The ANC and Ideology – I

It’s strange how even the best of intentions can produce results contrary to what was planned.

It’s also strange how the most meticulous planning and foresight can fail to predict outcomes at variance with what the planners had hoped to achieve.

Strange, too, is the fact that the more motivated and inspired the planner the more likely is the plan to go awry and the less likely the planner is to admit that the plan is not working.

The more ideologically pure is the plan then the more likely it is to come off the rails. The world is noted for its penchant to inject varying degrees of reality into the best thought-out and executed of Man’s schemes, dousing dreams with hefty sluices of ice-cold sanity. There are always those, however, who – regardless of the teeth-chattering shivers and goose bumps of the Arctic chills of real life – will persist in their cherished and cockeyed perceptions of the world as they believe it should be. Like the KFC advert in South Africa, showing two grown men sitting on a park bench in the depths of winter, both consuming some iced KFC confection and progressively shedding items of their warm winter clothes (down to their underwear), each seeking to show the other that he is not cold and is, in fact, quite warm, thank you very much, the ideologues and the proud will go to almost any lengths to deny the existence of the reality of the situation they find themselves in.

Recent South African history has more than its fair share of such idiocy.

The episodes earlier this year of xenophobic violence between different national, cultural, racial and economic groups within the townships and squatter camps of South Africa are but one example.

Having had the images and stories of the brutal black-on-black savagery that was perpetrated in the townships of South Africa flashed around the world – to the astonishment of the global population, given the previous propaganda of the ANC government that all was sweetness and light in the new ‘democratic’ and ‘egalitarian’ South Africa under the benevolence of the ANC – the government of South Africa was, initially, just as surprised as the rest of the world and failed to act in any meaningful way against the hatred and violence for a couple of weeks.

When, eventually, the government began, slowly and inadequately, to address the problem, the official line was merely that the attacks were merely spontaneous and random criminality – ignoring the widespread nature of the onslaught throughout much of the country.

As, finally, the scale of the problem began to be realised the government then turned to one of its old favourite lines of reasoning in times of crisis – viz; the attacks were said to be the result of the work of some unidentified and shadowy ‘third force’ (by implication, disaffected whites and their lackeys lusting after a return to the pre-1994 days of perceived power, privilege and glory) conspiring towards the destabilisation of the country and the overthrow of the ANC government. At which point, notably, the army was called in and troops were put on the streets in support of the police.

(Strikingly similar arguments had very quickly been produced by the ANC government when the country’s only commercial nuclear power station had been crippled by a technical failure, just prior to the realisation that the government and Eskom (the national parastatal solely responsible for the generation and distribution of electricity in South Africa) had blithely led the country into an economically disastrous power crisis. These politically bankrupt, inept and transparent arguments were quietly – and quickly – abandoned in the face of the incontrovertible evidence of the rank incompetence and stupidity of both Eskom and the government.)

Then, as the violence and xenophobia reached its height, the ANC government declared that, once the orgy of hatred had subsided, the victims of the attacks seeking refuge and safety in hastily set up tented camps away from the townships and squatter camps would, as a matter of government policy and ideology, be (forcibly, if need be) re-integrated back into the very same areas and neighbourhoods that had attacked, dispossessed and killed the poor bastards in the first place.

Such is the ideology and illusion of ANC thought and propaganda. The desperate need of the ANC to promote and defend its communist ideas of what, according to their cherished conceptualisations of the world, should be – rather than what actually is – drives them into a denial of reality. The sad part is that they then drag everybody else who is subject to their power into a world that does not exist – much to the discomfort and danger of those who do not share or enjoy the benefits and privileges of the ANC leadership and their ivory tower ideologues.

The concept of different tribes, races and socio-economic groups living peacefully side-by-side in joy and harmony is alluring. It should, perhaps, be an ultimate goal of mankind’s. But in the here and now of human social life on this planet opposites tend to repel and likes attract. It is a simple fact of human behaviour in this day and age, as well as throughout our history.

Elsewhere in Africa where refugees seek shelter from whatever political, military or economic storm they wish to avoid they are usually placed together in camps away from local populations where frictions could ensue. Even without coercive factors such as wars and famines to drive people away from their own homes, those fleeing less life-threatening situations have, historically, tended towards one another; the economic migrations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in America and Australia saw Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles, Germans, Chinese, Russians, Armenians and Slavs naturally coalescing into their own communities and neighbourhoods because that was what they felt most comfortable with and where they felt safest until, after a number of generations, they were able to assimilate enough of the predominant local culture to be able to venture out into that culture without undue threat.

So, the ANC and its government is intent upon farting against the thunder of human nature. Already many of those displaced during the xenophobic attacks have been returned to their previous abodes. (Others, seeing the writing on the wall, chose to return to their home countries, preferring the known evils and hazards of life in Zimbabwe, DRC, Mozambique, Somalia and Sudan to the uncertain hospitalities of South Africans.)

Already the rumblings in the townships and the squalid squatter camps have begun. Already the voices of dissent and despair over the re-integration have begun as mumbles of the ordinary people. Already have begun the not-so-quiet and subtle statements of local councilors that the ‘nkerekwere’ are not welcome – especially, for example, those Somali shopkeepers in the Western Cape townships who are seen to be too hard working and undercutting the prices of the local spaza store owners. It will only be a matter of time.

Criminality aside, it is only the ANC and its dogmatic and slavish adherence to its unrealistic and disgraced theories of a Marxist Utopia that is to blame for the initial outburst of xenophobic and genocide-intended violence and dispossession. It was the ANC and its inept and corrupt government that admitted millions of illegal migrants into the country and it was the same crowd that failed then to put in place the necessary social structures to police and care for those immigrants. And it is the ANC that, as with the Zimbabwean situation, continues to steadfastly maintain that no problem exists – as if ignoring or wishing away anything that is inconvenient to one’s perception of the world is really going to achieve something.

Nor is it any good to say that the USSR and the old Soviet bloc managed to keep racial and social peace in a wide-flung empire. That was only achieved at the point of a gun and under the constant threat – and utilisation – of ruthless repression from state organs such as the KGB and the Red Army. Despite recent talk from the ANC of instituting so-called ‘street committees’ as a means of doing what the South African Police Service clearly are unable to achieve – controlling and reducing crime – the ANC has neither the skills nor the stomach for such direct social repression, to say nothing of its lack of desire to admit to the world that only force could integrate a tribally diverse society and that its theories are valueless.

But such are the consequences of any system of political, social and economic control that is applied, willy-nilly, as a complete solution to the theoretical ills of mankind rather than as a set of aspirations and objectives which need to be realised within the context of the real world and the differing sets of circumstances in which different people find themselves from time to time. Such systems, applied without care and consideration, de-humanise and alienate those they are intended and theorised to more fully humanise and empower. Human beings are, first and foremost, individual beings within a social environment – not the other way around. And therein lies the danger of systems of thought in which people are primarily catagorised as, variously, (and by way of example) ‘the masses’, ‘serfs’, ‘consumers’, ‘the proletariat’, ‘peasants’, ‘communists’, ‘Democrats’, ‘Republicans’, ‘Tories’, and so on.

De-humanise humans for long enough and, eventually, they will behave as animals.

Spearpoint.

9^th September 2008

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

Happy Birthday, Mr. Mandela. And, By The Way, Please Don’t Die Yet.

 

Today is the 90^th birthday of Nelson Mandela (‘Madiba’) and the whole world has been sending their best wishes and thanks to him.

 

At the risk of being accused of jumping on the bandwagon, I, too, would like to extend my own personal greetings and wishes to him. Not that they are likely to reach him, of course – I very much doubt that the great man is a subscriber to this blog. And even if he were, I suspect that he might not wish to admit to the fact. Nonetheless, my wishes for his special day and for his continued good health and longevity are sincere and heartfelt.

 

However, today is not as joyous as it could perhaps be for far too many South Africans and, in light of that fact, I would wish to amend my birthday wishes to Mr. Mandela as follows: ‘Many happy returns of the day, Madiba, and please could you find the strength and energy to come out of retirement for a short while and put our country back on track’.

 

Ordinarily, the 21^st century political and government scene should, after all the lessons of the past few hundred years around the world, be one where the characters and characteristics of individual politicians and leaders (not necessarily the same thing, by the way), whilst important, should not, however, be dominant over the system of prevailing political and economic theory and practice.

 

Despite considerable fear at the time of the transition from the old South African order, Mr. Mandela proved to be an acceptable exception to the above statement. His humanity, compassion, statesmanship and deep discipline marked South Africa out as being a beacon of hope to many other countries around the globe – to say nothing of those people who had, directly and indirectly, suffered under the pre-1994 government. In so doing, Mr. Mandela bequeathed a bold and immensely valuable legacy to South Africa.

 

Which is precisely why today is not as happy an occasion as it could – and should – be as the great man and a significant portion of the planet celebrates the start of his 91^st year.

 

The stark reality is that the Mandela bequest to all South Africans has been defiled and squandered by those who took up the reins of power and influence after his departure. Sure, the words of those now steering our ship of state on to the political, social and economic rocks are filled with obsequiousness to the man and his vision; but the lip-service is cynical and self-serving when compared with the actions and motivations of those now with their hands on the tiller.

 

Some fourteen years after the 1994 transition South Africa appears to have progressed little towards those objectives set out and exemplified by Nelson Mandela.

 

South Africa still has the obscenity of innumerable squatter camps. Where housing for the poor has been provided it is invariably small, mean and inadequate for the needs of growing families and entrepreneurs. The squatter camps of the next decade and on will be the RDP and low-cost housing projects of the townships.

 

South Africa still has the obscenity of a gargantuan and permanent crime wave (now no longer excusable as a form of anti-Apartheid political action) which is, in terms of volume and nature, on a par – at least – with any war zone you might wish to name on the planet.

 

South Africa, far from leading the rest of Africa away from the stereotypes of the continent, has actively joined the club of banana republics in the race to grab the titles of the most corrupt and most politically expedient societies in the world. Political and social leaders vie with one another, it appears, to see who can extract the most money and power from the cookie jar of government service and public finance. Nepotism and cronyism are rife locally and internationally. Our foreign policies – most notably towards Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, and Sudan (amongst others) – are an international joke and a domestic embarrassment.

 

South Africa’s education system (never noted for its egalitarianism or excellence) is collapsing under the weight of acute teacher shortages and administrative incompetencies.

 

Similarly, the South African public health system, under the leadership of a minister who denies the realities of HIV/AIDS and would prefer to treat those thus afflicted with beetroot, spinach and whatever local witch doctors might concoct from unprovenanced ingredients, is imploding from staff and skills shortages, graft and maladministration.

 

South African infrastructure is unraveling. The road system is (literally) breaking up under the traffic. No new major road or highway has been constructed since 1994. Public transport is so piecemeal as to be non-existent. Eskom and the electrical generation and distribution network under its care is a monstrous caricature of what the ANC inherited from its predecessors.

 

South African government is ceasing to work properly. Government departments are slothful and inefficient. Where once a passport would, routinely, be issued within ten to fourteen days, applicants now have to wait for upwards of six months. Driving tests and the issuance of licences, once accomplished within days can now – depending on the locality – take over one year.

 

South African public ethics and the moral fibre of the country are disintegrating. Public officials, no longer afraid of their subjection to the law of the land, openly – and oftentimes violently – compete for power. Politicians and government departments flagrantly flout or ignore court orders and rulings. The judiciary appears to be becoming enmeshed in political rivalries and factionalism.

 

At least 26% of all South Africans, from all racial and socio-economic groupings, are reported to be either in the process of emigration or are actively considering it.

 

So, Mr. Mandela, Happy Birthday.

 

But would you please at least consider coming out of retirement for a year in order to put our house back in some semblance of order? It’s a lot to ask and I’m sure you are tired. It would be appreciated – especially by those who are closest to your heart; the poor, the elderly, the sick, the young.

 

And – please – don’t die anytime soon. For then South Africa will have no-one with any political integrity or moral authority left to shield us hapless common folk from the predations of who are ambitious, greedy and ruthless.

 

Spearpoint.

 

18^th July 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Xenophobia in Africa

 

 

 

Today the media are full of the barbaric xenophobic attacks that have been taking place in and around Johannesburg over the past week or so.

 

Quite right, too.

 

It’s interesting, however, that the xenophobic murders of hundreds of Somali refugees in the Cape Town area some months ago never prompted the same aghast response of shock and horror from the media.

 

What a shame that the xenophobia which is so characteristic of Africa in general and South Africa in particular is being portrayed as a recent phenomenon. Very little recognition has been given to the fact that xenophobia has always been an intrinsic part of African life throughout the continent and I doubt that much will change in that regard.

 

The Xhosa hate the Zulu. The Hutu hate the Tutsi. The Shona sneer at the Matebele. The Bushman and San are reviled by everyone. The list is as long as the number of tribes on the continent. And it is not new; many of the efforts of the past colonial powers went towards quelling and controlling the culturally traditional internecine strife between the peoples under their yoke and trying to instill a wider sense of purpose – to no avail, it would appear.

 

Whatever the reasons for intra-African xenophobia, it is a fact that it exists and is so deep-seated as to be all but ineradicable in the foreseeable future – notwithstanding the best efforts of sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and panels of so-called experts called upon to explain and remedy the periodic flare-ups that occur in a general climate of simmering distrust and demonising mythologisation.

 

Under such circumstances it doesn’t take much to throw the spark leading to conflagration.

 

South Africa is a good case in point.

 

• The thrusting together of large numbers of people from diverse and historically antagonistic groups in the overcrowded ghetto-like environments of townships and squatter camps.
• Large-scale and uncontrolled illegal immigration from poorer neighbouring countries.
• Insufficient, inefficient and corrupt delivery of the most basic of human needs to those who have been deprived for so long.
• Poor education facilities and expertise from kindergarten on upwards.
• Insufficient work leading to an excess of available time to drink and seethe on the perceived causes of various misfortunes.
• Failure by government and its organs to devise and enforce policies and practices to, firstly, control and then eradicate crime and its consequences.
• Failure by community, municipal, provincial and national leaders to elevate themselves as role models away from the basest elements of human behaviour.
• Failure by the above leaders to acknowledge and actively address numerous problems, ranging from crime, policing, corruption, HIV/AIDS, service delivery and so on through to public office probity.

 

These are just some of the factors which make it too easy to find scapegoats when life gets a bit tougher than usual. And the scapegoats are, all too often, those who, for some reason or another, don’t fit into the usual patterns of local life; those from outside the country, outside the district, outside the neighbourhood – the most vulnerable because they are isolated and, therefore, easy targets. The savagery of the attacks is peculiarly African – witness the days of the Congolese uprisings, the ‘necklacings’ of South Africa and the genocide of Rwanda and Burundi.

 

Such targeting, of course, is the course of the ignorant and the cowardly – those too lazy to make the effort to properly evaluate the causes of their present predicament and too craven to challenge those events or people truly responsible for their plight (including, I might add, themselves).

 

The response of our government has been to convene a panel to investigate the causes and results of the violence in the townships.

 

Whoops! Wrong thing to do – at least, in the short-term. Fine for the longer view and for the formulation of later policy.

 

Short-term – get the situation immediately under control. If the police can’t handle it (and they seem, as ever, to be struggling) then get troops in. Separate the rival groups. Patrol the streets. Shoot dead (remember the words of the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security?) the attackers and opportunistic looters.

 

This is a time for resolute and firm action to quell the trouble before it becomes even more widespread and indiscriminate. This is not the time for anguished hand-wringing or high-minded political and social theorising. Fix the problem now and worry about fixing the blame later, when time permits.

 

Already I can hear the gasps of disbelief from the rest of the world – and the increasingly overt sniggers over our inability to face up to the daily realities of running a Third World country.

 

Worse still, I can hear the cries of despair from our own people as they witness yet another step into chaos and depravity.

 

Spearpoint.

19^th May 2008

 

 

 

 

 

Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights…

 

 

So here we have it, at last. It has been a while coming, but come it has.

 

Not that it has been unexpected. It was bound to happen eventually, in one way or another.

 

Many very astute and able writers have been trying – for some considerable time – to show how South Africa has been slowly descending into the abyss. More recently Spearpoint has (with far less ability and effectiveness) added his own voice to the warnings that have been increasingly thronging the various media available to us in this country.

 

I fear that it will all be to no avail.

 

The pessimism, even despair, which has silently pervaded South African society over the last decade or so, is now gaining increasing momentum even amongst those who celebrated the most after the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Now we begin to see the true colours of our Rainbow Nation; colours that were once purposefully and skillfully hidden behind shimmering nebulae of rhetoric and political razzle-dazzle are now being glimpsed more often as the perceived need for global political respectability is, more and more, discarded as the ANC and its puppet masters gain in confidence and arrogance.

 

Today, the legislation to disband the elite crime-fighting unit known as the Scorpions has been tabled in Parliament.

 

Modeled broadly on the FBI, the Scorpions have proven to be a formidable and largely untouchable crime-fighting force that has shown little or no favour and has appeared to be indefatigable in the pursuit of those who would place themselves above the law. They have been a very necessary foil to the poorly performing South African Police Service.

 

Why the ANC has bothered to involve Parliament escapes me. South Africa is a dictatorship of the elected majority party (the ANC), with absolutely no prospect of any realistic challenge to the current status quo being mounted through the ballot box anytime in the next couple of generations.

 

The ANC might as well come clean and rule by decree. It would save them and the rest of the world time, effort and embarrassment over the increasingly amateurish attempts to legitimise their fumbling realisations of their ambitions.

 

The signs have around for a long time.

 

• The selection of a party leader – soon to be the country’s President – who is awaiting trial on corruption and related charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and public protection by the current President of the country – with the tacit approval of the ANC – of the national Police Commissioner who faces serious charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and unashamed protection of numerous public officials and office holders who have either admitted or have been convicted of innumerable offences ranging from drunk driving through fraud, embezzlement and worse.
• The blasé and indifferent approach to, and acceptance of, crime levels unparalleled outside of war zones such as Iraq. (An example – it is generally accepted that a rape occurs in South Africa every 23 seconds. Do the math – 1.4 million rapes per annum in a population estimated at around 45-50 million people).
• The awesome drift from reality embodied in the continuing and, until very recently, unquestioning support of rogue and repressive states such as Zimbabwe and Burma – behaviour which has led to the ridicule and scorn of the rest of the world, to say nothing of the loss of life and liberty of those poor unfortunates living in those countries.

 

And these are but a very few of the straws that have been blowing in the wind in recent years.

 

The Scorpions are but a single example of the lengths to which the ANC, COSATU and the South African Communist Party (all members of the tri-partite alliance which rules South Africa but of which only the ANC presents itself for election before the people of the country) are prepared to go in order to exclude themselves from scrutiny by both the courts and the electorate.

 

When will the people of South Africa – as well as the rest of the world – awaken to the fact of the immense confidence trick being played upon them at their expense?

 

Do we have to wait for the raids on the newspapers and televisions stations to become more frequent? (It has already happened). Will we only realise our plight when the Internet and blogs are monitored, controlled and restricted? Will we have to wait for the situation in Zimbabwe to become a reality for South Africa (and so memorably and eloquently expressed by the unknown Zimbabwean who voiced it by saying “We have freedom of expression; we just don’t have freedom after expression”)? Will we wait until the cadres of the ANC and SACP are joined on their nightly dissent-suppression street patrols by armed MK war veterans? Will we wait for the type of bloodbath that surely lurks, Kenya-like, in Zimbabwe’s near future?

 

The writing is on the wall. We ignore it at our peril. We run the risk of a bovine-like acceptance of the denial and corruption of the hopes and aspirations of an entire country already brutalised in the not-too-distant past. Or, simultaneously, we run the risk of opening the door to hotheads and armed reactionaries eager to turn back the clock.

 

And as much as Spearpoint harbours hopes for this country and its people, it is very much my profound fear that already it is too late and that the time is nigh for the call to go out, “Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights”.

 

 

Spearpoint

13^th May 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.

 

 

 

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.

A little more on crime in South Africa…

“Morning Live” – a breakfast programme on SABC (the State broadcasting carrier) – today had quite an interesting theme, addressing crime and the impact upon our society and citizenry.

Usually I don’t watch this programme in any detail except for the news headlines, the business reports and the weather. I am uncomfortable with the (often) blatant apologetic and praise-singing role that the SABC adopts for the government and the ANC in this and other programmes. 

Be that as it may, this morning I was rather surprised to discover that the programme (by the way, Morning Live, you are not a “show” – you have no dancing girls, jugglers, big bands or other spectaculars intended to entertain), was devoting much of its time on air to the topic of crime and related issues. Surprised, because this is now the second time of which I am aware in the last week or so that the topic has been addressed quite so critically.

Various guests were given (by what I perceive to be normal SABC standards) an interestingly intensive grilling by the presenter who, I felt, was trying to get beyond the more usual mealy-mouthed responses given by representatives or spokesmen of whichever government bodies happen to be under scrutiny.

This type of interviewing was sufficiently different from what I have seen previously that it gave me pause for thought.

(There were, I figured, three possible ways of looking at the reasons behind the apparently new style and content:

1. The presenter had finally got sick and tired of the usual placatory spin doled out by guests on occasions like this;
2. The SABC has, finally, decided to change its editorial policy towards a position more independent of its more normal toeing-the-ANC-line function; or,
3. Like the old days in the USSR, the SABC is, Pravda-like, issuing a signal that the government is, at long last, reviewing its position on its crime-fighting policies and practices – there is, after all, an election looming next year.

Assuming any of the above might apply – Hallelujah!)

But I digress.

Each of the guests  being interviewed appeared to be sincere, professional and, even, erudite. Their responses to many of the questions were even plausible. But plausibility and political correctness are not what is required to solve our problems regarding crime.

The party line (in this case, that of the ANC) has, manifestly, failed to work to date. And falling back on the now old and tired argument of inherited legacies from our apartheid past – relevant and pertinent as they may have been in the immediate post-1994 South Africa – just doesn’t hold water any longer. Much as the ANC might wish to continue blaming apartheid for all the ills of the next two hundred years, the fact is that, aside from the ANC’s current implementation of its own particular programme of apartheid, we are living in the present and there has been plenty of time to address and correct many of the problems bequeathed to us from the old regime – especially crime.

This is where our law enforcement policies and programmes have failed so dramatically and this is what we did not hear on Morning Live today from the so-called experts. Not once did any of the guests refer to, much less accept, responsibility for the current situation.

To be fair, I doubt that any of the guests was in any sort of position to actually carry direct responsibility for the levels and types of crime so prevalent in South Africa today. But they did not say that those who are responsible for the policies, the allocation of funds and resources, the quality of the service provided by the police and courts, as well as those who perform the enforcement of our laws are not being held accountable and are not being required to accept, at a personal and professional level, the responsibilities with which they are charged.

Perhaps this is not surprising since our political masters are so adept at hiding behind the incomprehensible concept of “collective” responsibility or liability for when things go wrong. The recent Eskom fiasco, numerous cases of theft, fraud and corruption in various government departments – not only have the individuals involved all too often kept their jobs and positions but so, too, have the relevant ministers and directors-general under the doctrine of collective responsibility. The term has been used very loosely and without definition of what it actually means and what sanctions (and how they are determined) apply in such cases. If our government were honest about conforming to some principle of “collective” responsibility then, logically applied, the entire government should resign if even one minister or appointee fails in the discharge of his or her duties.

It is the issue of responsibility that is the very crux of the current crime situation.

It’s a two-way street. The government seeks, theoretically and practically, to hold you and me personally and directly responsible if we evade our taxes, drive through red traffic lights, embezzle from our employer, poach abalone, possess a firearm without a licence, use the “K”-word, abduct and kill our neighbours and their children – and quite rightly so. Most of us do implicitly and willingly accept that personal responsibility. Why can’t the members and employees of our government and its various agencies do the same? Or are there too many political debts from the past, too much hidden patronage arranged in smoke-filled rooms/jungle camps in the nineteen-eighties to ever permit true, honest and transparent personal accountability?

We have the laws. We have the human rights. We have a great Constitution.

We have – nothing.

The Constitution and its precepts are too often regarded as instruments of convenience.

Our laws are not fully, properly or professionally enforced; as a result our human rights, where they exist at all, are devalued and insignificant. Words or wishes alone do not make human rights.

Fourteen years after release from a repressive social and political order has seen South Africa take many great strides towards improving the lot of the bulk of the population and the ANC deserves considerable credit for those achievements.

However, what was the point in empowering and enriching those who were previously disadvantaged when they and their newly-won possessions and means of acquiring those possessions are not protected by their government and its various agencies? The government manifestly has no desire to see individual citizens empowered (by virtue of being enabled and entitled to own and possess firearms) to defend their own rights to life and possession of private property; by default the government has taken that role and duty upon itself – and has failed to discharge it with even the smallest degree of competence.

Surely the ANC would not wish to be accused of having sought and achieved power merely for the exercise and enjoyment of that power by the few who manage(d) to scramble to the top of the ANC pyramid and the devil take the rest? Surely the ANC would not wish to be compared with other countries in Africa?

Although my personal experience of power has been very limited (I am but a family man), I believe that, whilst there are personal benefits to be legitimately expected and gained, power also incurs obligations and responsibilities which must be honoured.

Enjoy the perks, pay, limos, nice offices and furniture, the travel and so on. We won’t begrudge you. But these come with a quid pro quo which cannot be shirked or denied.

If you cannot – or will not - actually perform your job in a way that yields the results expected of you then, please, step aside and let someone else have a shot. This is how it works outside of government; do your job well and receive the rewards; do the job badly and expect demotion or dismissal. It’s fair and just. And it engenders tremendous respect in those over whom you have dominion. Think of the regard in which both the government and, say, for example, the current Minister of Safety and Security would be held if the Minister were to say; “Sorry, guys, I seem to have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of my job. I am going to ask the President to re-assign me to another area of responsibility better suited to my abilities and ask him to appoint Spearpoint to take over my role because I believe he might be able to get some better results”. Spearpoint may or may not do a better job but, at least the government would receive huge credit for being sufficiently self-critical as to recognise that it has a shortcoming and is doing something to rectify it.

(I should hasten to point out here that Spearpoint does not seek the post of Minister of Safety and Security or any other. My ambitions tend to be more modest and mundane.)

Leaders are expected to lead – and not just in insisting on compliance with their dictates. It is not “Do as I say” but, rather “Do what I do”. Leadership comes from example. Society follows its leaders (by definition). If society’s leaders are seen to be honest, hard working, transparent and law-abiding then society tends to emulate the example of those leaders. If leaders are seen to be dishonest, grasping and beyond or above the law to which everyone else is subject, then the rest of society will follow that same example and regard the public law with contempt; they will, like their leaders, seek their own selfish privilege (lit. “private law”) and disregard all but their own private interests to the stark detriment of everyone else.

Spearpoint.