African Statesmanship

The recent death of Zambia’s President Levy Mwanawasa is a tragedy for not only Zambia but also for the entire African continent.

My understanding is that Zambia has prematurely lost a leader of exceptional calibre who was striving to make a genuine difference to the lives of Zambians, particularly in his determined fight against corruption.

Almost uniquely amongst world leaders, Mwanawasa publicly confronted and then prosecuted his predecessor Frederick Chiluba for corruption and fraud. Mwanawasa’s decision to do so cannot have been easy. Chiluba had, after all, been the one to groom and present Mwanawasa as his successor and there must have been some considerable pressure from within the ruling party not to rock the boat (thereby spilling the cash) and to spare Chiluba public humiliation – to say nothing of Chiluba’s underlings, hangers-on, presumed beneficiaries and possible co-conspirators.

Instead, Levy Mwanawasa chose to be a statesman, deciding – as far as possible in a political environment – to honour his promises to the electorate by adhering to the principles (oft-repeated but rarely practiced by the power hungry) of his country’s Constitution. In so doing he appears to have honoured himself and his country, as well as having set a worthy example to his constituency.

Although Spearpoint never had the opportunity to meet and know Levy Mwanawasa personally, the hope is that Zambia will allow Spearpoint to join (albeit remotely) in their mourning as a fellow African.

For the demise of Zambia’s Mwanawasa is a loss not only for Zambia but is also a loss for the whole of Africa – especially southern Africa.

As at home, Mwanawasa displayed the courage to stand up and be counted in the face of the prevailing antipathy in the southern African region towards corruption, fraud and dictatorship in the form of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical and outright criminal regime in Zimbabwe.

With the tacit support of Ian Khama, the President of Botswana, Mwanawasa alone named and shamed Mugabe for what he is, what he represents and what he perpetrates against his own country and people.

In so doing Mwanawasa also implicitly named and shamed all those other African leaders who, despite mounting and convincing evidence, have given Mugabe political support and sustenance either directly and openly or through their failure to criticise and isolate Zimbabwe for its current policies and situation.

Principal amongst these has been South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki and his ANC government.

Appointed by SADC to mediate in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mbeki has epitomized the approach of many other African leaders: don’t rock the boat; don’t embarrass Mugabe; don’t expose Mugabe; don’t fracture the façade of imagined African so-called solidarity; don’t further reinforce the global perception of Africa’s inability to identify, address and remedy its own problems, including those of poverty, corruption, crime, ignorance and indolence.

Notwithstanding recent critical comments from Jacob Zuma (as President of the ANC) regarding Zimbabwe, the fact remains that South Africa continues to pussyfoot around the person of Mugabe and the crisis in Zimbabwe and refuses – publicly, at least – to acknowledge that a problem exists. In Mbeki’s own words on the subject, “There is no crisis”. Sentiments echoed by the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The ANC must be living in gaga land.

It’s obviously not a crisis when a neighbour of South Africa destroys its economy (inflation admitted by the Zimbabwean government just this month to be running at not less than eleven million percent – that’s eleven followed by six zeroes, folks), and driving no less than four million of its own citizens into South Africa – mostly illegally – to escape starvation and political persecution (and who knows how many into other neighbouring countries).

And how can it be a crisis when even the great ANC, champion of the art of rule by smoke and mirrors, has been appointed (in the person of Thabo Mbeki) by SADC to mediate between Mugabe and the Zimbabwean Opposition.

Yet the appointment of a mediator implies conflict, dispute and actual or potential crisis. That much SADC has got right; where it went wrong was appointing Mbeki and his team as mediators. Not only do the mediators deny the existence of a situation which they have consciously agreed to fix, but they are unsuited and unqualified to carry out such a role since they have consistently and laughably maintained for many years now that within their own borders there are no crises in law enforcement, the judicial system, education, HIV, AIDS, TB and other health matters, housing, and so on.

SADC erred in appointing the ANC and Mbeki. It is patently clear that these guys couldn’t organise an orgy in a brothel, given their record of domestic service delivery and good governance.

The mediation between the parties in Zimbabwe has stalled. Naught has been achieved. Mugabe continues to do as he pleases – even to the extent of re-convening Zimbabwe’s parliament (which, according to Zimbabwe’s Constitution, should have occurred months ago) before there is any clarity and agreement on how power division and sharing will prevail in the new government.

Now, doesn’t that just speak volumes on the dedication and abilities of the so-called mediators?

Excepting Zambia and Botswana, no-one in SADC has had the courage to slap Mugabe silly and to tell him to stop behaving like a spoiled brat and to stop embarrassing all of Africa with his puerile behaviour. Mugabe’s arrogance and assumed impunity – watch his disjointed marionette-like swagger in public – has never been challenged by South Africa and its continental cronies.

Indeed, South Africa has shown great concern over Mugabe’s dignity and has been keen to protect that dubious quality. But at what price? Where is the dignity of those Zimbabweans, forever on the cusp of eviction, arrest and starvation, free-falling into the black hole of faster-than-light inflation who have had to separate from their families and homes in order to cross the borders of neighbours looking for some means of sustenance and to live in the additional and constant fear of deportation as illegal immigrants? Where, in South Africa, is the dignity for those South Africans already suffering under the laissez-faire incompetencies of the ANC dictatorship who now have to make room in already overcrowded cities, townships and squatter camps for swarms of desperate immigrants who also want a share of what is clearly an inadequate, mismanaged and ill-divided political and economic cake?

Does the ANC have no shame? Is it not ashamed that it continues its rhetoric and spin doctoring even though it clearly cannot do its job – either at home or around the table in Harare? Just what are the criteria against which it measures itself and which, obviously, allow it in its collective politburo mind to continue its rule?

Of course, shame and admission of error are not matters for easy admission by any politician even in the normal course of events, much less at any other time. Such is the nature of the beast. (Also, incidentally, such is the nature of those that look for and permit the politicians to rule; populations and electorates tend to be lazy in thinking for themselves and constantly seek the comfort of having someone else do their thinking for them. A contradiction of the human condition is that, of all the creatures on the planet, humans have the greatest ability to deal with change, challenge and chance yet are the most persistent in their – often unconscious and unspoken – drive for certainty and comfort.)

Admission of error in Africa is very difficult. Culturally the strong man must be seen to be strong, even if – especially if – wrong. The advent of colonial rule, with all the embarrassments that that brought, together with the displays of power and material goods by the colonial powers, then provided the need to display to the world that Africa and Africans could achieve the same themselves without outside intervention.

The loss of face when African nations screw things up is immense – far more so than the purported Oriental perceptions of face. This is why, for example, racism and colonialism are frequently used as catchphrases to divert attention away from the true reasons for African failure.

Mugabe blames the racism and imperialism of Britain and America for his devastation of the Zimbabwean economy and social structure. Mbeki and many of his colleagues blame racism in South Africa for the failure of many of the ANC’s policies and programmes. It is far less embarrassing and far easier to fix the blame rather than the problem – particularly where personal political careers and ambitions might be at stake. It’s an African pastime; it didn’t rain enough; it rained too much; we don’t have enough money; foreigners are taking our women and jobs; the Whites don’t share; the British conspire against our sovereignty; the Chinese steal our resources; the Indians are lazy and greedy; the Zulus cannot be trusted and steal everything not nailed down; the World Food Programme gave our starving people the wrong food; it goes on and on.

Spearpoint is not suggesting that there are not grains of truth and reality in some or all of the above excuses. But that is what they are – excuses. Fourteen years after shouldering aside the burdens of apartheid the ANC and its stalwarts still glibly trot out racism, colonialism and imperialism as reasons behind its failures in almost every arena of life in South Africa. They fail to see that history is history; it is past and passé. History is a guide for and to the future, not a Balkan-type motivation for perpetuating old horrors as justification for interminable inefficiencies and inadequacies.

Unfortunately, it is in the past that the ANC finds itself mired. Starting its existence as a protest and liberation movement the ANC has been unable to shrug off that mindset. Fourteen years into government the ANC is trapped in a time-warp, still slavishly employing the same slogans, gestures and thought patterns of its Communist Party origins and history dating back to the October Revolution and the Long March when those who were not for the movement were targetted as enemies and to be treated accordingly. Defunct ideology and the mindless mouthing of Cold War rhetoric serve little useful purpose when the living are here and now in a world that has moved on from what may or may not have happened centuries ago.

The ANC has failed to heed its own ideological teachings and raison d’etre which were to grow, improve and develop. The ANC has fallen at the first hurdle of metamorphosing from a liberation movement into a credible political party and sustainable government. The eyes and thoughts of the ANC remain firmly fixed on the perceived glories of its past where, by virtue of the then prevailing circumstances, it was easy to exhibit and enjoy disciplined solidarity since the goals of the organisation were simple to define and explain and the enemy was easily identified. Now in government the aims and objectives are far fuzzier in the face of the need to be a responsible and credible representative of an entire and diverse population; the temptation for which the ANC has fallen has been that of remaining a lobby group for a narrow and specific segment of the populace. The ANC continues to view everything non-ANC as being ‘the enemy’ and has behaved and responded accordingly.

Thus, for example, ANC officials will blame ‘white mentality’ and resistant racism for poor results on the rugby pitch or athletics field where points are not awarded for ideological or racial purity but for excellence in performance. Excellence cannot be legislated or enforced. It must be scouted, nurtured and developed organically. A fat runner cannot be expected to be able to produce satisfactory results in the marathon, regardless of any racial or socio-economic origins from which the individual may have come; the athlete must be made fit and then trained in his discipline before adequate results can be reasonably expected. Likewise, a school leaver, unable to add, subtract and so on cannot become a computer technician or electrician until he has had the time and resources granted him to master sufficient of the basics to enable him to then progress on to more specialised (and better paid) areas of competence.

Similarly with the Zimbabwe situation. The ANC remains locked in its perennial ‘circle-the-wagons’ mentality of giving greater weight to old loyalties than to recognition of getting the job done and removing those who fail to produce results. The support given the ANC by Mugabe and Zimbabwe during the ANC’s years of opposition to the then South African regime are viewed by the ANC to be perpetual bonds of debt that far outweigh any consideration of the abilities and rationale of the creditor in that relationship. That Mugabe is an egomaniacal despot who has so alienated the people of both his own country and others around the world that the economic and political fabric of Zimbabwe now lies tattered and fallen appears to matter less to the ANC than the perceived debt owed to Mugabe by the ANC. Worse still, the negative impact upon South Africa and other SADC countries stemming from Mugabe’s depredations is clearly considered by the ANC to be of little import; it could be argued that what happens in Zimbabwe is their own affair and they should be allowed to get on with it, but the argument fails if the actions of Zimbabwe directly impact on South Africa. Would the ANC retain its present stance if the Zimbabwean army were to invade South Africa in order to seize assets no longer available in Zimbabwe? Or would the ANC turn a blind eye, again, and insist that no crisis existed?

As the governing party of South Africa the ANC’s prime responsibility is to the country and all the people of South Africa. The ANC’s responsibility to Zimbabwe (or any other country, for that matter) is secondary, at best. Get your own house in order. Only then – not before – and if there is something to spare, can you turn your charitable efforts elsewhere.

Hubris can be a terrible thing. It blinds one to failings and shortcomings which, if pride be briefly set aside, could be corrected with a minimum of fuss and damage. There is no shame or loss of self-esteem in saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t have the skills right now to correct this situation” and then turning to others who possess the requisite knowledge. Knowledge and skills know no skin colours – but where they are claimed when, in fact, they are absent then there is a real and severe humiliation when the deficit is finally revealed.

Levy Mwanawasa’s legacy – in part, at least – will be of declaring to the world that just because fellow black Africans now largely control their own destinies it is still not right or acceptable when laws and principles are broken and cast aside – just as it is unacceptable when ordinary people suffer because their leaders are too proud or ideologically blinkered to acknowledge that they are relatively new to the business of running their own affairs and to bring in the required expertise.

Spearpoint.

26^th August 2008

The ANC, The Arms Deal and Accountability

There has been some considerable advocacy recently towards granting amnesty towards those individuals and organisations suspected of having derived huge underhand and illegal benefits from the now notorious multi-billion Rand arms deal with which South Africa involved itself a few years ago – and which continues to haunt both South Africa and Europe.

Principal amongst the organisations said to have benefited have been the ANC of South Africa and a number of the defence contractors in Europe which supplied the South African government with items ranging from aircraft to frigates, submarines and much in between.

Individuals said to have derived illicit benefits from the deal are, famously, Jacob Zuma (President-in-waiting of South Africa), his former financial advisor and, much more recently, Thabo Mbeki himself. Such allegations have yet to be proven in a court of law – although, judging by the (so far legitimate) delaying actions of certain of the parties named by the National Prosecuting Authority, the presentation and answering of charges before a court is looking increasingly doubtful.

Spearpoint is, frankly, astonished that the names of more individuals have not – yet – been proposed for investigation and prosecution. Mutual back-scratching is far too endemic in Africa to permit a mere handful of individuals to escape the clutches and ‘protection’ of equally greedy and unscrupulous people eager to climb on the gravy train of government contract graft.

The calls for amnesty come from a couple of different sources.

Firstly, there is the ANC and its unelected (and thus unaccountable) allies, the Confederation of South African Trades Union (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). This is, perhaps, understandable since there must be considerable trepidation being experienced within this tri-partite alliance that its propaganda of the last couple of decades is about to be revealed for the sham that it always has been and that the three organisations and many of its officials and hangers-on will be shown to be just as base and venal as those they strove to replace on the South African political scene.

Secondly, calls for amnesty have come from parts of the South African media on the basis of preventing the fragmentation and disruption of South African society resulting from the ANC and its allies trampling the entire country underfoot as they seek to dislodge from their backs the tick birds trying to remove the sources of sickness and debilitation from the body national.

Spearpoint can ignore the ANC’s desire for amnesty or (better still, from their perspective) dismissal of all charges as being the unforgivable but natural reaction of embarrassed people caught in a series of compromising situations despite their protestations of innocence and purity. Given the current stranglehold that the ANC and its officers have on this country, Spearpoint gloomily concludes that the ANC will prevail anyway and will find means (legitimate or otherwise) to escape the worst – or all – of the fallout from the arms deal and the alleged misconduct of its partners and/or officials.

Spearpoint cannot, however, ignore the non-ANC inspired calls for amnesty.

How short are the memories of those making this call. How misolfactionate are they that believe that sweeping the malodorous products of a government’s bad habits under the rug will result in the creation and maintenance of a hygienic and healthy national household.

In political management – as in household management – infestations and disease must be eradicated entirely and without delay, else the infection returns to cause ill-health, disruption and danger to life and limb. Very often such a return is then much harder to combat since, in the process of harbouring the germs of corruption, resistance to the more usual, tried and true, methods of prevention and control builds to the point of immunity and contempt. Fighting disease is never easy, comfortable or without risk. Likewise with fighting corruption and crime.

There are few parents who will refuse medical treatment for their loved ones (excepting for availability and cost) on the basis that the treatment will create too great a risk of the patient being uncomfortable or, even, losing their life. Few people fail to see the merit in visiting the dentist when experiencing toothache, even though the experience in the dentist’s chair can be unpleasant in the extreme.

Why, then, do otherwise rational people who love their country and its social structure actively promote a course of action that can only strengthen those who would break our laws and Constitution? These are the people who would prefer to avoid the short-term yet therapeutic pain of the dental drill over the longer-term costs of political caries and oral decay. The consequences of poor dental hygiene are similar to the consequences of poor national moral and ethical hygiene – the ability to masticate and ingest the food required by the whole body is reduced until, eventually, the body goes into decline and could, conceivably, die through lack of sustenance as well as through the onslaught of opportunistic infections and ailments.

Witness Uganda in the 1970’s. Witness Zimbabwe since 1999. Witness the attempts at appeasement with Germany in the 1930’s. There are lessons aplenty to be had – what makes anyone believe that South African politicians and politically well-placed criminals are any different from those of the rest of the world at different times throughout history?

Even the President of Pakistan today had the sense – and decency? – to step down in the face of mounting demands for greater probity within Pakistani society. And this was a man who had grabbed power through a coup and had ruled as a virtual dictator for nine years. This came about because his detractors were prepared to live with the possible discomfort of experiencing the unscheduled removal of a powerful, influential and wealthy leader who had been found wanting. Perhaps Pakistan will now go through a period of greater turmoil than it has been enduring of late – but Pakistanis have decided that even in that event the price will be better than continuing the personal regime of a man they have held to be unacceptable for Pakistani society.

Why, therefore, is South African society so open to the comforts of a quiet life at any cost? Are we so blasé as to accept any injustice and crime against ourselves just so that we can stay ensconced within our little zones of comfort? Are we so pragmatic as to accept any violation of our persons and dignity that we will suffer any debasement of our expressed ideals of social and political aspiration and ambition?

Clearly, this is a watershed in our young history. Failure now will result – in fairly rapid order – in a new Zimbabwe south of the Limpopo River – the consequences of which are obvious to almost everyone except Mugabe, Mbeki and their opportunistic cronies.

Spearpoint.

18^th August 2008

What Is Democracy? (Don’t Ask The ANC!)

It’s a great shame that, after some fourteen years in power and God-knows how many years ostensibly fighting for a multi-racial, multi-party democracy, today’s ANC just doesn’t get what democracy is all about.

There are the well-known examples of the ANC’s lack of understanding of democratic principles and practices, most notably Affirmative Action (AA) and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE).

Notwithstanding the needs of actively redressing some of the social and economic imbalances inherent in pre-1994 South Africa, such outright discriminatory policies such as AA and BEE served not to heal the divisions stemming from our history but, rather, resulted in the alienation of a significant segment of the population denied access to the worlds of work and business whilst, at the same time, failing to include sufficient of the majority black population to make those policies worthwhile or realistic.

Democracy is about the equal application of ideals, policies and laws to all socio-economic groups and their individual members – without exception and without qualification.

AA and BEE are, therefore, a perversion of democratic principles and practices.

Likewise, the current – and growing – ANC elitist view of, and approach to the law.

The ANC appears increasingly to view the law as something the ANC alone decides and distributes but is not necessarily something to which it and/or its members are subject.

The lack of respect shown by the ANC to some recent legal rulings – including some of those of the Constitutional Court – has been absolutely awesome in its arrogance. Government ministers and their departments have, variously, failed to respond to summonses and subpoenas, attend court proceedings or to comply with court rulings and orders when inconvenient or embarrassing.

The ANC and members of ANC affiliates and allies have frequently and repeatedly openly flouted the laws of the land in both impromptu and carefully studied statements to the media – usually without expressed regret, later retraction or apology. Overtly racist or inflammatory comments have, largely, escaped censure or punishment. Ethical leadership from the upper ranks of the ANC (whence many of those comments have originated) has been glaringly absent.

“Bring me my machine gun” (Jacob Zuma); “We will kill for Jacob Zuma” (the presidents of the ANC Youth League and COSATU, respectively; “…you are displaying your white mentality…” (the Chairman of the Parliamentary Sports Portfolio Committee): all are very recent examples of the ANC’s disregard of, and impunity from the law. In contrast, a recent article by David Bullard in a major newspaper (which painted an imaginary ‘what if’ scenario) resulted in his dismissal and all sorts of legal threats against him at the time.

Clearly, the ANC wants its cake and to eat it, too. The ANC’s idea of gamesmanship is ‘Heads, we win; tails, you lose’.

Just as clearly, this is not democracy.

In like vein, the actions of Jacob Zuma – soon, no doubt, to be rubber stamped as the next President of South Africa – are increasingly tending Spearpoint to the view that “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

Having stridently proclaimed his innocence in the fallout from the arms deal, having strenuously demanded his day in court, he has, however, consistently failed to satisfy either the prosecuting authorities or the courts that he has no case to answer. Indeed, he has redoubled his efforts to delay or to prevent that day in court with what appears to be a cynical string of challenges and delaying tactics. The intention, one has to conclude, is to avoid any appearance in court on the charges he faces until after such time as he is inaugurated as President of the Republic – when, no doubt, he will grant himself Presidential immunity from the charges or, in the event of a conviction, a Presidential pardon. All he has to do is to stay out of court until after the elections. Heads, we win; tails, you lose.

Additionally, Mr. Zuma, through his legal team and his ANC supporters has complained bitterly that the recent Constitutional Court’s ruling against his application to deny into evidence those documents seized in raids a couple of years back was announced whilst he was out of the country.

Mr. Zuma and his legal team have been busy testing every avenue to escape the charges against him – as is provided for in our Constitution and other laws – and no-one denies him the right to do so. But where is the democracy in a situation where popularity, power and money (very little of that money, I understand, being Mr. Zuma’s) can so protract legal processes through deliberate strategy as to undermine and, even, deny the law when there are so many other people, without the same clout, who have to suffer justice (very often on remand) somewhat more speedily and ruthlessly – and, most importantly, without undue consideration of the convenience and timetable of the defendant?

Mr. Zuma wanted his day in court. Let him have that day. And on that day let him be an ordinary citizen, not the President of the country. Let the trial be conducted – and be seen to be conducted – with equality and democracy under our Constitution. If the man be adjudged innocent then let him get on with the rest of his life in peace until such time as he may breach the law again, if ever; if he is determined to be guilty then let him suffer whatever sanctions the court might impose.

If Mr. Zuma were a real democrat who did not appear to believe that he is a great man who is due homage and tribute for his supposed past services then he would resign his various posts and duties for the duration of his trial and (if it turns out that way) later appeal. In the process he would go a long way to exhibiting those positive democratic ethics and personal qualities which would merit him being the Head of State.

If the above examples are anything to go by, then Spearpoint can only conclude that not only does the ANC have a perverted and very convenient conception of what democracy is about, but also the mid- and long-term future of South Africa is, indeed, bleak to the point of utter depression.

Spearpoint.

2^nd August 2008

Don’t Kill the Criminals – Save the Criminals!

 

 

I thought so…

 

Reactions to the “Kill the criminals” news story:

 

- Indignation. Shock. Horror.

 

- Everyone jumping on the bleeding-heart political bandwagon.

 

- How could the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security be so callous and uncaring about our poor, defenseless, misunderstood criminals when they are so clearly virtuous and upright members of our society?

 

- How dare she advocate that the police kill them? After all, they are some of the most productive members of our economy – crime is about the only area of growth in South Africa.

 

…………………….

 

Spearpoint tries, in general, to be reasonably polite in his commentaries. But I’m not too sure I can continue that policy this time.

 

To the critics of the Deputy Minister’s remarks I say this to you.

 

What a crowd of ignorant, stupid, self-serving, self-publicists you are.

 

Clearly, you are not educated or intelligent enough to be able to perform the simple act of reading what the lady said. The words she uttered were clear and simple enough that even my five-year old granddaughter could easily understand what was said.

All your degrees, learning and experience in policing, politics and polemics have so obviously failed to qualify any of you to comment sensibly on the fight against crime – nor have they done anything to merit any involvement whatsoever in partaking of the leadership of this country.

The Deputy Minister’s words were “Kill the bastards if…” (did you get that?) If. IF. IF.) “…IF they threaten you or the community.”

 

Her words could not have been clearer.

 

Her words were entirely within existing laws.

 

In no way, under South African law as it stands today, can her words be interpreted or construed as being an incitement for the police to run wild on our streets. The lady did not issue to the police – or anyone else – a blanket licence to kill nor did she advocate abandonment of due process.

 

The politicians who criticized the Deputy Minister’s remarks have plainly demonstrated themselves to be as unsuited to running our country as the ANC has shown itself to be.

 

The Independent Democrats (ID) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), amongst others, have sought only to score cheap political points off the ANC government – who, as it happens, do deserve to be sniped at with unremitting ferocity – instead of listening to what was actually said and commending the courage and clear thinking of the speaker – ANC or not. For the sake of a headline or two and a sound-byte on TV, you have made utter fools of yourselves and, I strongly suspect, alienated much of the crime-ravaged electorate to which you think you will ingratiate yourselves through your unconsidered and downright stupid responses.

 

You all deserve contempt and ridicule for your self-serving prostitution of what you supposedly stand for in your vainglorious and desperate search for political power at any price.

 

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) should be even more ashamed of its unthinking negative reaction. Your biases, hidden agendas and overall inability to deal with reality have blinkered you to the fact that, as a supposedly independent and respected body seeking to improve the access to and delivery of human rights to all and sundry, you have chosen to dismiss and denigrate the human rights of the entire population to peace, safety and prosperity. Instead, you choose to defend and shield from the rule of law those who revile and pervert the rule of law when you are chartered to reinforce and spread the rule of law for everyone. You continue to do nothing for the human rights of the majority of the populace and, in your folly, you undermine and pervert our Constitution together with the hopes and aspirations of every single person (black, white, Asian, Coloured) in our country.

 

Our Constitution and such human rights as we all –allegedly- enjoy are a joke. Even as a banana republic we seem unable to produce banana sundaes – only banana skins.

 

 

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shooting to Kill the Criminals

 

Maybe it’s a bit premature, but I feel like cheering.

 

At long last someone in the South African government appears to have made a break from the usual line of bull dust regarding the fight against crime.

 

The Deputy Minister of Safety and Security has encouraged the police to be very much tougher on dangerous criminals.

 

During some sort of conference/seminar in which she addressed members of the police force (sorry – ‘service’) (yeah, sure) the Deputy Minister said (referring to the criminals) “Kill the bastards – especially if they are threatening you or the community”. She is reported to have received an enthusiastic response from those police officers present.

 

Spearpoint has had occasion to make comment on the issue of crime in some earlier posts (“Crime and Punishment”; “More About Crime and Rights in South Africa”; “A Little More on Crime in South Africa”).

 

Those of you who have graced my site and read those posts will understand why old Spearpoint is a small step closer to throwing his hat in the air.

 

How refreshing it is that, out of the blue – and in stark contrast to the stance and performance of the Minister of Safety and Security – a senior government minister has had the courage and honesty to break from the usual insipid ANC utterances and actions on how best to combat the criminals in our midst.

 

Good on you, Deputy Minister. Crime is against the law. The law is derived from our much-vaunted Constitution. Crime contravenes the Constitution and our Constitutional and human rights. Contravening the Constitution cancels the Constitutional rights of the contravener. He, therefore, has no constitutional rights and the police then have the duty to terminate, with extreme prejudice, those rights. Survivors will be prosecuted.

 

It is likely, however, that the good lady Deputy Minister will be severely chastised by her ANC brethren for daring to be so politically incorrect.

 

If a reprimand or dismissal follows her comments then you will know, without doubt, that the present government and the ANC has absolutely no interest or intention of further tackling crime and its aftermath beyond what they have already determined to be an “acceptable” level.

 

But coming hot on the heels of Jacob Zuma’s recent outspoken statement about the electoral fiasco in Zimbabwe, I am struck by the thought that, maybe, just maybe, we might be seeing some sort of shuffling of feet away from the more usual ANC policy of doing everything on the quiet – “quiet” diplomacy, “quiet” policing and “quiet” ethics.

 

Of course everything has been “quiet” on the part of the government. When you bury your head under the blankets for fear of seeing the bogeyman you’re so afraid of having to confront and take a stand on, then everything does go quiet. So you do not, then, hear your neighbour abusing his family, you do not hear the burglar coming to help himself to what he hasn’t earned and you do not hear your own family members conniving to rob you of what the burglar leaves behind.

 

Jacob Zuma’s comments on Zimbabwe and on re-opening the debate on the death penalty (see my post “The Death Penalty and Electioneering in South Africa”) are understandable. He is trying hard to establish himself as a credible popular politician suitable for the role of the leader of this country and doing it in a way that will distance and distinguish himself from the “business as usual” style of Thabo Mbeki and his allies.

 

Perhaps the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security is, cynically, also positioning herself for the upcoming change of government leadership in 2009. Perhaps she just wants to ensure that she will still have a nice cushy ministerial job come this time next year.

 

I don’t really care.

 

For the first time the necessary words are being spoken. It remains to be seen whether the necessary actions will follow. I, for one, certainly hope so.

 

I just hope that the police are up to the task…

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

Racism is Alive and Kicking in South Africa

So the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) is all upset because the Human Rights Commission (HRC) gave a public slap on the wrist for the ejection of a number of non-black journalists from a recent briefing with Jacob Zuma.

 

Shame.

 

What, I wonder, would have been the reaction of the FBJ had a media event organized by exclusively white journalists refused entry to black reporters?

 

I’ll tell you. The FBJ would have screamed blue bloody murder and gone on to rant and rave how racism was still alive and kicking in South Africa and how every white person in the country was an apartheid recidivist intent on reviving the old days and ways.

 

The FBJ wants its cake and to eat it, too.

 

This is a great pity.

 

The FBJ – black or not – represents part of the so-called profession of journalism here and abroad. By failing, both in intent and practice, to subscribe to the stated aims of impartiality and fairness in the industry the FBJ has not only made a laughing stock of itself and pretty well destroyed its credibility, but has also deepened the contempt held by any thinking person for the profession as a whole. The FBJ has merely increased the suspicion surrounding the motives and actions of journalism and has done its own interests a great disservice.

 

Like a prima donna the FBJ has thrown a tantrum over the HRC’s remarks – for that is all the HRC did.

 

The HRC did not issue an enforceable judgement, merely an opinion. The over-reaction of the FBJ is quite remarkable.

 

Of course, the HRC should have been much harsher on the FBJ and its comments were clearly designed to avoid offending black sentiment.

 

This really shows the inherent cowardice of the HRC and its true role in human rights in South Africa. As asked above, what would have been the response of the HRC had white journalists excluded black colleagues in a similar situation?

 

The HRC would have made some very loud and indignant denunciations of the white people involved; it would have issued legal writs against the individuals and their professional body and some people would have been facing stiff fines and/or jail time.

 

Such is the two-faced chameleon nature of official human rights and spiteful race relations in South Africa today.

 

It’s all a massive fraud financed and motivated by the ANC and the government. All the pretty words and laws on equality were carefully crafted, put on the statute books and then touted around the globe as an example to the democratic donor countries in Europe and America of what good guys the ANC were in dealing with their former mortal enemies, the whites.

 

The application is, however, very different.

 

If you are a white person in South Africa, just try getting a development loan from the Landbank, a licence for a firearm, a job, or tendering for government work without first giving away 51% of your business – for nothing – to a black partner. A similar environment exists for the Indian and Coloured communities – they are not quite black enough to be included in the division of the post-apartheid spoils.

 

Oh! Yes! Racism is, indeed, alive and kicking in South Africa – it’s just that the rest of the world chooses not to see it because it would be rather embarrassing to have to admit that it has been conned and duped into a false sense of reality.

 

There is nothing wrong in seeking to redress the ills of the past – and, God knows, there were ills aplenty. But why, if not for reasons of economic greed and political revenge, change the balance in a way that so alienates 15% or more of the population that the most able, skilled and economically active of them exercise their economic attractiveness to other markets by deserting their country of birth or adoption?

 

If this programme of alienation and ethnic cleansing continues then South Africa will descend into a chaos no different from that of Zimbabwe’s following the forced eviction of thousands of white farmers in 2000.

 

The loss of skilled white artisans and professionals in recent years has already contributed significantly to the steady deterioration of much of South Africa’s infrastructure. More and more foreign expertise is having to be imported to run our major corporations and banks at much greater cost than if we had not, out of sheer spite, deported our own competence and skills.

 

Disregard the handful of aberrant white individuals who dream of the imagined glories of their past. They are not significant.

 

The vast majority of white people, whether Afrikaans or not, have subscribed wholeheartedly (some, granted, with varying degrees of wariness) to the vision of the New South Africa. Allow them the opportunity, without undue handicap, to contribute to the effort of truly uplifting the bulk of South Africa’s population into educated political and economic maturity. Allow them to expose the deceit that Africa and Africans are unable to manage their own affairs.

 

The Forum of Black Journalists, together with the ANC, have, through bitter personal experience, seen that the exclusivity and alienation of the apartheid days – to say nothing of other examples elsewhere in history – can only fail because such thinking always carries within it the seeds of its own discontent and subsequent destruction.

 

It has got to be worth trying not to repeat the mistakes and pain of the past.

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

The Death Penalty and Electioneering in South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa forbids the use of the death penalty in the normal processes of our judicial system.

This prohibition was part and parcel of the new Constitution drafted after the succession to power of the ANC in 1994. It was, I suspect, a reaction to the old constitution under which many ANC and other combatants had suffered during the years of struggle against apartheid prior to 1994.

It was also argued – correctly, I believe – that the death penalty was an irreversibly cruel and unusual punishment that did little, if anything, to deter violent crime; however, this argument was, for many people, counter-intuitive in a society, then and now, profoundly riven by violence and brutality at all levels.

The failure by the ANC government and its various organs to adequately and competently address and correct the problems of violent crime in South Africa following the egalitarian promises of the new Rainbow Nation has resulted in a growing crescendo of popular (if uninformed) demands for the return of the death penalty as the best means of dealing with the current tidal wave of crime swamping this country.

The public appears to be taking the upcoming national elections as an opportunity to try, once again, to get the issue back on the political agenda, particularly now since the influence of the ANC intelligentsia in the form of Thabo Mbeki’s allies appears to be on the wane. Calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty by protesters outside various courts in recent months have become increasingly vocal and have been clearly making a mark on the public at large and, so it would appear, on a number of political hopefuls ahead of scheduled national elections in 2009.

The issue of the death penalty is emotive and is perceived to be a panacea for many ills. It is an all-embracing concept which relies on tempting monochromatic definitions of life for its widespread appeal. For that reason it is most readily embraced and touted by those whose perceptions of the world tend to be unsophisticated and simplistic – and seized upon eagerly by those who would seek to gain the sympathies and affections of large numbers of voters in the quest for elected power.

Not that you can blame them, I guess. President Mbeki and his ministers have failed both to educate the public in their ethics and to demonstrate that a viable society can exist with law enforcement and judicial processes that are not reliant upon the death penalty. Their ethics have been obscure and tainted with pragmatic considerations. Their legislative creations, law enforcement, guidance of the judiciary and subsequent prison management have been selectively erratic, patchy and generally incompetent.

It is of great interest, therefore, that the one person most overtly ambitious for personal power in South Africa, Jacob Zuma, has taken hold of this popular sentiment of restoring the death penalty and made it his own. Not even some of the fringe opposition parties have dared to be quite so forward in their stated desires in this direction.

Sure, at the moment he advocates nothing more than re-opening the debate over the death penalty; for the moment, at least, actual restoration of the death penalty is not part of his declared manifesto.

But it is significant that, in a period of great personal political uncertainty (given his current legal woes), Mr. Zuma has made a very astute move to try to secure, ahead of the elections, considerable popular political support by appearing to be willing to address an issue that is most dearly held by those people (that is, the majority of the population of South Africa) least equipped to consider critically the implications and consequences of a return of the death penalty as a political and judicial tool of state.

(Mr. Zuma is a populist. Mr. Zuma is ambitious. Mr. Zuma is also hungry for personal power and, credit where credit is due, seems honest enough to display that appetite quite openly.

Mr. Zuma, I suspect, also believes that he is due a return for his years of anti-apartheid struggle.

This may be seen in the nature of the charges pending against him (assuming that he is, in fact, guilty of those charges).

It can also be seen in his public appearances when he ensures that he has a prominent entourage and bodyguard detail that is not only royal in its aspect and presentation but also far exceeds anything that I have seen deployed for the State President or any of his Ministers. For a self-proclaimed man of the people he seems to be rather worried about his exposure and physical proximity to those very people…)

The presidential aspirations of Jacob Zuma are, perhaps, a topic best dealt with in another post since, in a direct sense, they are not especially germane to the subject of the death penalty.

However, a strong warning needs to be issued to the people of South Africa at this time.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of any advocacy for or against the death penalty, now is not the right time to be discussing the issue for the simple reason that the apparently cynical raising of the matter for political motives (i.e. attracting potential votes in an imminent election) has to prompt grave disquiet in the minds of the public at large.

This might sound odd, but the argument for or against the death penalty is not a life and death matter in the lives of most South Africans today. Save for the (questionable) deterrent effect, the death penalty is only ever at the very end of the law enforcement and judicial process and tends to be far removed from the daily experience and consequences of crime for many thousands of people.

More immediate, more relevant to the outcome of the forthcoming elections will be those issues which impact more directly and more precisely on the lives of ordinary South Africans.

Thus, I would suggest that South Africans need answers and realistic (and realisable) promises on the following (amongst others):

1. Employment and skills recognition and deployment;
2. Financial probity and professional competence in all spheres and levels of government enterprise and activity;
3. Combating, controlling and defeating crime of all types for all citizens and residents;
4. Illegal immigration.

The issue of the death penalty is too important, too fundamental to the character of our nation for it to be reduced to a mere electioneering tactic and the subject should not be permitted to be hijacked for such self-interest.

By all means, let there be a debate over the death penalty. It is vital that debate occurs and that it is comprehensive and critical. It is even more vital that such a debate should be conducted away from the environment of immediate gratification, euphoria and bitter disappointment which can so characterise elections and their results.

Let the politicians scramble for their grubby spoils; the victors must then open and guide a national debate on capital punishment and open themselves to the outcome – whatever it might be – through a free, no-whip vote in parliament. (A referendum would not work, unfortunately, since our electorate is not yet sophisticated enough to be entrusted with matters of such profound ethical and legal dimensions – witness the lack of juries in our courts).

You will be aware from the above and previous posts that, from a personal perspective, Spearpoint does not condone the concept of not only capital punishment but also current theories and practices of penology, both here and elsewhere in the world.

It all needs some careful thought.

Spearpoint.

Opinion: “Outrageous” Journalism

Oftentimes, Tuesday evenings here in South Africa are uplifted by a television programme that can be penetrating and thought-provoking.

That programme is “3rd Degree” and is aired on eTV – the only non-State TV channel in this country. The presenter (and, probably, producer, editor, writer and chief bottle washer) is an apparently personable and intelligent young lady who relishes in the name of Debra Patta (my apologies if I have misspelled).

Ms. Patta – I use “Ms” here for a couple of reasons; firstly, because although the lady has previously admitted on air to having a child she has not, to my knowledge, conceded the presence of a biological counterpart in her life; and, secondly, although it is merely an impression on my part (the reasons for which might become clearer later), I strongly suspect that she might strenuously object to being tagged either “Miss” or “Mrs” – has, on occasion, shown herself to be a shrewd and competent journalist. It would be surprising if she were not (at least occasionally) since she is, I understand, also the main or a principal editor of eTV’s news.

On other occasions, Ms. Patta has shown a somewhat distressing tendency to dip into the gutter of journalism, both in terms of the content, style and delivery of some of her work. Generally, I have tended to ignore those lapses since, by and large, they have been out-weighed by her better work and, I suppose, one must make some sort of allowance for the fact that she has chosen a “profession” in which exposure and subsequent success is often all too dependent upon sensationalism and an appeal to the lowest common denominators in our society rather than the highest common factors.

The topic of last Tuesday’s programme concerned a subject on which I have already made comment, (“So, ladies, you don’t like the attention?”), viz: women’s attire and possible subsequent responses.

Now, to be absolutely fair, I must here state that I did not get to see the entire programme; thanks to Eskom’s depredations I did not have power restored to my humble hovel until just after 8:15 pm, thereby missing the first few minutes of the report.

However, from what I did see and hear (and this has been backed up from other people in conversation), I was truly shocked – even horrified –  at the base levels of competence and professionalism exhibited in the programme.

To begin with, in one trailer that I saw for the programme (the previous night, if I remember correctly), Ms. Patta’s voice-over referred to the sentiment that women should not wear mini-skirts in public as an “outrageous suggestion”.

Possibly this might be construed as an acceptable “teaser” for a trailer – it certainly caught my attention.

On the other hand – well, there’s nothing like pre-judging an issue, is there?

 Unfortunately, I saw only that part of the broadcast which dealt, primarily, with the wearing of trousers or pants by women. Perhaps not quite as contentious as the issue of mini-skirts, but obviously still a matter of concern to some segments, at least, of South African society. Even so, I was aghast at what I saw and heard.

1. Even allowing for the limited period I was able to view the broadcast, I could not discern any explicit statement or contextual inclusion of anything indicating that the programme was a personal (to Ms. Patta) opinion or personal (to Ms. Patta) editorial comment;
2. The questions and comments generated by Ms. Patta were neither objective, dispassionate nor fair;
3. The questions from Ms. Patta were biased and clearly intended to cause embarrassment, defensiveness and discomfort in those (men) to whom they were directed;
4. Comments and asides made by Ms. Patta were judgemental, derisory and insulting – particularly when she made direct and overt sarcastic remarks about her male respondents’ mental ages and their alleged inability to contain their sexual drives;
5. Ms. Patta made unashamed use of her prominent public profile to intimidate her (male) interviewees;
6. Ms. Patta appears to have made no attempt to enquire of and determine the extent and weight of various cultural factors in the matter of female modesty in African and other cultures; she seems to have been interested only in propounding her own views regarding the rights or otherwise of men and women to dress and behave in public;
7. Ms. Patta used this particular 3rd Degree programme as a personal platform to espouse her personal agenda.

I really do not mind if Ms. Patta has opinions and wishes to promote them. Good luck to her.

But shame on you, Ms. Patta, for unabashedly fronting your personal views behind your editorial and public status on a national broadcasting platform in the guise of independent investigative reporting. You constantly upbraid other public personages for their alleged abuses of their profile, positions and privileges. But you want your cake and to eat it, too.

And shame on you, too, eTV for not scrutinising and vetting a broadcast that carries your banner. I am aware that you want ever-higher ratings and that both you and Ms. Patta derive huge satisfaction and glee from those, like me, who are dumb enough to feed your drives for self-aggrandizement by responding to your attempts at journalism but who, at the end of the day, matter little to you except as proof to your revenue-generating advertisers of your ability to cobble together an audience.

Both Ms. Patta and eTV have done South Africa a great disservice.

• The victims of sexually-related crimes are not likely to receive any greater sympathy or respect as a result of last Tuesday’s 3rd Degree.
• The perpetrators and potential perpetrators of sexually-related crimes might react adversely to the programme and to Ms. Patta’s apparent open hatred and ridicule of all men.
• The self-styled “profession” of journalism cannot benefit from either the content or the style of the programme – although I suspect that your counterparts at the SABC might be finding it difficult to contain their jubilation at eTV’s ineptitude.
• Such women’s rights issues as really do need attention in this country may be be set back as a result of the strident and indignant single-dimensionalism of the programme and its presenter.

Ms. Patta, you might believe in Western feminist ideas and desires; you might wish to see them transplanted on to the continent of Africa. You certainly appear to believe that men are incorrigible perverts who see women only as sex objects and will perform unspeakable acts to satisfy their basest desires and lusts. You may even be sincere.

But, do you know, I doubt that sincerity and depth of belief. We can test it, of course.

1. Show more cleavage than you do on screen – well, try, at least;
2. Forsake a bra – although your needs in that area do not seem to be too demanding;
3. Start wearing mini-skirts and jeans when you go about your job and other activities – especially in public, and especially without your minders and production teams surrounding and protecting you;
4. Leave your cameras at home or in the office;
5. Don’t do this just in South Africa. Since you seem to believe that your feminist ideology must be applied worldwide then, please, conduct this little test elsewhere in Africa, parts of America (whence such ideas were first spawned) and the Middle East (and where you can also try leaving off the headscarf).

I would, however, suggest that you also take heed of whatever local customs and sensibilities might prevail. For your own sake. Remember that there are women, too, who genuinely and sincerely believe that modesty in both genders is a hugely important part of being a complete and rounded human being – something at which was hinted in your programme the other day but which, inexplicably, you failed to pursue.

You, on the other hand, seem not only to want to tease men by advocating scanty clothing but also then to punish and ridicule them when they are pushed close to or beyond the limits of their endurance.

But, then, either side makes a great sensational story for your ambitious journalistic appetites, doesn’t it?

Spearpoint.

More about crime and rights in South Africa…

I guess, given my earlier posts, I must be coming across as a very conservative – even right wing – white South African Neanderthal knuckle-dragger who can’t let go of the past. This is not necessarily the case; certainly I hope that it is not so since I would have a lot of explaining to do to friends and family as to why I have moved so radically away from the liberal (and even socialist) tendencies I espoused in my past. Born here, I have only lived in this country for a few years. I was educated overseas from early childhood. Most of my work and life experience has been gained outside South Africa – on four continents, to be precise. Maybe there will be posts in the future which will better show my liberal side; all I can say at this point is that my comments come, first and foremost, from my personal experiences of and reflections on human nature. My intentions are not to be dogmatic, but rather to prompt thought and consideration; I have no ideology to promote.

Anyway, today the South African media has again (as on most days) had plenty to talk about in terms of crime and consequent issues – there is always plenty of grist for this particular mill here in this country.

- Another little girl found murdered and dumped.

- The police and excise officials (who, by the way, were allegedly implicated) refuting claims that arriving travellers at the airport in Johannesburg have been followed from the airport to their homes/destinations and subsequently robbed of high value items at gunpoint.

- The provincial minister responsible for Safety and Security, on a morning TV breakfast programme, failing (miserably) to come to grips with the aftermath of the sexual assault of the young mini-skirted woman at a taxi rank a couple of weeks ago.

Amongst many others. And this repeated, without respite, every single day.

The fact is that South Africa is a damned dangerous place to live and work in and has been for a long time.

Pre-1994 the country was gripped in what was, to all intents and purposes, a low grade civil war (with occasional hot spots). The political violence, which often included crime – and legitimised as political action –  may or may not have been justified; I can’t comment on that since I did not live here then and I am not, therefore, qualified to remark on that.

Post-1994 the old political animosities have tended to be confined to the subdued snarling and grumbling variety as the country felt its way ahead under the new dispensation. Crime – particularly “contact” and violent crime – however, appears to have blossomed into a growth industry of awesome proportions.

So much so, in fact, that the levels of crime have been undermining the very fabric of South African society to the extent that:

•  the collection, collation and reporting of crime statistics has had to be periodically changed in order to ameliorate and allay public perceptions and concerns;
• the departure of our professionals and skilled tradesmen to greener and less tempestuous pastures now haunts us as we struggle to run our ageing and inadequate power supply and distribution systems (I have been told that we have only eleven certified heavy duty transformer technicians in the entire South African private sector!); our health sector faces similar problems, as do many other partsof our economy;
• very low levels of confidence in the organs of safety and security as well as other government functions (police and public service corruption, the national Police Commissioner suspended pending the outcome of criminal charges, the former Deputy President of the country awaiting trial on various charges, gross financial mismanagement of government departments including theft, fraud, personation, negligence, incompetence, etc.,);
• widespread fear within the populace (the only country I have ever known to market and sell “bullet-proof” houses!)

South Africa has a serious defence problem. Not from any external military threats – at least, not so far as I know, although who knows what Mr. Mugabe might be contemplating now that he has some several million of his subjects well entrenched south of his border with us – but from the internal threat of social destabilisation resulting from unimpeded crime.

The first, primemost duty of any nation state is to protect its citizens and residents against any threats to the integrity of its physical borders and its continued well-being and peace. This is why countries have armies and police forces.

It is unfortunate, therefore, that the South African government has failed signally to defend and protect its citizens. The borders of our rich and beautiful country are porous in the extreme to large numbers of illegal immigrants and contraband. And within our own borders we are daily exposed to the unfettered activities of the increasingly confident criminal elements within our society as they blatantly parade their immunity from and contempt of our law enforcement and judicial systems.

South Africa has prided itself on its laudable Constitution and Bill of Rights – and correctly so since they are excellent documents. However, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said (and to paraphrase him) “A right does not exist if it cannot be or is not defended”.

So it might be fair to say that none of us in South Africa actually has many rights simply because they are not all defended and enforced. All our Constitution and Bill of Rights says of the country is that we have got some pretty good writers of constitutions and rights.

We don’t even have the right to armed self defence or self protection since the government has been working assiduously in recent years to end the ability of its citizens to own firearms legally – and now are talking about prohibiting knives and other items which could, conceivably, be used to defend one’s person in an emergency (so long as that emergency takes place within arm’s reach).

It could possibly be argued that the government is less afraid of armed criminals than it is of its own citizenry bearing arms (the bulk of whom are not criminals) – just in case, God forbid, someone figures out that maybe some form of direct action might change the way things have been going. No government member likes the prospect of vigilantism since it tends to negate their public reasoning for the existence of politicians and the coercive, bureaucratic implementation of their version of law and order. Apart from which, and criminals aside, all law-abiding citizens subscribe to the idea of a Constitution authorising a government and its methods for ensuring the safety and protection of those citizens – not many of us would much relish the prospect of a Hobbesian “state of nature” as an alternative to properly constituted law and order.

We have a desire for protection. It would be best if that protection could be achieved without arming every Tom, Dick and Harry – some of whom might partake of strong drink, resent their wife’s latest affair, loathe their boss, express annoyance at the idiot in the white minibus who just cut him off in traffic and probably wouldn’t know, anyway, which is the sharp end of a gun.

Perhaps, as an alternative, we could look at another possibility. Perhaps we could say to the government that we would prefer that, since we have given them the power anyway, we are prepared to give them complete power for a short and defined period of time.

Since the police are unable to perform their function properly (let’s be charitable and just say because they are undermanned, under-resourced, under-funded, overworked, under-paid and poorly trained), then let us put soldiers on the streets. Put us (all of us) under martial law for six months; put us under curfew; subject us to summary justice if we dare to break the law; remove from our shores those who have no legal authorisation or reason for being here; temporarily suspend our constitutional rights (which don’t exist anyway at present).

Take the economic knock that will result – it won’t last long. Improve the employment prospects of the South Africans who have to suffer from the illegal migrants oversupplying the job market. Take the police out of their station houses and patrol vehicles and put most of them on foot in the streets, where they belong. Employ civilian clerks and managers for the mundane police administration work. Make parents fully responsible in law for the actions and omissions of their minor or dependant children. Protect the weak and vulnerable and inculcate a sense of individual and national discipline that awakens the awareness in everybody that being a citizen entails responsibilities and obligations as well as the privileges that ensue. Create the national pride and investor confidence stemming from having the courage to confront an unpleasant problem and solving it resolutely.

When cancer manifests itself in someone it is not normally treated just with aspirin, soft words and soothing caresses. Cancer, if it doesn’t actually kill you, will, at the very least, make you extremely ill; it will deny you energy, it will cause profound pain, it will rob you of the quality of life that you aspire to - as well as wasting the resources of yourself and those around you if it goes untreated properly. For those, and other, reasons, cancer is usually treated aggressively and without compromise.

Is it not time that we all started to view crime as a cancer of our society?

Well, at least, it’s a different perspective…

Spearpoint.

Crime and Punishment

I have long been intrigued by countries around the world going to all the trouble of drafting and then adopting constitutions of one sort or another. Much national pride goes into a country’s constitution and the attendant rights accorded the citizenry. South Africa is no exception.

 The amazing thing is that, once having gone to all that effort, countries like South Africa then proceed to totally ignore that hard-won constitutional document (regardless of the form it might take) in the way that they treat their convicted criminals.

 Crime can be defined as being those acts or omissions which contravene public law. Since public law can only be derived from and is, therefore, secondary to a nation’s constitution, the contravention of that law can be taken to be a violation of that society’s constitution and the consequent individual and/or group rights of the members of that social identity.

 Thus, if one pulls a gun on a person and then one proceeds to relieve that citizen of desirable items of property, one is violating the enshrined rights of the victim just as much as if the victim is murdered. Likewise with pickpockets, fraudsters, dangerous drivers, and so on.

 In commiting a crime the criminal is, in effect (if not explicitly), stating that he or she has no desire or intention of being a part of society. He steps outside the law (becoming an “outlaw”) and in ignoring or violating the rights of his victim thereby summarily and immediately surrenders (upon detection and conviction) his identical rights as a member of that society.

The criminal is, therefore, saying “I don’t like or agree with this society, even though I was born and raised into it. I reject my neighbour’s wider norms and values”.

Why, then, should society continue to protect, feed, house, clothe and otherwise sustain such individuals? Why should the law-abiding members of the society spurned by the criminal continue to be robbed of money and resources in clasping the criminal to their bosom in the form of prisons and the huge financial, emotional and ethical burdens that they entail?

In South Africa, at least, and notwithstanding claims to the contrary, prisons are utilised primarily for the purposes of punishment and conveniently (if shortsightedly) removing the source of trouble (the convicted criminal) from the streets. Prisons are society’s revenge for breaking the rules.

What a costly revenge; and if the criminal undergoes no rehabilitation of thought and behaviour then society merely sweeps the problem under the rug until the release of the criminal – when, given the statistics on recidivism are anything to go by, the problem recurs and society is again confronted with the dislocation and costs of convicting and emprisoning the criminal again.

I am, of course, grossly over-simplifying some of the issues and I do so in order to make my point as quickly as posssible. Let us assume, just to give a nod to some of the complicating issues which I am skirting, that we limit the following only to the perpetrators of violent crime – so prevalent in South Africa as be the main type of crime committed.

Should a country, such as South Africa, at least not consider responding to the criminal by, in effect, saying “OK, so you don’t like our society and you wish to become outlaw; then we shall oblige you by removing you from our society in a manner that will also remove the benefits of our society from your reach”.

This could be done quite simply. We have large uninhabited tracts of land within our borders. We (if I understand correctly) have offshore possessions in the Southern Ocean. Let the outlaws be placed where we are beyond their reach; let them see if they can live without law; let them see if they can build whatever it is that they want but can’t find in our society without disregarding and violating the rights of their fellow citizens.

Sure, we can initially give them just enough materials (timber, bricks, cement, even food) to get them started without their isolation being an automatic death sentence. But after that, they are on their own. If they cannot build a house, they must learn. If they cannot grow or find food, they must learn. If their fellow exiles are violent and abusive it is of little concern to us since the criminal has already decided that violent and abusive behaviour is what he chooses over the possibility of law, order and contribution to the growth and development of a worthwhile society.

 Cruel and unusual punishment?

I don’t think so. Certainly it is no less cruel or unusual than raping a child, pulling a gun on a terrified robbery victim or engaging in public shootouts where careless crossfire kills a baby on her mother’s back or a scared 12-year old girl crouching in fear in the back of her mother’s car.

This type of solution might go a long way to reducing the widespread and very real fear of living in a country where it might be your turn in the next five minutes to be robbed, raped, mutilated for muti, hijacked or simply involved as a hapless spectator-cum-target in a shooting gallery located on the public highway. The deterrent value is high and the complete removal of the convicted perpetrator from the streets has to have immediate and positive benefits.

 Spearpoint.