Responses to Lekota et al

I kept thinking someone will take an initiative to respond to Lekota et al, including today's newly found energy by Shilowa to suggest a new electoral system. Here I will respond to all the issues that I know of which they have raised. Please let me know if I leave something out. Mainly I will derive these from Lekota's letter, his media briefing and Shilowa's media briefing.

Red is for Lekota et al's concern. Green is for my response.

1. "For instance, those who express views that are contrary to popular opinion in meetings and conferences of the organisation are later hounded out and purged from organisation and state structures. This is contrary to the ANC's democratic culture." (Lekota letter)

It is not easy to respond to this shallow statement without being shallow. It would be better if Mr Lekota had provided examples of those people. I can assume that he refers to Eastern and Western Cape Premier plus the country's former President. Even on this assumption, it is not clear which contrary view did they express to warrant the hounding and purging.

A sober analysis of the individual cases of recall/redeployment will reveal that Lekota's allegations (if my assumption is correct that he refers to them) are unfounded. All comrades who have been recalled have been given reasons why. I can't comment on Shilowa's resignation.

Until Lekota substantiates this allegation it remains complicated to respond rationally to it.

Bayanda Mzoneli has explained at length in his blog on the ANC tolerates differing views.

2. Sectoral and individual interests other than those flowing from the people's interests expressed in the Freedom Charter are elevated to levels of national priority. Thus we are expected to show up at criminal court cases or carry shoulder high individuals convicted of crimes unrelated to the demands in the Freedom Charter. (Lekota letter)

In most instances, comrades support each other out of common brotherhood and sisterhood plus sheer friendship. For some comrades, comradeship goes beyond politics. This does not mean taking something away from politics. It is voluntary for comrades to attend other comrade's funerals, weddings, birthday parties, court appearances and many other non-political activities. This does not in any way belittle the pursuit of the Freedom Charter. It is not true that there is an expectation that people should show up at court cases, it is purely voluntart and mainly based on the individual's belief. For example I believed Cde Jacob Zuma to be innocent during his rape case, so I showed up at court to support him and eventually the court acquited him. There is absolutely nothing wrong in this. Maybe Lekota need to improve this allegation as well in order for it to grow legs.

Instead of instilling respect for institutions of democracy, our leaders issue threats that if judicial proceedings do not result in outcomes they prefer, the country will be brought to a standstill. (Lekota letter)

The ANC have instilled respect in all institutions of democracy. It is a lie that those institutions are disrespected. Nothing have been done, IN PRACTICE, to disrespect the courts. This is despite the court having found against Cde Zuma in the case of 'search and seizures' and the country is not in standstill.

However leaders have a right to participate in the public discourse even if it includes the Executive, Legislature or Judiciary. None of the institutions of democracy are immune from public scrutiny. If one of the institutions of democract was to be exempt from criticism or scrutiny, it would be the end of democracy. Or if leaders were to be prohibited from participating in the public discourse just because it involves a certain institution of democracy, it would infringe on the leaders' democratic rights.

3. Lately, the leadership has taken a direct and unadulterated departure from the Freedom Charter by calling for a political solution in the matter of the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions vs the President of the ANC. What happened to "There shall be equality before the law?". Or are we now to have political solutions to every citizen's criminal case? (Lekota letter)

Nothing happened to "equality before the law". The ANC still pursues it as oultlined in the Freedom Charter. A political soultion was suggested by some leaders after concluding that the case is political. Justice Nicholshon confirmed that the case had political elements. Indeed people are equal before the law. Hence no one should be investigated and be approximately prosecuted on a perpertual basis based on political reasons. Equality means a political problem should have a political solution and a legal problem should be solved by the law. I need not remind Mr Lekota about Justice Herbert Msimang's judgement on the same case. So there is no contradiction there. The leadership has not departed from the Freedom Charter.

4. Blatant threats to kill for certain individuals if desires other than their own are not satisfied are made with impunity. When democracy-supporting institutions intervene to stop such delinquent behaviour, more of our leaders come out in loud support for threats to kill. (Lekota letter)


Cde Malema and Cde Vavi explained, individually, the context in which they made those remarks. People who perceive their statements, even when taken literally, fail to realise that human life is equal. These comrades declared that they are ready to die for their beliefs. It is myopic of Mr Lekota to be selective in recalling what they said. Immediately when their readiness to die is acknolwdged, it logically brings forth the context of their statement.

The context was the expression of the passion and commitement which they have in defence of their beliefs. People should therefore not be prohibited from expressing their passion. Cde Malema later excused his language, saying he understood that it was open to various interpretations. Mr Lekota should not celebrate such petty points and pretend that they are adequate for her to leave a party he has led for many years to lead a new one. He did not leave when someone said "Kill the boer, kill the farmer" even though that was more explicit and directed to a particular group.

5. Wearing of Zulu Boy T-Shirts and/or implied condoning of tribalism. (Lekota Media Briefing)

The ANC denounces tribalism and all other forms of discrimination. The T-Shirts are a product of the tribalist e-mails that circulated within the ANC leaders (now known as 'hoax emails'). These e-mails contained extremely tribalists remarks which refered to Cde JZ as a 'Zulu Boy'. Some members elected to cite these e-mails in expressing their support for Cde JZ. The ANC cannot ban citation or reference, that would be undemocratic. In fact such reference have grown to be used even in other channels including social networking websites.

If Lekota had taken the time to ask any of the ANC members who were those T-Shirts whether they were for tribalism he would have got the answer. ANC members understand the ANC. They are not in anyway promoting tribalism by wearing those T-Shirts.

6. Singing of revolutionary songs, in particular the song "Awuleth' umshini wami". (Lekota Media briefing)

It is very petty of Mr Lekota to raise this as a concern. There are many revolutionary songs that continue to be sang long after the policy positions they were advocating have passed. Singing of revolutionary songs in not neatly labelled with expiry dates that refer to each epoch. ANC members sing many songs randomly. If Mr Lekota had attended a funeral of any of the MK veterans he would have had the song "Thina bafana bomkhonto sizimisele uku....", he knows how the song continues (ask a friend if you don't know).

I would love to listen to the epoch specific songs that his new party will sing, if it will ever sing. They will have to develop a hymn book that will be updated occassionally to ensure the members only sing approved songs.

7. Practice of democracy and putsch of former President Mbeki. (Shilowa media briefing)

The practice of deployment and redeployment in the ANC and the Alliance is very old. It is strange that when it applies to former President Mbeki, Mr Shilowa finds it neccesary that the constitution should be amended to allow for directly elected leaders.

Mr Shilowa was part of the Polokwane Conference. This conference had a lengthy document on the electoral system and more on the sphere of government, I wonder if he was as enthusiastic about change in the discussions in his branch as he is today. Maybe he would have proposed changes to the constitution in another clause about the maximum terms had the Polokwane Conference elections turned out another way.

Mr Shilowa remarks at his media briefing were surpringly of a very liberal democracy. It is not clear whether he has always haboured those views or they are newly thought following certain events.

This concludes my responses to Lekota et al. I am going to label these as Part One just in case there are follow-up questions or there are other points that emerge which I may have left out by accidental omission.

ANC Membership - Part 2 : Is this the beginning of the Quadratite Alliance?

Note to the loyal reader: This is a sequal to Bayanda's ANC Membership - Part 1. He might write Part 3, but we have agreed that I write Part 2.

--

The bubble, that has been inflating for some time, have burst. Cde Lekota et al are going to form a new political party in a few weeks (he said 2 to 3 or 4 weeks).

As I a member of the ANCYL and ANC this is the account of what I make of Cde Lekota's announcement today.

Cde Lekota has been a member of the ANC for many years. Serving, recently, as its National Chairperson and deployee to government as Defence Minister. From the this I can safely deduce that he subscribes to the Freedom Charter, the ANC Strategy and Tactics, the RDP and other related documents outlining the policy positions of our movement. The same applies to most of his associates.

[For convenience please allow me to name the new party the National Congress of Africa (NCA)]

How then is the NCA going to be different from the ANC. Cde Lekota et al point the following as reasons for leaving the ANC;

1. Opposition to the purge of dissidents (the recall of premiers and/or RSA President).
2. Opposition to singing of revolutionary songs advocating violence (Umshini wami).
3. Opposition to certain statements by President Malema of the ANCYL ("Kill for Zuma").
4. Opposition to a proposal of a political solution to the State vs JZ case.
5. Opposition to insults/threats hurled at courts and other institutions supporting democracy.
6. On the basis of the above Cde Lekota et al believe the current leadership is leading the ANC further away from its adopted policies and programmes.

Here I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of these issues. I think these beliefs are so embedded in Lekota et al in the same way that Bayanda believes in Catholic Church. Trying to argue these issues away from them would be a waste of time at this stage (or I could leave it for Part 3).

I believe, besides the matters listed above, Cde Lekota et al agree with all the other ANC policies and programmes.

As I grew in the ANC, I learned about the Tripartite Alliance. I was told that the ANC, SACP, Cosatu and SANCO are all autonomous organisations with different constitutions. I was told that they in an Alliance to defeat the Apartheid regime and transform South Africa into a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society.

I was also told that the Freedom Charter is the glue that holds the Alliance together and that any organisation that adopts the Freedom Charter as its guiding document can be accepted in the fold of the Mass Democratic Movement. This is the reason why SASCO, launched on 6 September 1991, is part of the Alliance even though it an autonomous organisation.

Cde Lekota et al's NCA would most probably adopt the Freedom Charter and other ANC documents as a guide to their transformation programme. Unfortunately for them, they do not have the formal support of the ANC Alliance partners even though they may tap in to the likes of Jaras, Dexters and Madishas of this world.

This leads me to believe that the NCA, at its first Convention/Congress, can decide to be part of the Tripartite Alliance thereby extending the alliance to become a Quadritite Alliance. They can either support an Alliance Pact like Cosatu to have a quota in deployments or swell the ranks of the ANC like the SACP in order to get deployment. I know Lekota mumbled something to the effect that they will constest the elections. I think he did not mean that literally. He is not that stupid.

In any case the NCA will have to draft a Manifesto is it wanted to stand alone. Its manifesto will have to claim the successes of the ANC government just like the ANC manifesto will be. The NCA Manifesto will have to promise the same things as the ANC manifesto. The 6 points of difference with the ANC are not enough to draft a parallel manifesto.

The NCA's alliance into the Quadritite Alliance will help it attract more ANC members who might grow disatisfied with certain things over time. When the NCA accumulates enough muscle in about 2044 it can then propose the realignement of the Alliance to have NCA leading the Alliance instead of the ANC, that is if the SACP had not succeeded in doing that by that time.

Article G of the ANCYL constitution which talks about membership, in subsection 6, says;

"6. Dual or multiple membership by individuals shall be welcome provided the policies and programmes of those organisations to which they belong or may wish to belong, are not hostile to those of the ANCYL." (http://www.e-tools.co.za/anc/youth/documents/constitution/constitution2004a.pdf)

My view is that the policies and programmes of NCA are not going to be hostile to those of the ANCYL. I am looking forward to joining this new organisation while maintaing my membership of the ANC. I do not agree with the 6 reasons for Lekota et al departure, but I think I can help them inside their new party to realise their mistake and repent.

I just hope that I won't be refused membership by the new party on the basis of having different views. I hope I won't be purged once I am a member and I express my views in public about us (the new party) not standing for elections but instead become part of the Quadritite Alliance.

Eventually this Quadritite Alliance partner will grow irrelevant as the 6 griveiances get addressed. The new party will eventually fade away and every one, who might be misled/angry for now, will return to be a disciplined member of the ANC. The good side to it is that the ANC would have attracted other voters by then.

Viva Comrade Tutu

Note to the loyal readers: I am no longer writing about resignations. Bayanda has said a mouthful about that. Read his blog. It contains my views.
---
Some of my comrades have reacted negatively to what Cde Tutu have said about not voting in next year's election if the ANC does not get its house in order.

I am a member of the ANC. I will be the first to admit that the ANC house is not in order. It has not been in order since before the 52nd National Conference in Polokwane 2007. If it was in order the current NEC would not be fixing things by recalling premeirs, recalling the President of the country, auditing Chancellor House and so on.

My suspicion is that the ANC house will remain out of order at least until the ANC list process is complete. I am basing this on the likely posibility of competition for positions during the list process upon which we might witness strange behaviour from some ANC members, even though they will be a minority.

Now Cde Tutu says he is not going to vote if the ANC house is not in order. This implies that Cde Tutu is a loyal ANC voter. He says he is saddened by his current observation, at his age I would be sad as well.

I can safely assure Cde Tutu that the ANC house will be in order by the time the country goes to the elections. The list process and the manifesto process would have long finished by then. If someone "ongabhadlanga" wants to start a political party they would have done by then. So definitely the ANC house will be in order. I have a lot of confidence in the ANC NEC and respective provincial, regional and branch structures.

I know some stubborn reader is thinking "but you have not addressed the issue of Zuma Presidency". Yeah I know what Cde Tutu said. For your convenience here is it. By the time we get to the next election Cde Tutu would have realised the difference between suspicion, allegation and guilt. He would be able to distinguinsh between a subjective view of an allegation and an objective view. He will know, by then, that there is no amount of allegation(s) that can grow to be guilt just because it is repeated 2634 times. He will know what innocence means. So the issue of the Zuma presidency is not an issue at all. I have confidence in the intelligence of Cde Tutu.

I kindly request members of the media to visit him just before elections to ask him if he will vote. If his statements were genuine and not about hypocrisy or seeking cheap media points, he will tell them that he is going to vote. His vote is no longer secret. Despite having many political parties he opts not to vote if he is not voting ANC. As he changes his mind, he will be voting ANC.

My comrades should have confidence in Cde Tutu. He is certainly not a hypocrite. He also knows what Charles Dempesey's abstinence cost us.

PS: Lazola I wrote about this before you did. How nice.

I am not going to say I told you so, yet.

I must first indicate that a reader of my blogs, friend and comrade criticised my previous post saying it was more a collection of quotes than an opinion piece. I still feel that extensive quoting was justified.

The previous post appeared on The Star on 17 September 2008, on the Sunday Times and Sunday Tribune on 21 September 2008 and it was published on the YCL Bottomline and  Friends of JZ Website.

I had an intention of writting about the either the unity of the ANC Alliance or the role of the ANCYL. Following the resignation of some Ministers and Deputy Ministers, I have opted to rather write about. I shall written to the other matters latter.

My next post is therefore on the subject of the resignations.

We should welcome Mbeki's resignation

In June 2005, following the Judge Squires judgement in the Shaik Trial, President Mbeki convened a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament to "release" the then Deputy President of the Republic, Jacob Zuma, from his duties.

President Mbeki, at the time, indicated that the release of the Deputy President was not about the merits or demerits of the contents of the judgement. He said "In this regard, I must emphasise that I studied this judgement not to make any determination whatsoever about its merits or demerits, about whether it was wholly or partially right or wrong. Indeed, such conduct does not fall within our constitutional mandate as the Executive. This task belongs to the higher courts, the organs of state that would hear any appeal that might be lodged.
Accordingly, any actions we may take arising out of Justice Squires’ judgement would arise merely from the fact that a court judgement exists, which our Constitution enjoins us to respect."

He went to explain the difficulty he faced at the time due to non-existence of precedence. He said "We have had no precedent to guide us as we considered our response to the judgement by Justice Squires. We have therefore had to make our own original determination on this matter guided by what we believe is in the best interest of the Honourable Deputy President, the Government, our young democratic system, and our country.

I am fully conscious of the fact that the accused in the Schabir Schaik case have given notice of their intention to lodge an appeal. I am equally aware that a superior court may overturn the judgement handed down by Justice Squires.

However, as President of the Republic I have come to the conclusion that the circumstances dictate that in the interest of the Honourable Deputy President, the Government, our young democratic system, and our country, it would be best to release the Hon Jacob Zuma from his responsibilities as Deputy President of the Republic and Member of the Cabinet"

Difficult to please readers of this text might want to go ahead and re-read the entire speech to understand better what the President said. Here an assumption is made that the reader is aware of what the Squires Judgement entailed. Maybe for a hint of clarity let me quote the President one last time on what he says about the judgement. In his speech he said "Unambiguous as the judgement may be about an assumed unsavoury relationship, the Deputy President has yet to have his day in court."

The sum total of the foregoing is refreshing the collective memory of society of what we have been through in the past and hence the precedent we have set ourselves as a young democracy.

In as much as I am tempted to assume that the Nicholson Judgement is common knowledge, I will resist the temptation and proceed to highlight certain aspects of the judgement.

In Paragraph 156 the Judge quotes Mr Zuma's remark that "Shortly before the 20th (on or about Sunday, 6 June 2005), I was requested by the President of the RSA, through others, to resign in the light of the Shaik judgement. The request at that time was hard to justify on any legal basis." He goes on in paragraph 158 to say "...Even though the President’s decision was unfair and unjust, given the fact that the applicant was not given a chance to defend himself in a court of law, it was not an illegal act given his power to hire and fire his Deputy or cabinet ministers, at his will."

The judgement in paragraph 199 makes reference to the court papers submitted by NPA and remark that "These consultations with the office of the Presidency on the implied ongoing basis from February 2006 are also cause for concern given the constitutional imperative of independence." Nicholson continues in paragraph 210 and says "The timing of the indictment by Mr Mpshe on 28 December 2007, after the President suffered a political defeat at Polokwane was most unfortunate. This factor, together with the suspension of Mr Pikoli, who was supposed to be independent and immune from executive interference, persuade me that the most plausible inference is that the baleful political influence was continuing."

I am quoting the judgement extensively deliberately so that even the stubborn can understand the thrust of this argument. It should be clear that this is not the figment of the imagination of the author.

The Judge says, in paragraph 214 "Is it possible that the Mr Maduna was on a frolic of his own or acting on instructions? It seems very improbable that in so important a matter as one involving the Deputy President (his political superior) a mere minister would get involved without the President knowing and agreeing."

President Mbeki indicated clearly that he studied the Squires judgement "...not to make any determination whatsoever about its merits or demerits, about whether it was wholly or partially right or wrong. Indeed, such conduct does not fall within our constitutional mandate as the Executive." This principle should obviously apply to Nicholson's judgement in 2008 as it did in the Squires judgement in 2005.

President Mbeki's last paragraph of his speech says "I trust that what we have done today, and will do in future, together, will continue to strengthen our democracy, reinforce the accountability of those who hold public office, and deepen the confidence of the masses of our people in their elected representatives and our organs of state."

President Zuma highlighted that "Shortly before the 20th (on or about Sunday, 6 June 2005), I was requested by the President of the RSA, through others, to resign in the light of the Shaik judgement." Clearly the President of RSA should now exemplify what he asked of his Deputy President at the time and resign, this time in the light of the Nicholson judgement.

In President Mbeki's speech in 2005, it is apparent that the President could not bring himself into pretending that the judgement exists. To him, this justified why he had to act on his Deputy even though the judgement could still be reversed by a higher court in the appeal. This is evident in the statement "Accordingly, any actions we may take arising out of Justice Squires’ judgement would arise merely from the fact that a court judgement exists, which our Constitution enjoins us to respect." It is therefore prudent that the President should not ignore that a court judgement exists. Hence he should act.

President Mbeki correctly pointed out that in 2005 "We have had no precedent to guide us as we considered our response to the judgement by Justice Squires. We have therefore had to make our own original determination on this matter guided by what we believe is in the best interest of the Honourable Deputy President, the Government, our young democratic system, and our country." Fortunately in 2008 we now have a precedent that is guiding us as we consider our response to the judgement by Justice Nicholson. All we have to do is to act in the best interest of the Honourable President, the Government, our young democratic system, and our country as suggested by President Mbeki in 2005.

It took President Mbeki approximately two weeks to finish reading the Squires judgement and decide to "release" his Deputy, notwithstanding that he has requested his Deputy to resign a week earlier. It will most probably take him two weeks or less to finish readin the Nicholson judgement and proceed to "release" himself from his duties.

It is for above reasons that as a country we should welcome his resignation and deal with the consequences of it.

As I conclude, I wish to borrow from President Mbeki when he released his Deputy when he said "Personally, I continue to hold the Hon Jacob Zuma in high regard, and I am convinced that this applies to most Members of Parliament. We have worked together under difficult and challenging conditions for thirty years. In this regard, I wish to thank him for the service that he has rendered as part of the Executive, at national and provincial levels, sparing neither strength nor effort to ensure that, with each passing day, we build a better life for all South Africans.

I am certain that I speak on behalf of all who have served with him in Cabinet when I say that we shall remain friends, colleagues and comrades in the service of the people. And, as government, we shall continue to draw on his experience and expertise where the need arises." I am certain that our country, the continent and the entire global community will continue to hold Hon Mbeki in high regard. We wish to thank him for the service he has rendered as part of the Executive, paring neither strength nor effort to ensure a better life for all. This includes the sterling work he has done for the past 8 years to bring a deal in Zimbabwe.

We look forward to the Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament where the President of the country will announce his resignation. We should all welcome it.

Cosas prophets

On 29 March 2006 the Congress of South African Students (COSAS) in KwaZulu Natal issued a press statement which said, among other things;

"As it has always been our position, we still maintain that we support Dr. Jacob Zuma through the corruption charges against him. We further reiterate that the NPA, Scorpions, Judiciary, through Judge Ngoepe and Judge Squires, and the Presidency, through President Thabo Mbeki, and his entire cabinet ministers together with the leadership of the ANC, have painfully, harshly, unfairly and disappointingly mistreated Dr. Jacob Zuma, who should never have been charged or fired from his government positions from the first instance. The less said about the sudden confession by President Thabo Mbeki, that the he had authored and his cabinet approved the controversial letter that the Prosecution and Judge Squires used as a basis for judging that JZ had a ‘GENERALLY’ corrupt relationship with Schabir Schaik, the better. A letter that eventually led, to JZ being fired from his cabinet positions. And for that we say to President Thabo Mbeki, for hanging Dr. Zuma out to dry and embarrassing him the way you did, while knowing that the basis of a charge against him was invalid, the History within our movement and our country will judge you and your prerogatives harshly."

This statement followed what COSAS regarded as a Mbeki confession at the time. With the developments of the recent weeks, it appears as though their statement was prophetic.

I shall return to write more on this subject.

Cry the South African judiciary

In the past 3 weeks the judges of the Constitutional Court in South Africa issued a statement claiming to have lodged a complain with the Judicial Services Commission about one Judge Hlophe trying to influence them on pending decision involving Jacob Zuma's cases.

When the JSC met it emerged that the Judges had not actually submitted the complain and they requested time to go and draft the complain then submit it really now.

The judiciary has lost confidence in itself in that country. It relies on the media to make judgements for it.

It seems the logic is that because the judges are going to pass a definitive judgement, the media has perpetual non-judgement and hence sustains a bad name of the accused person.