to the contrary.
There is deep-seated mistrust based on our political history. Whites want everyone to move on and bury the ghost of apartheid because many of them, they say, cannot be held accountable for apartheid.
It is one thing not to be accountable for an act of injustice. It is something else to have benefited (and to continue to benefit) from it.
It is a fact that many in South Africa are reaping the economic benefits of apartheid and that their future generations, not guilty of apartheid, may also benefit from it.
Former President Thabo Mbeki, whilst still deputising Nelson Mandela in 1998, attracted widespread criticism when he spoke of South Africa as being a country with “two nations”, one of which is black and poor and another white and privileged.
The “black nation”, as Mbeki put it, “lives under conditions of a grossly underdeveloped economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure” and “has virtually no possibility to exercise what in reality amounts to a theoretical right to equal opportunity”.
The other nation, white and privileged, “has ready access to a developed economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure” which gives members of this group “the possibility to exercise their right to equal opportunity”.
It is precisely this racial and class divide that may determine – for a long period of time – the ability of the opposition, led by the DA, to garner enough votes to one day beat the ANC at the national polls.
For as long as South African society maintains the ugly shape that was moulded by apartheid, people are bound to continue voting along racial lines drawn by the same apartheid system.
The challenge, therefore, is not for white people to do everything in their power to maintain their apartheid-style economic privileges but to join hands with blacks towards an equal society in which all people are able to practically exercise their freedoms.
The great pity, though, is that the kind of equal society that Helen Zille talks about is not one of real economic equality but rather one of equal competition. And so the question arises: can there be equal and just competition amongst unequal people?
At the end of the day, it is the ability of black people to be free from economic bondage that will determine the success of the DA. And that, I am afraid, may not happen anytime soon because a lot of DA supporters seek protection from the poor, not inclusion.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
My encounter with Julius Malema
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 20 April 2011
Depending on which side of South Africa’s colourful history you most associate with and what your views are on contemporary socio-economic realities, Julius Malema, president of the ANC Youth League, could be described in completely opposing terms at the same time: a populist demagogue, a racist, a charismatic leader, a fearless truth-teller.
As it is now alleged in the hate speech trial brought against him by Afri Forum and the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) for his singing of the anti-apartheid struggle song dubul’ ibhunu (or shoot the Boer), Malema can sometimes also be a menace to some. He also allegedly incites his supporters to carry out racial attacks.
Counsel for AfriForum and TAU have argued in court that their clients are worried about Malema’s singing of the song in post-apartheid South Africa because the song (or chant as it's been called by a "music expert") incites violence against a particular grouping of the white population, the Boer.
Testifying in the case, AfriForum’s deputy CEO, Ernst Roets, said Malema uses violent language and threatening gestures and has even threatened a delegation of Afrikaners at a meeting that if they marched to the ANC’s headquarters in Johannesburg, “what happened to IFP members outside Shell House in 1994” would happen to them.
“I’m not a struggle expert,” said Roets, “so I asked what he meant.” At this point leaning forward in his chair, Malema allegedly told the Afrikaner delegation: “Come protest and you will see.”
Quite why many people fear Malema is a matter that goes far beyond the young man himself. The Malema I have known from a young age (and whom I had a chat with following a meeting in 2010) is anything but threatening.
In real life, he is not even what he appears to be on television, radio or newspapers – both in terms of physical stature and in tone. In real life, Malema is shorter than what he appears like on TV. Also, he is more youthful in appearance.
When I met him at a gathering where he addressed a group of foreign journalists in Johannesburg one evening in 2010, Malema never seemed to value his own presence. He listens very attentively to every word spoken to him (even greetings).
It may very well be a psychological issue: that Malema has been told many times that he’s a half-literate idiot who barely passed matric. When you speak to him, he listens as if saying: “I don’t know anything. Please educate me.”
At the gathering with international journalists, the room was packed with between 80 and 100 people, but there were only about six or seven black people amongst them – Malema and his spokespesperson Floyd Shivambu included.
When I went to speak to him after his address (during which he likened his frequent controversial outbursts to those of young Nelson Mandela), he asked me as one of the few black people in the audience: “Do you work with these people?”
“No,” I responded. “I work for the GCIS”. I didn’t think he’d care to ask any further question – or even to know what the GCIS stands for. And he responded: “Oh, Government Communications! I see.”
And he wasn’t finished asking me questions: “So where do you come from?” When I told him I’m from the Sekhukhune area in Limpopo, he smiled and said: “You see, when I speak about mines, I think you’ll relate with the situation I am talking about.”
Then he said in Sepedi: “These people (referring to white mine bosses) are eating our resources. The whole Sekhukhune is poor. There is dust all over, and they are busy grabbing away from us in broad daylight.”
The menacing Malema that is being referred to in many public platforms – and now in the on-going hate speech trial – seems, to a black person, like an invention. But to whites, the fear that they get when they listen to Malema is in fact fear of the kind of radical change that they believe they had put behind their backs through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The TRC served its purpose in as far as bringing erstwhile political adversaries closer is concerned, but it also served another purpose: to assure the white man that the possessions he acquired, either legally or illegally, during apartheid were protected from any form of violent dispossession in a post-apartheid dispensation.
A common theme amongst many conservative South Africans is that their country is on the way of becoming another Zimbabwe, and this point was also made in the hate speech case. Reference was made to the fear amongst Afrikaners of South Africa veering towards “a failed state.”
Many white South Africans are still afraid of blacks in general; and Malema, as the self-styled leader of angry, jobless and poor black youth, must not be allowed to provoke this potentially dangerous group of people who would have little to lose even if the country plunges into another Zimbabwe.
Depending on which side of South Africa’s colourful history you most associate with and what your views are on contemporary socio-economic realities, Julius Malema, president of the ANC Youth League, could be described in completely opposing terms at the same time: a populist demagogue, a racist, a charismatic leader, a fearless truth-teller.
As it is now alleged in the hate speech trial brought against him by Afri Forum and the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) for his singing of the anti-apartheid struggle song dubul’ ibhunu (or shoot the Boer), Malema can sometimes also be a menace to some. He also allegedly incites his supporters to carry out racial attacks.
Counsel for AfriForum and TAU have argued in court that their clients are worried about Malema’s singing of the song in post-apartheid South Africa because the song (or chant as it's been called by a "music expert") incites violence against a particular grouping of the white population, the Boer.
Testifying in the case, AfriForum’s deputy CEO, Ernst Roets, said Malema uses violent language and threatening gestures and has even threatened a delegation of Afrikaners at a meeting that if they marched to the ANC’s headquarters in Johannesburg, “what happened to IFP members outside Shell House in 1994” would happen to them.
“I’m not a struggle expert,” said Roets, “so I asked what he meant.” At this point leaning forward in his chair, Malema allegedly told the Afrikaner delegation: “Come protest and you will see.”
Quite why many people fear Malema is a matter that goes far beyond the young man himself. The Malema I have known from a young age (and whom I had a chat with following a meeting in 2010) is anything but threatening.
In real life, he is not even what he appears to be on television, radio or newspapers – both in terms of physical stature and in tone. In real life, Malema is shorter than what he appears like on TV. Also, he is more youthful in appearance.
When I met him at a gathering where he addressed a group of foreign journalists in Johannesburg one evening in 2010, Malema never seemed to value his own presence. He listens very attentively to every word spoken to him (even greetings).
It may very well be a psychological issue: that Malema has been told many times that he’s a half-literate idiot who barely passed matric. When you speak to him, he listens as if saying: “I don’t know anything. Please educate me.”
At the gathering with international journalists, the room was packed with between 80 and 100 people, but there were only about six or seven black people amongst them – Malema and his spokespesperson Floyd Shivambu included.
When I went to speak to him after his address (during which he likened his frequent controversial outbursts to those of young Nelson Mandela), he asked me as one of the few black people in the audience: “Do you work with these people?”
“No,” I responded. “I work for the GCIS”. I didn’t think he’d care to ask any further question – or even to know what the GCIS stands for. And he responded: “Oh, Government Communications! I see.”
And he wasn’t finished asking me questions: “So where do you come from?” When I told him I’m from the Sekhukhune area in Limpopo, he smiled and said: “You see, when I speak about mines, I think you’ll relate with the situation I am talking about.”
Then he said in Sepedi: “These people (referring to white mine bosses) are eating our resources. The whole Sekhukhune is poor. There is dust all over, and they are busy grabbing away from us in broad daylight.”
The menacing Malema that is being referred to in many public platforms – and now in the on-going hate speech trial – seems, to a black person, like an invention. But to whites, the fear that they get when they listen to Malema is in fact fear of the kind of radical change that they believe they had put behind their backs through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The TRC served its purpose in as far as bringing erstwhile political adversaries closer is concerned, but it also served another purpose: to assure the white man that the possessions he acquired, either legally or illegally, during apartheid were protected from any form of violent dispossession in a post-apartheid dispensation.
A common theme amongst many conservative South Africans is that their country is on the way of becoming another Zimbabwe, and this point was also made in the hate speech case. Reference was made to the fear amongst Afrikaners of South Africa veering towards “a failed state.”
Many white South Africans are still afraid of blacks in general; and Malema, as the self-styled leader of angry, jobless and poor black youth, must not be allowed to provoke this potentially dangerous group of people who would have little to lose even if the country plunges into another Zimbabwe.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Don't ban "kill the boer" song
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 12 April 2011
The ongoing hate speech trial of ANC Youth League President Julius Malema at the Equality Court in Johannesburg is likely to introduce new boundaries within which freedom of speech and freedom of expression can be applied.
According to Section 16 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the right to freedom of expression does not include “incitement of imminent violence” or “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
Malema’s legal representatives argue in court papers that liberation songs such as "Shoot the Boer" are not sung with the intention to incite violence, harm, degrade or humiliate any person or group of persons.
The songs are "simply part of the heritage of the struggle and must be understood in the historical context of the role of song in liberation struggles all over the world,” Malema’s lawyer, Vincent Maleka, argues.
Meanwhile, a study by TNS Research Surveys has revealed that 74% of metro adults feel that the phrases "Kill the boer" or "Kill the farmer" constitute hate speech.
If the court bans the song or certain parts of its lyrics, that may narrow the space within which freedom of expression can be applied.
If the court grants Malema the right to continue singing the song anywhere anytime, that may also be interpreted as advocating racial hatred.
Now, what should the court do? Allow the song to be sung by (or in the presence of) anyone except Malema? Ban it completely?
Any of the two extremes (permission or ban) appears undesirable at the moment, and the court may need to explore a neutral and innovative solution.
The court should not be so heavy-handed as to force South Africans to forget the past, all because of Malema's actions.
In the same vein, young political leaders should be taught – through court decisions if need be – to realise the power that they have to polirise society through irresponsible public utterances/behaviour.
Under the circumstances, the most appropriate ruling, it appears, would be to prescribe circumstances and conditions under which the song may be sung.
For example, when a public event is held to commemorate the life and times of Peter Mokaba, him who made the song popular, why should “kill the boer” not be sung on such an occasion as part of tributes to the man?
To introduce an outright ban on the singing of the song by Malema or anyone would be extreme, particularly given the fact that no evidence exists to prove that the killing of white Afrikaner farmers (boere) can be linked to the song.
The ongoing hate speech trial of ANC Youth League President Julius Malema at the Equality Court in Johannesburg is likely to introduce new boundaries within which freedom of speech and freedom of expression can be applied.
According to Section 16 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the right to freedom of expression does not include “incitement of imminent violence” or “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
Malema’s legal representatives argue in court papers that liberation songs such as "Shoot the Boer" are not sung with the intention to incite violence, harm, degrade or humiliate any person or group of persons.
The songs are "simply part of the heritage of the struggle and must be understood in the historical context of the role of song in liberation struggles all over the world,” Malema’s lawyer, Vincent Maleka, argues.
Meanwhile, a study by TNS Research Surveys has revealed that 74% of metro adults feel that the phrases "Kill the boer" or "Kill the farmer" constitute hate speech.
If the court bans the song or certain parts of its lyrics, that may narrow the space within which freedom of expression can be applied.
If the court grants Malema the right to continue singing the song anywhere anytime, that may also be interpreted as advocating racial hatred.
Now, what should the court do? Allow the song to be sung by (or in the presence of) anyone except Malema? Ban it completely?
Any of the two extremes (permission or ban) appears undesirable at the moment, and the court may need to explore a neutral and innovative solution.
The court should not be so heavy-handed as to force South Africans to forget the past, all because of Malema's actions.
In the same vein, young political leaders should be taught – through court decisions if need be – to realise the power that they have to polirise society through irresponsible public utterances/behaviour.
Under the circumstances, the most appropriate ruling, it appears, would be to prescribe circumstances and conditions under which the song may be sung.
For example, when a public event is held to commemorate the life and times of Peter Mokaba, him who made the song popular, why should “kill the boer” not be sung on such an occasion as part of tributes to the man?
To introduce an outright ban on the singing of the song by Malema or anyone would be extreme, particularly given the fact that no evidence exists to prove that the killing of white Afrikaner farmers (boere) can be linked to the song.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Where are the DA's blacks when you need them?
The picture is the same across the country: whites for mayoral candidature where victory is probable; blacks for subordinate positions.
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 30 March 2011
According to the Democratic Alliance (DA), the upcoming local government elections, to be held on May 18, are about service delivery. Nothing else matters more.
But wait: something else does matters to me (and possibly to a large number of others).
Why does does it appear that a good “service delivery” record in Cape Town is being used to justify (or excuse) the racist notion that blacks cannot run a government?
Where they stand a chance to win a municipality, the DA leadership is very consistent with their choices of mayoral candidates. They are non-blacks.
In Johannesburg, where it is almost certain that they will get a clobbering, Helen Zille’s party has found young Mmusi Maimane to run as their mayoral candidate.
In Cape Town, where victory is near-certain – thanks in part to the combination of a good track record, a weak opposition and, yes, the race factor – DA newcomer Patricia De Lille is leading the pack.
In the Midvaal in Gauteng, where the DA has been in office for more than 10 years and where victory is highly likely, current executive mayor Timothy Nast is running for re-election.
The picture is the same across the country: whites for mayoral candidature where victory is probable; blacks for subordinate positions.
Speaking at a media briefing On 28 March in Johannesburg, Zille came close to admitting that blacks are tokens in the DA.
She was quoted by a newspaper the following day saying: “Of course it is an enormous plus that [DA national spokesperson Lindiwe Mazibuko] is black. It is a huge advantage.”
One’s blackness is seen as an advantage in an election which, we are told, is not about race! Actions, ultimately, speak louder than words – and the posters speak louder too.
In Pretoria, where the DA has a white man as their mayoral candidate, huge DA billboards are already up. But guess whose face is there? Zille, Mazibuko and Cape Town mayoral candidate Patricia De Lille.
It won’t be to the DA’s advantage to put Brandon Topham’s face on the billboards and posters, especially in and around the city centre and in townships such as Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Soshanguve, Mabopane and Hammanskraal.
Where are the bright black DA leaders that Zille talks about when victory is likely? It’s really hard not to conclude that blacks are set up to fail.
It’s even harder not to conclude that so-called good service delivery record in Cape Town is being used to condone the racist notion that blacks cannot run a government.
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 30 March 2011
According to the Democratic Alliance (DA), the upcoming local government elections, to be held on May 18, are about service delivery. Nothing else matters more.
But wait: something else does matters to me (and possibly to a large number of others).
Why does does it appear that a good “service delivery” record in Cape Town is being used to justify (or excuse) the racist notion that blacks cannot run a government?
Where they stand a chance to win a municipality, the DA leadership is very consistent with their choices of mayoral candidates. They are non-blacks.
In Johannesburg, where it is almost certain that they will get a clobbering, Helen Zille’s party has found young Mmusi Maimane to run as their mayoral candidate.
In Cape Town, where victory is near-certain – thanks in part to the combination of a good track record, a weak opposition and, yes, the race factor – DA newcomer Patricia De Lille is leading the pack.
In the Midvaal in Gauteng, where the DA has been in office for more than 10 years and where victory is highly likely, current executive mayor Timothy Nast is running for re-election.
The picture is the same across the country: whites for mayoral candidature where victory is probable; blacks for subordinate positions.
Speaking at a media briefing On 28 March in Johannesburg, Zille came close to admitting that blacks are tokens in the DA.
She was quoted by a newspaper the following day saying: “Of course it is an enormous plus that [DA national spokesperson Lindiwe Mazibuko] is black. It is a huge advantage.”
One’s blackness is seen as an advantage in an election which, we are told, is not about race! Actions, ultimately, speak louder than words – and the posters speak louder too.
In Pretoria, where the DA has a white man as their mayoral candidate, huge DA billboards are already up. But guess whose face is there? Zille, Mazibuko and Cape Town mayoral candidate Patricia De Lille.
It won’t be to the DA’s advantage to put Brandon Topham’s face on the billboards and posters, especially in and around the city centre and in townships such as Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Soshanguve, Mabopane and Hammanskraal.
Where are the bright black DA leaders that Zille talks about when victory is likely? It’s really hard not to conclude that blacks are set up to fail.
It’s even harder not to conclude that so-called good service delivery record in Cape Town is being used to condone the racist notion that blacks cannot run a government.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Shikota: the party's over
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 10 February 2011
When Mbhazima Shilowa came to my township one Saturday morning during the 2009 election campaign, I joined scores of other Soshanguve residents at a local church from where the former Gauteng premier was expected to deliver an important address.
Shilowa was scheduled to start his address at 10h00, but when I arrived at the church an hour early, a group of ANC members was already toyi-toying outside, looking threatened by Shilowa’s potential to woo traditional ANC supporters in the township towards the new party that he co-founded with Mosioua Lekota.
By the time Shilowa arrived, the church was packed. Dignitaries at the main table facing the crowd had already taken their seats.
As Shilowa made a boisterous entrance from the front door of the church, walking towards the pulpit, the dignitaries joined the crowd in a standing ovation for Shilowa, accompanied by the chanting of a struggle song.
Not for him, on this day, the pin-striped suits that he used to wear whilst Premier of the Gauteng Province. Not even the usual sight of bodyguards in black suits surrounding him as he entered the church.
The picture that Shilowa painted of himself that day – and for most of the election campaign – was of a man who had given up the comfort of high office to rescue his country from what was painted to look like the brink of political and administrative chaos.
Shilowa, at least on this day, didn’t seem remotely capable of politicking for power’s sake. He was, after all, the man who voluntarily vacated the lucrative position of premier of South Africa’s richest province, venturing into an era of uncertainty.
That was in 2009.
Today Cope no longer survives on the back of either popular support or a just cause. It is sustained by pride.
None of the party's two co-founders is willing to be led by another, which leaves the few remaining supporters on both sides of the divide looking vulnerable and confused.
If he were to return to Soshanguve today, those toyi-toying ANC members will simply ignore him – or, at the very least, turn up only to deliver a simple message: “We told you so.”
I doubt if Shilowa would have the courage (or even the reason) to return to my township.
And since neither of the co-founders seems prepared to declare the end of the party (or at least make way for another to lead), the voters in the upcoming local government elections have a duty to send a message to Shikota via the ballot: the party’s over.
When Mbhazima Shilowa came to my township one Saturday morning during the 2009 election campaign, I joined scores of other Soshanguve residents at a local church from where the former Gauteng premier was expected to deliver an important address.
Shilowa was scheduled to start his address at 10h00, but when I arrived at the church an hour early, a group of ANC members was already toyi-toying outside, looking threatened by Shilowa’s potential to woo traditional ANC supporters in the township towards the new party that he co-founded with Mosioua Lekota.
By the time Shilowa arrived, the church was packed. Dignitaries at the main table facing the crowd had already taken their seats.
As Shilowa made a boisterous entrance from the front door of the church, walking towards the pulpit, the dignitaries joined the crowd in a standing ovation for Shilowa, accompanied by the chanting of a struggle song.
Not for him, on this day, the pin-striped suits that he used to wear whilst Premier of the Gauteng Province. Not even the usual sight of bodyguards in black suits surrounding him as he entered the church.
The picture that Shilowa painted of himself that day – and for most of the election campaign – was of a man who had given up the comfort of high office to rescue his country from what was painted to look like the brink of political and administrative chaos.
Shilowa, at least on this day, didn’t seem remotely capable of politicking for power’s sake. He was, after all, the man who voluntarily vacated the lucrative position of premier of South Africa’s richest province, venturing into an era of uncertainty.
That was in 2009.
Today Cope no longer survives on the back of either popular support or a just cause. It is sustained by pride.
None of the party's two co-founders is willing to be led by another, which leaves the few remaining supporters on both sides of the divide looking vulnerable and confused.
If he were to return to Soshanguve today, those toyi-toying ANC members will simply ignore him – or, at the very least, turn up only to deliver a simple message: “We told you so.”
I doubt if Shilowa would have the courage (or even the reason) to return to my township.
And since neither of the co-founders seems prepared to declare the end of the party (or at least make way for another to lead), the voters in the upcoming local government elections have a duty to send a message to Shikota via the ballot: the party’s over.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Xenophobia is a global phenomenon
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 04 August 2010
Clampdown on illegal immigrants; foreign workers without work permits employed in hotels, golf estates, spas and restaurants; immigration reform.
You’d think that these words describe the situation in South Africa following the recent 2010 FIFA World Cup – but no. They describe an ongoing debate on illegal immigration and subsequent court battles in the state of Arizona, United States.
Earlier this year, in April, the state of Arizona passed a bill authorising police to detain people they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. The bill is being challenged through the courts following intervention by President Barack Obama’s federal government.
Elsewhere in the world, the situation is not much different.
In countries such as Italy, France, the United Kingdom and others, the issue of illegal immigration is also uppermost in national agendas, often used as points of contention amongst political rivals, especially during elections.
The United Nations has acknowledged that, whilst having the potential to improve human welfare and development, international migration can also provoke social tensions, drive political extremes and fan the flames of discrimination and hatred.
Significantly, and of great relevance to the plight of migrants in South Africa, the UN acknowledges that migrations cannot be addressed unilaterally. Countries of origin of migrants as well as destination countries have to take responsibility.
South Africa, as the economic powerhouse of Africa, is a magnet for migrants from other parts of the continent, including those fleeing conflict in areas such as Somalia, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to economic migrants from neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland.
Given South Africa’s own socio-economic challenges (Statistics South Africa revealed recently that unemployment has gone up to 25.3%), the presence of a large number of migrants overstretches the country’s already limited resources and exposes the poor to competition for these limited resources.
The solution to this conundrum is not as easy as sending troops of military personnel and police officers to bring calm. The calm brought about in this manner is often temporary.
A long-term solution to resolve recurring rifts between native citizens and foreign nationals would require efforts internally (ie, by government and citizens alike) as well as externally (between government and its counterparts on the continent and the world).
South Africa, as a signatory to relevant international protocols governing migration – and in keeping with the letter and spirit of its own constitution – is bound to uphold the prescriptions of those protocols.
Our Bill of Rights says “everyone (not just South Africans, but everyone) has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected”.
Being the new democracy that we are, there are lessons we need to learn on managing migration, both administratively and in terms of broadening our knowledge of the phenomenon.
Every year government detains those deemed to be in the country illegally and deports them to their countries of origin. But the magnitude of the problem seems to overwhelm the deportations.
It is therefore appropriate that government employs a heavy-handed approach to those attempting extra-legal ways to deal with immigration through so-called street justice.
Those who take the law into their own hands and violently chase migrants out of communities are rightfully treated as criminals, hence the recent superficial debate on government’s reluctance to describe the latest tensions as “xenophobic”.
Everyone admits that there are illegal immigrants that exploit holes in our systems to elude justice; and some of them are aided by corrupt officials on the one hand and some bribe-prone South Africans on the other.
One of the allegations against illegal African immigrants is that they take “our houses”, but some of the houses are actually rented out or sold by South African citizens.
Whilst governments have their own roles to play in managing immigration, we also have our own part to play as ordinary South Africans to tackle the problem.
One of the things communities need to learn is the fact that the many immigrants making their way into South Africa do not do so out of choice.
The UN High Commission for Refugees captures the issue aptly, saying: “Behind the dramatic headlines and the striking images of people on the move, there are personal stories of courage, tragedy and compassion.”
Also published on News24: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/YourStory/Illegal-immigration-battles-20100804
Clampdown on illegal immigrants; foreign workers without work permits employed in hotels, golf estates, spas and restaurants; immigration reform.
You’d think that these words describe the situation in South Africa following the recent 2010 FIFA World Cup – but no. They describe an ongoing debate on illegal immigration and subsequent court battles in the state of Arizona, United States.
Earlier this year, in April, the state of Arizona passed a bill authorising police to detain people they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. The bill is being challenged through the courts following intervention by President Barack Obama’s federal government.
Elsewhere in the world, the situation is not much different.
In countries such as Italy, France, the United Kingdom and others, the issue of illegal immigration is also uppermost in national agendas, often used as points of contention amongst political rivals, especially during elections.
The United Nations has acknowledged that, whilst having the potential to improve human welfare and development, international migration can also provoke social tensions, drive political extremes and fan the flames of discrimination and hatred.
Significantly, and of great relevance to the plight of migrants in South Africa, the UN acknowledges that migrations cannot be addressed unilaterally. Countries of origin of migrants as well as destination countries have to take responsibility.
South Africa, as the economic powerhouse of Africa, is a magnet for migrants from other parts of the continent, including those fleeing conflict in areas such as Somalia, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to economic migrants from neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland.
Given South Africa’s own socio-economic challenges (Statistics South Africa revealed recently that unemployment has gone up to 25.3%), the presence of a large number of migrants overstretches the country’s already limited resources and exposes the poor to competition for these limited resources.
The solution to this conundrum is not as easy as sending troops of military personnel and police officers to bring calm. The calm brought about in this manner is often temporary.
A long-term solution to resolve recurring rifts between native citizens and foreign nationals would require efforts internally (ie, by government and citizens alike) as well as externally (between government and its counterparts on the continent and the world).
South Africa, as a signatory to relevant international protocols governing migration – and in keeping with the letter and spirit of its own constitution – is bound to uphold the prescriptions of those protocols.
Our Bill of Rights says “everyone (not just South Africans, but everyone) has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected”.
Being the new democracy that we are, there are lessons we need to learn on managing migration, both administratively and in terms of broadening our knowledge of the phenomenon.
Every year government detains those deemed to be in the country illegally and deports them to their countries of origin. But the magnitude of the problem seems to overwhelm the deportations.
It is therefore appropriate that government employs a heavy-handed approach to those attempting extra-legal ways to deal with immigration through so-called street justice.
Those who take the law into their own hands and violently chase migrants out of communities are rightfully treated as criminals, hence the recent superficial debate on government’s reluctance to describe the latest tensions as “xenophobic”.
Everyone admits that there are illegal immigrants that exploit holes in our systems to elude justice; and some of them are aided by corrupt officials on the one hand and some bribe-prone South Africans on the other.
One of the allegations against illegal African immigrants is that they take “our houses”, but some of the houses are actually rented out or sold by South African citizens.
Whilst governments have their own roles to play in managing immigration, we also have our own part to play as ordinary South Africans to tackle the problem.
One of the things communities need to learn is the fact that the many immigrants making their way into South Africa do not do so out of choice.
The UN High Commission for Refugees captures the issue aptly, saying: “Behind the dramatic headlines and the striking images of people on the move, there are personal stories of courage, tragedy and compassion.”
Also published on News24: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/YourStory/Illegal-immigration-battles-20100804
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Stop the scare-mongering, face facts
If entrepreneurs want to cash in on the World Cup, let them do so using the creativity of their minds instead of dehumanising and insulting us.
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 19 January 2010
Not surprisingly, many of the news reports on the historic World Cup taking place in South Africa this winter are not about the core business of the tournament, football.
The headlines are not as concerned about the beautiful game as they are about scare-mongering, accompanied by stories of such alien inventions as “stab-proof” vests.
One wonders why because, even as we all admit that crime is a problem in South Africa, no reasonable person really expects the World Cup to be marred by throngs of knife-wielding gangs, ready to stab anyone they come across.
South Africa has hosted many international sporting events before, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Africa Cup of Nations, the Cricket World Cup and, very recently, the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup.
All of these events went smoothly and largely incident-free not only because the police had good plans. We, the people – South Africans of all races, united in our diversity – are generally a welcoming lot, renowned worldwide for our generosity of spirit and our warmth.
We don’t deny that there are criminals amongst us. In fact, we – and not the occasional travelers – understand this country better. We are too familiar with the agony caused by crime.
Whereas we are the ones mostly affected, we also know (and statistics can prove it) that most criminals are known to their victims. We’re talking here of relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues and business partners, for example, committing gruesome crimes amongst each other.
And, of course, there are those opportunistic ones who go for the vulnerable: the tourists, children, the elderly and the negligent. But here we’re talking about security arrangements for an event that we’ve known for years that it is coming to South Africa.
The police know how many teams we expect, how many people per team, where these teams will be staying, their travel routes, etc. And, because you have to buy a ticket before coming here, the police will also know how many fans to expect from every corner of the globe.
We shouldn’t confuse acts of criminality directed at ordinary people on an ongoing basis and acts of criminality aimed at people attending an event. An event is planned for in advance, and our police have a proud track record in this regard.
The underlying message by the scare-mongers is one of great insult to the hosts: South Africans and Africans in general. We’re hungry, yes, but not for human flesh. We’re poor; many amongst us are even sick, but not sick in our heads.
If entrepreneurs want to cash in on the World Cup, let them do so using the creativity of their minds instead of dehumanising and insulting us.
Wouldn’t it be great if, once and for all, this World Cup becomes the platform through which the world can recognise Africans as equal human beings, capable of all that which man elsewhere is capable of, and as faulty as human beings everywhere else are faulty?
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 19 January 2010
Not surprisingly, many of the news reports on the historic World Cup taking place in South Africa this winter are not about the core business of the tournament, football.
The headlines are not as concerned about the beautiful game as they are about scare-mongering, accompanied by stories of such alien inventions as “stab-proof” vests.
One wonders why because, even as we all admit that crime is a problem in South Africa, no reasonable person really expects the World Cup to be marred by throngs of knife-wielding gangs, ready to stab anyone they come across.
South Africa has hosted many international sporting events before, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Africa Cup of Nations, the Cricket World Cup and, very recently, the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup.
All of these events went smoothly and largely incident-free not only because the police had good plans. We, the people – South Africans of all races, united in our diversity – are generally a welcoming lot, renowned worldwide for our generosity of spirit and our warmth.
We don’t deny that there are criminals amongst us. In fact, we – and not the occasional travelers – understand this country better. We are too familiar with the agony caused by crime.
Whereas we are the ones mostly affected, we also know (and statistics can prove it) that most criminals are known to their victims. We’re talking here of relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues and business partners, for example, committing gruesome crimes amongst each other.
And, of course, there are those opportunistic ones who go for the vulnerable: the tourists, children, the elderly and the negligent. But here we’re talking about security arrangements for an event that we’ve known for years that it is coming to South Africa.
The police know how many teams we expect, how many people per team, where these teams will be staying, their travel routes, etc. And, because you have to buy a ticket before coming here, the police will also know how many fans to expect from every corner of the globe.
We shouldn’t confuse acts of criminality directed at ordinary people on an ongoing basis and acts of criminality aimed at people attending an event. An event is planned for in advance, and our police have a proud track record in this regard.
The underlying message by the scare-mongers is one of great insult to the hosts: South Africans and Africans in general. We’re hungry, yes, but not for human flesh. We’re poor; many amongst us are even sick, but not sick in our heads.
If entrepreneurs want to cash in on the World Cup, let them do so using the creativity of their minds instead of dehumanising and insulting us.
Wouldn’t it be great if, once and for all, this World Cup becomes the platform through which the world can recognise Africans as equal human beings, capable of all that which man elsewhere is capable of, and as faulty as human beings everywhere else are faulty?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Healing apartheid wounds
Why are we being urged to bury the past by people who are seemingly not willing to do likewise?
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 21 September 2009
The massive reaction to the News24 article by one Wayne G, "Our own Animal Farm" (16 September 2009), indicate two things to me: that South Africans not only want to debate the current state of race relations in the country, but also that they have a desire to know and understand each other.
Wayne speaks from the perspective of a frustrated white youth, and he raises a lot of questions and concerns that should not be ignored.
Amongst other things, Wayne blames the media for perpetuating racist stereotypes against whites, arguing that newspapers aggravate race relations “through their constant focus on the loud mouths of our country [such as Julius Malema, who exploit] our differences to sell papers.”
As a black youth myself, there are a number of factors that I wish the likes of Wayne took into consideration when analysing the state of racial integration (or lack thereof) in post-apartheid South Africa; and here’s what I wish we all start realising:
1. Trying to understand black people whilst constantly bashing the ANC is not a good start. After all, the ANC is credited within the black community for having liberated black people from the shackles of apartheid.
2. Needless to say, not all black South Africans support the ANC. In fact, the success of the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is in part due to the massive support that the party received from a substantial pool of black voters across the country.
3. Many of us black South Africans see the reluctance by our white fellow citizens to learn our cultures (or at least to learn how to say “hello” in Sepedi, for example) as an emphatic rejection of our way of life. I know the argument against learning black languages. “They are not business languages, etc.”
Since when has the language of your fellow citizens been about business imperatives? It should be about curiosity and a desire to relate to your fellow South Africans in the language that they understand. You can come up with all reasons why you’re not going to learn to say “hi” in Sepedi, but my reading of such reasons can be summed up simply as belittling my culture.
4. As a black young South African, I also do not understand why I am constantly urged by my white fellow citizens to bury the apartheid past and move on. What do I have to do with apartheid? And why am I urged to forget the past by people who are seemingly not ready to do the same?
If I cannot date a white girl for no reason other than that I am black (and that, because I am black, I am presumed to be an idiot), why am I being urged to pretend that my white fellow citizens accept me for who I am and not what my skin pigmentation looks like?
5. Trying to demonise corrective interventions such as Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with sweeping generalisations about the quality of black leadership in top positions also implants in me a sense of quilt. You assume that I am in the position that I am in solely because I am black.
In essence, you assume that, had it not been for AA and BEE, I would be holding up plackards at the traffic intersections, begging. I see this as a grave insult and a blatant undermining of my intellect and my potential.
Everything that does not work in government is because “skilled workers” (an indirect reference to whites) are being excluded through AA and BEE! Can’t there be other reasons? How did the apartheid government fare in its delivery of public services with all these “skilled” workers at its disposal?
NB: See Wayne G's article on the following link: http://www.news24.com/Content/MyNews24/YourStory/1162/2ec7164e9ae64a498ff14b2f7f4d5ad6/16-09-2009-02-08/Our_own_Animal_farm
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 21 September 2009
The massive reaction to the News24 article by one Wayne G, "Our own Animal Farm" (16 September 2009), indicate two things to me: that South Africans not only want to debate the current state of race relations in the country, but also that they have a desire to know and understand each other.
Wayne speaks from the perspective of a frustrated white youth, and he raises a lot of questions and concerns that should not be ignored.
Amongst other things, Wayne blames the media for perpetuating racist stereotypes against whites, arguing that newspapers aggravate race relations “through their constant focus on the loud mouths of our country [such as Julius Malema, who exploit] our differences to sell papers.”
As a black youth myself, there are a number of factors that I wish the likes of Wayne took into consideration when analysing the state of racial integration (or lack thereof) in post-apartheid South Africa; and here’s what I wish we all start realising:
1. Trying to understand black people whilst constantly bashing the ANC is not a good start. After all, the ANC is credited within the black community for having liberated black people from the shackles of apartheid.
2. Needless to say, not all black South Africans support the ANC. In fact, the success of the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is in part due to the massive support that the party received from a substantial pool of black voters across the country.
3. Many of us black South Africans see the reluctance by our white fellow citizens to learn our cultures (or at least to learn how to say “hello” in Sepedi, for example) as an emphatic rejection of our way of life. I know the argument against learning black languages. “They are not business languages, etc.”
Since when has the language of your fellow citizens been about business imperatives? It should be about curiosity and a desire to relate to your fellow South Africans in the language that they understand. You can come up with all reasons why you’re not going to learn to say “hi” in Sepedi, but my reading of such reasons can be summed up simply as belittling my culture.
4. As a black young South African, I also do not understand why I am constantly urged by my white fellow citizens to bury the apartheid past and move on. What do I have to do with apartheid? And why am I urged to forget the past by people who are seemingly not ready to do the same?
If I cannot date a white girl for no reason other than that I am black (and that, because I am black, I am presumed to be an idiot), why am I being urged to pretend that my white fellow citizens accept me for who I am and not what my skin pigmentation looks like?
5. Trying to demonise corrective interventions such as Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with sweeping generalisations about the quality of black leadership in top positions also implants in me a sense of quilt. You assume that I am in the position that I am in solely because I am black.
In essence, you assume that, had it not been for AA and BEE, I would be holding up plackards at the traffic intersections, begging. I see this as a grave insult and a blatant undermining of my intellect and my potential.
Everything that does not work in government is because “skilled workers” (an indirect reference to whites) are being excluded through AA and BEE! Can’t there be other reasons? How did the apartheid government fare in its delivery of public services with all these “skilled” workers at its disposal?
NB: See Wayne G's article on the following link: http://www.news24.com/Content/MyNews24/YourStory/1162/2ec7164e9ae64a498ff14b2f7f4d5ad6/16-09-2009-02-08/Our_own_Animal_farm
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
ICC debate: Selective justice is not justice
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 14 July 2009
The debate in the July 2009 edition of New African magazine on the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in relation to its perceived targeting of African leaders, raises emotions amongst those of us who feel – not without reason – that the ICC is one of the several tools that western leaders use to intimidate our leaders.
There are many reasons why we need a court modeled along the lines of the ICC to bring about justice to victims of callous regimes around the world. And this, I believe, is the reason why so many African countries supported the formation of the ICC.
We in Africa have had – and continue to experience – a fair share of the slaughtering of innocent civilians in several conflicts; and we have no reason to protect or be sympathetic to perpetrators of such heinous crimes when they are called to accounts for their criminal actions.
I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that, “when the Court investigates those allegedly responsible for serious crimes in Africa, it does so on behalf of African victims”, as Lucile Mazangue puts it in “The case for the ICC” (NA, July 2009).
The problem is that the court our leaders thought would bring these perpetrators of violence – particularly violence against civilians – to book is already apparently negating one of the basic principles of justice, which is impartiality. Selective justice, as we’ve seen practiced by the ICC, is not justice at all.
A system of justice is supposed to protect the weak against the bullying of the powerful, but the ICC appears to be doing the exact opposite. It seems to be targeting the weak in apparent pursuance of the interests of powerful western states. And that is grossly unfair and unjust.
The mandate of the ICC, as Mazangue correctly puts it, “is to hold perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to account when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so.” And we’ve seen national courts in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas unwilling and unable to act against alleged criminals.
Investigators, prosecutors and judges who look the other way when leaders of powerful western countries break international law implicate their good names in the abortion of justice.
The generally accepted principle that lawyers must practice their trade without fear, favour or prejudice seems to be a foreign concept to the ICC as an institution. The ICC is visibly neither willing nor able to charge leaders of rich western states with crimes against humanity, despite overwhelming evidence to this effect.
Selective justice conceals (seemingly by design) monumental crimes of the type we’ve seen in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Democractic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, etc. When will victims of crime in these and many other countries see justice?
Does the ICC have both the will and the guts to catch big fish? I await a comprehensive answer from any of the officials or judges at the ICC itself.
The debate in the July 2009 edition of New African magazine on the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in relation to its perceived targeting of African leaders, raises emotions amongst those of us who feel – not without reason – that the ICC is one of the several tools that western leaders use to intimidate our leaders.
There are many reasons why we need a court modeled along the lines of the ICC to bring about justice to victims of callous regimes around the world. And this, I believe, is the reason why so many African countries supported the formation of the ICC.
We in Africa have had – and continue to experience – a fair share of the slaughtering of innocent civilians in several conflicts; and we have no reason to protect or be sympathetic to perpetrators of such heinous crimes when they are called to accounts for their criminal actions.
I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that, “when the Court investigates those allegedly responsible for serious crimes in Africa, it does so on behalf of African victims”, as Lucile Mazangue puts it in “The case for the ICC” (NA, July 2009).
The problem is that the court our leaders thought would bring these perpetrators of violence – particularly violence against civilians – to book is already apparently negating one of the basic principles of justice, which is impartiality. Selective justice, as we’ve seen practiced by the ICC, is not justice at all.
A system of justice is supposed to protect the weak against the bullying of the powerful, but the ICC appears to be doing the exact opposite. It seems to be targeting the weak in apparent pursuance of the interests of powerful western states. And that is grossly unfair and unjust.
The mandate of the ICC, as Mazangue correctly puts it, “is to hold perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to account when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so.” And we’ve seen national courts in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas unwilling and unable to act against alleged criminals.
Investigators, prosecutors and judges who look the other way when leaders of powerful western countries break international law implicate their good names in the abortion of justice.
The generally accepted principle that lawyers must practice their trade without fear, favour or prejudice seems to be a foreign concept to the ICC as an institution. The ICC is visibly neither willing nor able to charge leaders of rich western states with crimes against humanity, despite overwhelming evidence to this effect.
Selective justice conceals (seemingly by design) monumental crimes of the type we’ve seen in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Democractic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, etc. When will victims of crime in these and many other countries see justice?
Does the ICC have both the will and the guts to catch big fish? I await a comprehensive answer from any of the officials or judges at the ICC itself.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Will a black politician advance white interests?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 20 August 2008
In Polokwane, where I live, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has distributed what appear to be early election posters declaring "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc on major streets.
Even in my small home town of Jane Furse, the DA's election campaign is already in full swing. Posters are visible throughout the major streets.
The DA has not yet officially revealed their theme for the 2009 general elections, but - based on the posters already hung up on lamp posts around cities and towns - one gets a feeling that the opposition party will set its theme around the need to protect South Africa's constitutional democracy by defending the independence of the judiciary.
With complicated court cases involving its president, Jacob Zuma, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) may focus mainly on broader access to economic opportunities, better access to education and more social relief for the poor.
The other smaller parties will find it difficult to make their policies known to the electorate due to various reasons, such as lack of financial resources, poor organisational planning and internal power struggles. Such parties include the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO).
As in previous democratic elections, to most of the voters, the elections next year will be an either/or affair; either the ruling ANC or the opposition DA. The minority will vote for the smaller opposition parties, but that is not necessarily a waste.
Because we still vote along racial lines, it is already generally accepted that the ANC will emerge victorious. Since democracy means majority rule, and since, in our country, we still associate along racial lines, the majority will always triumph over the minorities regardless of policy positions or the credibility of those in political leadership.
In its current makeup, the DA and its members and supporters will have to live with majority rule for decades to come. I do not see why blacks would entrust a white person (regardless of policies) with the power to rule South Africa. The memories of racism under apartheid are still fresh in their minds.
The DA will only succeed in wooing black voters if it can groom a black leader who is ready to advance white interests as is the case in the United States, where Barack Obama is being supported by whites, mainly because of his seemingly pro-white choices, such as his support for Israel.
The question now is: who amongst South Africa's emerging black politicians will be willing to oppose Black Economic Empowerment, Affirmative Action and African solidarity? Who is willing to be seen as a "sell out"?
In Polokwane, where I live, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has distributed what appear to be early election posters declaring "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc on major streets.
Even in my small home town of Jane Furse, the DA's election campaign is already in full swing. Posters are visible throughout the major streets.
The DA has not yet officially revealed their theme for the 2009 general elections, but - based on the posters already hung up on lamp posts around cities and towns - one gets a feeling that the opposition party will set its theme around the need to protect South Africa's constitutional democracy by defending the independence of the judiciary.
With complicated court cases involving its president, Jacob Zuma, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) may focus mainly on broader access to economic opportunities, better access to education and more social relief for the poor.
The other smaller parties will find it difficult to make their policies known to the electorate due to various reasons, such as lack of financial resources, poor organisational planning and internal power struggles. Such parties include the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO).
As in previous democratic elections, to most of the voters, the elections next year will be an either/or affair; either the ruling ANC or the opposition DA. The minority will vote for the smaller opposition parties, but that is not necessarily a waste.
Because we still vote along racial lines, it is already generally accepted that the ANC will emerge victorious. Since democracy means majority rule, and since, in our country, we still associate along racial lines, the majority will always triumph over the minorities regardless of policy positions or the credibility of those in political leadership.
In its current makeup, the DA and its members and supporters will have to live with majority rule for decades to come. I do not see why blacks would entrust a white person (regardless of policies) with the power to rule South Africa. The memories of racism under apartheid are still fresh in their minds.
The DA will only succeed in wooing black voters if it can groom a black leader who is ready to advance white interests as is the case in the United States, where Barack Obama is being supported by whites, mainly because of his seemingly pro-white choices, such as his support for Israel.
The question now is: who amongst South Africa's emerging black politicians will be willing to oppose Black Economic Empowerment, Affirmative Action and African solidarity? Who is willing to be seen as a "sell out"?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Western meddling will derail Zim talks
Further sanctions will harden Mugabe's attitude towards the talks and work in favour of his anti-imperialist rhetoric
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008
As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.
Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.
The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.
When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.
After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.
Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”
The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.
The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008
As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.
Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.
The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.
When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.
After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.
Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”
The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.
The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.
- See responses to this article on the following link on News24 website:
- http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Your_story/0,,2-2127-2128_2363106,00.html
Friday, June 27, 2008
Both Zanu-PF and MDC have failed Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 June 2008
With every passing day, the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe goes from bad to worse. It is obvious that President Robert Mugabe is the problem; and it is also clear that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai is not the answer.
The MDC and its allies in the international Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector believe in problem-solving through the media. They will not succeed in their efforts to find a solution to the crisis if they continue to pump money into expensive newspaper and other media advertisements, hoping that this will swing public opinion in their favour.
Having observed the MDC’s media campaign in South Africa over the last couple of weeks, it has emerged that, in an average week, there are at least eight full-page newspaper advertisements in the newspapers, all trying to discredit Mugabe.
Discrediting Mugabe through the media is a total waste of time, energy and money. The 84-year-old discredits himself with every public appearance he makes. The MDC and its allies must instead channel their money (and they seem to have it in abundance) into more strategic political campaigns.
Whilst Mugabe proves everyday that his time has passed, the MDC, under Morgan Tsvangirai, does not seem to be ready to govern. The MDC is not an authentic African opposition party. It is not comparable, in any way, with, for example, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya.
The MDC has more political allies in Europe and the United States than it has in the entire Africa. This at times gives credence to Mugabe’s hollow claims that the MDC are agents of imperialism. Zanu-PF terrorises the very nation it leberated from colonialism. The MDC fails to prove that it is a credible alternative. Zimbabwe is in a dilemma.
Perhaps it is time for both Mugabe and Tsvangirai to step aside and allow a new crop of leadership, preferably under a government of national unity, to take Zimbabwe out of the political and economic crisis that it now finds itself in. Simba Makoni could be suitable to lead such a transitional government.
With every passing day, the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe goes from bad to worse. It is obvious that President Robert Mugabe is the problem; and it is also clear that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai is not the answer.
The MDC and its allies in the international Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector believe in problem-solving through the media. They will not succeed in their efforts to find a solution to the crisis if they continue to pump money into expensive newspaper and other media advertisements, hoping that this will swing public opinion in their favour.
Having observed the MDC’s media campaign in South Africa over the last couple of weeks, it has emerged that, in an average week, there are at least eight full-page newspaper advertisements in the newspapers, all trying to discredit Mugabe.
Discrediting Mugabe through the media is a total waste of time, energy and money. The 84-year-old discredits himself with every public appearance he makes. The MDC and its allies must instead channel their money (and they seem to have it in abundance) into more strategic political campaigns.
Whilst Mugabe proves everyday that his time has passed, the MDC, under Morgan Tsvangirai, does not seem to be ready to govern. The MDC is not an authentic African opposition party. It is not comparable, in any way, with, for example, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya.
The MDC has more political allies in Europe and the United States than it has in the entire Africa. This at times gives credence to Mugabe’s hollow claims that the MDC are agents of imperialism. Zanu-PF terrorises the very nation it leberated from colonialism. The MDC fails to prove that it is a credible alternative. Zimbabwe is in a dilemma.
Perhaps it is time for both Mugabe and Tsvangirai to step aside and allow a new crop of leadership, preferably under a government of national unity, to take Zimbabwe out of the political and economic crisis that it now finds itself in. Simba Makoni could be suitable to lead such a transitional government.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Why Helen Zille's idea will not materialise
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 June 2008
The leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Helen Zille, was quoted in the media recently suggesting that opposition parties such as her own, the DA, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Independent Democrats (ID) form a formidable coalition to challenge the African National Congress's dominance of the South African political landscape.
In response to the idea, the leader of the UDM, Bantu Holomisa, did not reject the idea, saying there was a need to explore ways of uniting South Africa's opposition political parties. ID leader Patricia De Lille said she would not comment on whether her party will be willing to join such a coalition. De Lille said it was up to members of her party to decide.
Holomisa seemed to have looked at Zille's idea innocently and, as a result, he seems to have overlooked some critical factors that will hinder the success of any coalition of united opposition parties. There are at least two critical reasons why Zille's idea will most likely not materialise any time soon.
Firstly, any coalition of opposition parties will have to deal with the question of leadership. And, here, at issue will be the racial group to which the leader belongs. Realistically, the majority of black people opposed to the ANC's rule may be reluctant to accept a white person as their leader. The same may apply to white people: they may not trust a black leader to represent their interests.
We are now 14 years into our democracy, but, despite talk of a "Rainbow Nation", we still have two South Africas - one white and another black. President Thabo Mbeki was criticised for pointing to this reality in the early years of his presidency, but the fact remains: South Africans are still divided along racial lines.
Secondly, the idea of the coalition may be seen as a plot by the DA to swallow the smaller opposition political parties in the same way that its predecessor, the Democratic Party, tried to swallow the now-defunct Nation Party. DA supporters, both black and white, seem to be having very little confidence in the ability of black people to lead an effective government.
The combination of hostile race relations and power mongering will make Zille?s dream of a united opposition movement remain just that - a dream. South Africans of different racial groupings and varied interests must respect and trust each other before attempting to jump into a political coalition.
The leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Helen Zille, was quoted in the media recently suggesting that opposition parties such as her own, the DA, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Independent Democrats (ID) form a formidable coalition to challenge the African National Congress's dominance of the South African political landscape.
In response to the idea, the leader of the UDM, Bantu Holomisa, did not reject the idea, saying there was a need to explore ways of uniting South Africa's opposition political parties. ID leader Patricia De Lille said she would not comment on whether her party will be willing to join such a coalition. De Lille said it was up to members of her party to decide.
Holomisa seemed to have looked at Zille's idea innocently and, as a result, he seems to have overlooked some critical factors that will hinder the success of any coalition of united opposition parties. There are at least two critical reasons why Zille's idea will most likely not materialise any time soon.
Firstly, any coalition of opposition parties will have to deal with the question of leadership. And, here, at issue will be the racial group to which the leader belongs. Realistically, the majority of black people opposed to the ANC's rule may be reluctant to accept a white person as their leader. The same may apply to white people: they may not trust a black leader to represent their interests.
We are now 14 years into our democracy, but, despite talk of a "Rainbow Nation", we still have two South Africas - one white and another black. President Thabo Mbeki was criticised for pointing to this reality in the early years of his presidency, but the fact remains: South Africans are still divided along racial lines.
Secondly, the idea of the coalition may be seen as a plot by the DA to swallow the smaller opposition political parties in the same way that its predecessor, the Democratic Party, tried to swallow the now-defunct Nation Party. DA supporters, both black and white, seem to be having very little confidence in the ability of black people to lead an effective government.
The combination of hostile race relations and power mongering will make Zille?s dream of a united opposition movement remain just that - a dream. South Africans of different racial groupings and varied interests must respect and trust each other before attempting to jump into a political coalition.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Financial Mail punches below the belt
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 29 May 2008
Carol Paton’s provocative, premature and one-sided tribute to President Thabo Mbeki’s presidency is so biased it conspicuously screams for a response.
Masquerading as an objective summary of Mbeki’s presidency, the article, “Things fall apart” (FM, 23 May 2008), is actually an unoriginal opinion piece.
Paton recycles well-known criticism of the president (made popular by the likes of William Mervin Gumede and Xolela Mangcu) and parades the criticism as her own.
The only time Paton finds it necessary to refer to a source is in the fourteenth paragraph; and, even here, she refers only to unspecified “figures in Western diplomatic and financial circles”.
Mbeki might have erred in his judgements over a number of key issues, including his approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe and the way he handled the HIV and Aids debacle, but Paton’s overly negative summary is somewhat a punch below the belt.
It is a pity some of Mbeki’s greatest victories are being overshadowed by a few (real and perceived) misjudgements. The victories include the president’s tireless efforts in ensuring that:
• South Africa occupies a prominent role in continental and global affairs through the occupation of influential positions in the African Union, the United Nations and other international organisation;
• South Africa becomes the first African country to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which, even before kick-off, has already contributed hugely to the country’s economy; and that
• The black middle class triumphs despite persistent traditional barriers, such as the refusal by the predominantly white business sector to transform qualitatively;
Just like other presidents around the world, Mbeki has not perfected every aspect of his leadership. Had he done so, South Africa would have become the first country to have a saint as a president.
Even charismatic leaders such as former president Nelson Mandela and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made mistakes both at party and state level.
Mbeki should be given a chance to complete his remaining presidential term as duly mandated by parliament, itself acting on the mandate of the electorate.
Carol Paton’s provocative, premature and one-sided tribute to President Thabo Mbeki’s presidency is so biased it conspicuously screams for a response.
Masquerading as an objective summary of Mbeki’s presidency, the article, “Things fall apart” (FM, 23 May 2008), is actually an unoriginal opinion piece.
Paton recycles well-known criticism of the president (made popular by the likes of William Mervin Gumede and Xolela Mangcu) and parades the criticism as her own.
The only time Paton finds it necessary to refer to a source is in the fourteenth paragraph; and, even here, she refers only to unspecified “figures in Western diplomatic and financial circles”.
Mbeki might have erred in his judgements over a number of key issues, including his approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe and the way he handled the HIV and Aids debacle, but Paton’s overly negative summary is somewhat a punch below the belt.
It is a pity some of Mbeki’s greatest victories are being overshadowed by a few (real and perceived) misjudgements. The victories include the president’s tireless efforts in ensuring that:
• South Africa occupies a prominent role in continental and global affairs through the occupation of influential positions in the African Union, the United Nations and other international organisation;
• South Africa becomes the first African country to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which, even before kick-off, has already contributed hugely to the country’s economy; and that
• The black middle class triumphs despite persistent traditional barriers, such as the refusal by the predominantly white business sector to transform qualitatively;
Just like other presidents around the world, Mbeki has not perfected every aspect of his leadership. Had he done so, South Africa would have become the first country to have a saint as a president.
Even charismatic leaders such as former president Nelson Mandela and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made mistakes both at party and state level.
Mbeki should be given a chance to complete his remaining presidential term as duly mandated by parliament, itself acting on the mandate of the electorate.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Quiet Diplomacy III
At long last, someone has the guts to point out the other culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 May 2008
I would like to congratulate Cunningham Ngcukana for daring, so convincingly, to contextualise the Zimbabwe situation in his article, “Mbeki is on the right track in his Zimbabwe mediation” (City Press, 11 May 2008). The truth, as it is often said, shall set us free.
The position he has adopted may not be the most popular one; but, if we are to understand the situation in our neighbouring country, it is important that we understand both and all sides of the story. In this regard, I would also like to congratulate City Press for providing Ngcukana the space to express his opinion.
Now, on the contents of Ngcukana’s article, I found it very relevant that he fearlessly unmasks one of the culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe – the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
Ngcukana was actually mild when he mentioned that the MDC’s formation was funded by “the British, the Americans and the Zimbabwean farmers.” In fact, the MDC was conceptualised, formed and funded by those powers emanating from outside the borders of the African continent.
In an interview with one Pan-African magazine, President Robert Mugabe named the founders of the MDC as the three British political parties: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democrats, on the strength of a special fund called the Westminster Foundation Fund.
We (Africans) must not assume that this sudden generosity of the British was premised on advancing the lives of the Zimbabweans. On the contrary, the generosity, as is always the practice in foreign policy, must have been influenced by the British national interest, which is to maintain economic control over former colonies.
Because the British may be trying to maintain their grip on their former colonies, one may ask what then becomes the Americans’ role and interest. Well, because the British supported them in justifying an illegal war in Iraq, the Americans are paying back by supporting British efforts to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
And, if one considers the actions of the US and the British governments in pressurising Mugabe out of power, it is clear the Americans are working at an operational level whilst Britain rallies more of its allies, such as Australia, to join the push.
Although they maintain that the economic and political sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe are targeted at individuals close to the Harare regime, the Americans have in fact adopted a law – the Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Act – that effectively legalised external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state.
It was not surprising, therefore, that, on 21 June last year, the then US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would rocket to 1.5 million percent before the end of the year 2007. How he came to such a figure remains a mystery. But, not surprisingly, his prediction came to naught.
Not to be outdone, one British newspaper, infamous for its right-wing approach, noted in a deceiving editorial comment that: “[Africa’s] exclusion from rising global prosperity, its disadvantages in the competitive environment of international trade, its burden of crippling debt are no longer just laments of African governments and aid organisations.”
The newspaper said these and other problems holding back development in Africa are now “rightly seen as matters of concern for the whole world.” Only the gullible will believe that.
To understand where most of Africa’s problems emanate from, one needs to firstly read Walter Rodney in his classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Amongst other key observations, Rodney writes: “When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marvelled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people.”
Rodney argues that: “Even today, there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons.”
To fully understand the approach of the Western governments (particularly the US and Britain) in Zimbabwe, it is important to observe how they deal with other governments accused of offences similar or worse than those seen under Mugabe’s leadership in Zimbabwe. Ngcukana mentioned some of these, but a further elaboration is important.
Take, for example, a country such as Sudan. The president, Omar el-Bashir, firstly came to power through a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government. He has presided over Africa’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe, Dafur.
Again, take, for example, a country such as Nigeria. The president, Umaru Yar’adua, came to power through a controversial election that saw over 200 civilians dead due to election-related violence. The European Union itself said the elections were marred by irregularities and vote rigging.
President Omar Bongo of the west African country, Gabon, has been in power since 1976. After his disputed re-election in 2005, he is even reported to have said that he will run for president again in 2011.
If Britain and the US are so concerned about democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe, we must ask why they are not equally concerned about the same in countries such as Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Swaziland, etc. We must see the likes of the MDC for what they truly are: “agents of imperialism,” as aptly put by Ngcukana.
Africans said this, the 21st Century, is an African Century. Until we take charge of our own political and economic future by exposing “agents of imperialism”, our hands will remain tied. We’ll have the cake (our abundant material resources) but we will not be able to eat it.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 May 2008
I would like to congratulate Cunningham Ngcukana for daring, so convincingly, to contextualise the Zimbabwe situation in his article, “Mbeki is on the right track in his Zimbabwe mediation” (City Press, 11 May 2008). The truth, as it is often said, shall set us free.
The position he has adopted may not be the most popular one; but, if we are to understand the situation in our neighbouring country, it is important that we understand both and all sides of the story. In this regard, I would also like to congratulate City Press for providing Ngcukana the space to express his opinion.
Now, on the contents of Ngcukana’s article, I found it very relevant that he fearlessly unmasks one of the culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe – the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
Ngcukana was actually mild when he mentioned that the MDC’s formation was funded by “the British, the Americans and the Zimbabwean farmers.” In fact, the MDC was conceptualised, formed and funded by those powers emanating from outside the borders of the African continent.
In an interview with one Pan-African magazine, President Robert Mugabe named the founders of the MDC as the three British political parties: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democrats, on the strength of a special fund called the Westminster Foundation Fund.
We (Africans) must not assume that this sudden generosity of the British was premised on advancing the lives of the Zimbabweans. On the contrary, the generosity, as is always the practice in foreign policy, must have been influenced by the British national interest, which is to maintain economic control over former colonies.
Because the British may be trying to maintain their grip on their former colonies, one may ask what then becomes the Americans’ role and interest. Well, because the British supported them in justifying an illegal war in Iraq, the Americans are paying back by supporting British efforts to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
And, if one considers the actions of the US and the British governments in pressurising Mugabe out of power, it is clear the Americans are working at an operational level whilst Britain rallies more of its allies, such as Australia, to join the push.
Although they maintain that the economic and political sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe are targeted at individuals close to the Harare regime, the Americans have in fact adopted a law – the Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Act – that effectively legalised external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state.
It was not surprising, therefore, that, on 21 June last year, the then US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would rocket to 1.5 million percent before the end of the year 2007. How he came to such a figure remains a mystery. But, not surprisingly, his prediction came to naught.
Not to be outdone, one British newspaper, infamous for its right-wing approach, noted in a deceiving editorial comment that: “[Africa’s] exclusion from rising global prosperity, its disadvantages in the competitive environment of international trade, its burden of crippling debt are no longer just laments of African governments and aid organisations.”
The newspaper said these and other problems holding back development in Africa are now “rightly seen as matters of concern for the whole world.” Only the gullible will believe that.
To understand where most of Africa’s problems emanate from, one needs to firstly read Walter Rodney in his classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Amongst other key observations, Rodney writes: “When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marvelled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people.”
Rodney argues that: “Even today, there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons.”
To fully understand the approach of the Western governments (particularly the US and Britain) in Zimbabwe, it is important to observe how they deal with other governments accused of offences similar or worse than those seen under Mugabe’s leadership in Zimbabwe. Ngcukana mentioned some of these, but a further elaboration is important.
Take, for example, a country such as Sudan. The president, Omar el-Bashir, firstly came to power through a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government. He has presided over Africa’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe, Dafur.
Again, take, for example, a country such as Nigeria. The president, Umaru Yar’adua, came to power through a controversial election that saw over 200 civilians dead due to election-related violence. The European Union itself said the elections were marred by irregularities and vote rigging.
President Omar Bongo of the west African country, Gabon, has been in power since 1976. After his disputed re-election in 2005, he is even reported to have said that he will run for president again in 2011.
If Britain and the US are so concerned about democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe, we must ask why they are not equally concerned about the same in countries such as Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Swaziland, etc. We must see the likes of the MDC for what they truly are: “agents of imperialism,” as aptly put by Ngcukana.
Africans said this, the 21st Century, is an African Century. Until we take charge of our own political and economic future by exposing “agents of imperialism”, our hands will remain tied. We’ll have the cake (our abundant material resources) but we will not be able to eat it.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The battle for Zim's future must not end with Mugabe's rule
Britain’s so-called rescue package, prepared in anticipation of Mugabe’s exit, seems to be aimed at remote-controlling the next leader from 10 Downing Street
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 04 April 2008
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is caught up in a corner, trying to delay the announcement of election results that have already seen the opposition Movement for Democratic Change ahead of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).
Most commentators, as well as international observers and other interested parties, have predicted long before the first vote is cast that Mugabe will try to rig the election in order to extend his 28-year-old rule.
But, given a key constitutional amendment compelling the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to publish preliminary results outside polling stations, Mugabe, even if he had the intention to rig the election, would not have found it easy to apply the trick.
What is seldom acknowledged, though, is the fact that this key constitutional amendment is a result of South African President Thabo Mbeki’s African Union-sanctioned mediation efforts. After a long while, Mbeki’s widely-criticised “quite diplomacy” is finally bearing fruits. Mugabe is finally caught up in a corner.
Given the MDC’s victory over the ruling ZANU-PF in the parliamentary poll, Mugabe will most certainly never recover from this defeat. The blow seems too severe for the 84-year-old president, who’s been at the helm since independence from Britain.
Though Mbeki’s “quite diplomacy” seems to be paying off, the next president of South Africa may need to carry on the battle over Zimbabwe’s economic future. Already, in anticipation of Mugabe’s defeat, Britain has announced a planned one-billion-euro-a-year package for Zimbabwe.
According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, Mugabe had previously rejected the package because of the conditions attached to it.
Britain’s new efforts to bring back the rejected package should be viewed with suspicion as the main intention behind the new offer seems to be intended to ensure that a new Zimbabwean leader is remote-controlled from 10 Downing Street.
South Africa, working closely with the AU, must continue to play a central role in Zimbabwe even if Mugabe’s 28-year-old rule does come to an end. Mbeki’s quite diplomacy must be carried on to the future to ensure continuity in the battle for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 04 April 2008
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is caught up in a corner, trying to delay the announcement of election results that have already seen the opposition Movement for Democratic Change ahead of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).
Most commentators, as well as international observers and other interested parties, have predicted long before the first vote is cast that Mugabe will try to rig the election in order to extend his 28-year-old rule.
But, given a key constitutional amendment compelling the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to publish preliminary results outside polling stations, Mugabe, even if he had the intention to rig the election, would not have found it easy to apply the trick.
What is seldom acknowledged, though, is the fact that this key constitutional amendment is a result of South African President Thabo Mbeki’s African Union-sanctioned mediation efforts. After a long while, Mbeki’s widely-criticised “quite diplomacy” is finally bearing fruits. Mugabe is finally caught up in a corner.
Given the MDC’s victory over the ruling ZANU-PF in the parliamentary poll, Mugabe will most certainly never recover from this defeat. The blow seems too severe for the 84-year-old president, who’s been at the helm since independence from Britain.
Though Mbeki’s “quite diplomacy” seems to be paying off, the next president of South Africa may need to carry on the battle over Zimbabwe’s economic future. Already, in anticipation of Mugabe’s defeat, Britain has announced a planned one-billion-euro-a-year package for Zimbabwe.
According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, Mugabe had previously rejected the package because of the conditions attached to it.
Britain’s new efforts to bring back the rejected package should be viewed with suspicion as the main intention behind the new offer seems to be intended to ensure that a new Zimbabwean leader is remote-controlled from 10 Downing Street.
South Africa, working closely with the AU, must continue to play a central role in Zimbabwe even if Mugabe’s 28-year-old rule does come to an end. Mbeki’s quite diplomacy must be carried on to the future to ensure continuity in the battle for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Big dictators get away with murder as AU targets little Comoros
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 March 2007
Heads of States of the African Union adopted the African Union Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance last year in January at a summit held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Amongst the African leaders present at the summit were Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his counterparts from Libya (Colonel Muammar AlGhattafi) and Sudan (Omar el Bashir).
The list of undemocratic African rulers is long. Bear in mind the likes of King Mswati of Swaziland, Theodore Nguema of Equatorial Guinea and Paul Biya of Cameroon. Biya, for example, has been in power since 1982. He’s still sitting over there today.
Currently, AU forces are pushing a self-appointed president of the Comoros out of power. Mohamed Bacar, a French-trained former soldier, is said to have stubbornly clung on to power after an illegal election last year, 2007.
When the AU leaders adopted the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance, they said they were doing so because they were seeking to entrench in Africa “a political culture of change of power based on the holding of regular, free, fair and transparent elections conducted by competent, independent and impartial national electoral bodies.”
It may be too soon to rate African countries’ compliance with the charter, but, judging by the way preparations have been going in Zimbabwe ahead of Saturday’s election, one can say it is business as usual despite the adoption of the charter. Today does not seem any better than yesterday.
The Comoros is a soft target for the AU forces. Other undemocratic leaders know that they will not face similar action even if they defy the AU. Even worse is the fact that the AU forces overthrowing Bacar are supported by undemocratic countries.
Sudan has deployed its forces to join the overthrow of Bacar, but the Sudanese President himself, Omar el-Bashir, not only has the Dafur genocide in his backyard, but he himself also came to power through undemocratic means.
According to various historical sources, el-Bashir came to power in June 1989 through a military coup against the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. The irony is glaring.
The AU, by targeting the Comoros whilst ignoring bigger tyrants, has started to turn the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance into another useless paper. The undemocratic cycle goes round and round unabated.
If the African political elite are genuinely interested in democracy and good governance on the continent, the AU must treat all states as equal partners and treat undemocratic rulers similarly. The same should apply to the European Union: sanctions against undemocratic African governments must not border on hypocrisy and selective justice.
Heads of States of the African Union adopted the African Union Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance last year in January at a summit held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Amongst the African leaders present at the summit were Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his counterparts from Libya (Colonel Muammar AlGhattafi) and Sudan (Omar el Bashir).
The list of undemocratic African rulers is long. Bear in mind the likes of King Mswati of Swaziland, Theodore Nguema of Equatorial Guinea and Paul Biya of Cameroon. Biya, for example, has been in power since 1982. He’s still sitting over there today.
Currently, AU forces are pushing a self-appointed president of the Comoros out of power. Mohamed Bacar, a French-trained former soldier, is said to have stubbornly clung on to power after an illegal election last year, 2007.
When the AU leaders adopted the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance, they said they were doing so because they were seeking to entrench in Africa “a political culture of change of power based on the holding of regular, free, fair and transparent elections conducted by competent, independent and impartial national electoral bodies.”
It may be too soon to rate African countries’ compliance with the charter, but, judging by the way preparations have been going in Zimbabwe ahead of Saturday’s election, one can say it is business as usual despite the adoption of the charter. Today does not seem any better than yesterday.
The Comoros is a soft target for the AU forces. Other undemocratic leaders know that they will not face similar action even if they defy the AU. Even worse is the fact that the AU forces overthrowing Bacar are supported by undemocratic countries.
Sudan has deployed its forces to join the overthrow of Bacar, but the Sudanese President himself, Omar el-Bashir, not only has the Dafur genocide in his backyard, but he himself also came to power through undemocratic means.
According to various historical sources, el-Bashir came to power in June 1989 through a military coup against the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. The irony is glaring.
The AU, by targeting the Comoros whilst ignoring bigger tyrants, has started to turn the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance into another useless paper. The undemocratic cycle goes round and round unabated.
If the African political elite are genuinely interested in democracy and good governance on the continent, the AU must treat all states as equal partners and treat undemocratic rulers similarly. The same should apply to the European Union: sanctions against undemocratic African governments must not border on hypocrisy and selective justice.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Fairness must pravail when analysing Mbeki
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 February 2008
In his letter, “Bye Mbeki, it’s time to admit defeat,” (The Star, February 20, 2008), Dr. Lucan Ntyintyane makes a number of unfounded generalisations that should not go without some rebuffing.
According to Dr. Tyintyane, “in the eyes of the public, [President Thabo Mbeki] has lost all credibility”.
Mbeki may have lost some credibility over the years, but Dr. Ntyintyane elevates doom-saying to new heights when he refers to President Mbeki’s loss of “all credibility”.
Ntyintyane goes on to claim that “South Africa is in a state of paralysis and confusion.” You wonder what paralysis the good doctor is talking about.
The country may be going through tough times, particularly in view of the recent power outrages; but talk of the country being in “a state of paralysis” is dishonest.
It is wrong for Dr. Ntyintyane to call for President Mbeki “to say goodbye” just a year before the country elects a new government, including a new president.
It’s not clear whether Dr. Ntyintyane is a medical doctor, a PhD or a traditional doctor, but his sweeping generalisations, most of which are baseless, cheapens the doctor title attached to his name.
Much as we’d like to review Mbeki’s legacy in his final months in office, we must also acknowledge the many achievements the country has seen under his stewardship.
In his letter, “Bye Mbeki, it’s time to admit defeat,” (The Star, February 20, 2008), Dr. Lucan Ntyintyane makes a number of unfounded generalisations that should not go without some rebuffing.
According to Dr. Tyintyane, “in the eyes of the public, [President Thabo Mbeki] has lost all credibility”.
Mbeki may have lost some credibility over the years, but Dr. Ntyintyane elevates doom-saying to new heights when he refers to President Mbeki’s loss of “all credibility”.
Ntyintyane goes on to claim that “South Africa is in a state of paralysis and confusion.” You wonder what paralysis the good doctor is talking about.
The country may be going through tough times, particularly in view of the recent power outrages; but talk of the country being in “a state of paralysis” is dishonest.
It is wrong for Dr. Ntyintyane to call for President Mbeki “to say goodbye” just a year before the country elects a new government, including a new president.
It’s not clear whether Dr. Ntyintyane is a medical doctor, a PhD or a traditional doctor, but his sweeping generalisations, most of which are baseless, cheapens the doctor title attached to his name.
Much as we’d like to review Mbeki’s legacy in his final months in office, we must also acknowledge the many achievements the country has seen under his stewardship.
- An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 26 February 2008 under the headline, "'Discredited' Mbeki not all that bad'.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Vengeful voting will hurt ANC and country
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 November 2007
African National Congress (ANC) Secretary-General Kgalema Motlanthe is reported to have expressed concern that factional voting in the run-up to the ruling party’s December conference might exclude talented leaders.
Motlanthe’s concern is perfectly legitimate, particularly given the outcomes of the weekend’s provincial nomination conferences.
The Kwa-Zulu Natal province, with its overwhelming support for ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma, is said to have purged suspected supporters of President Thabo Mbeki, replacing them with the likes of ex-deputy minister of health, Nosizwe Madlala-Routledge.
So far, several talented ANC leaders such as Trevor Manuel and Joel Netshitenzhe have been omitted from most of the provincial nominations.
The result would be loss of organisational memory at government level and, as always, “the masses” for which the government exist will be robbed of several skilled and hardworking politicians.
ANC members with voting powers at the December conference still have time to correct this and other mistakes. Vengeful voting will only work against the party and the country.
African National Congress (ANC) Secretary-General Kgalema Motlanthe is reported to have expressed concern that factional voting in the run-up to the ruling party’s December conference might exclude talented leaders.
Motlanthe’s concern is perfectly legitimate, particularly given the outcomes of the weekend’s provincial nomination conferences.
The Kwa-Zulu Natal province, with its overwhelming support for ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma, is said to have purged suspected supporters of President Thabo Mbeki, replacing them with the likes of ex-deputy minister of health, Nosizwe Madlala-Routledge.
So far, several talented ANC leaders such as Trevor Manuel and Joel Netshitenzhe have been omitted from most of the provincial nominations.
The result would be loss of organisational memory at government level and, as always, “the masses” for which the government exist will be robbed of several skilled and hardworking politicians.
ANC members with voting powers at the December conference still have time to correct this and other mistakes. Vengeful voting will only work against the party and the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
