A Few Thoughts On The American Presidential Race

Some years ago in South Africa, when insomnia or rebelliousness took hold, one could while away the wee hours by watching the BBC or CNN on feeds provided by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) after the SABC’s normal broadcasting hours. It wasn’t the most exciting television, but it gave night owls some quality viewing whilst also providing a bit of exposure to news and commentary beyond the narrow confines of South African political and social interests.

Then the SABC decided to get sophisticated and nationalistic, beginning to run late night local content rather than exposing the small number of after-midnight viewers to potentially subversive (that is, thought-provoking) programmes of news and opinion emanating from places considered to be colonialistic, imperialistic and capitalistic.

Thus it is that nowadays all we can get on the SABC after midnight is either SABC news (not bad but rather parochial), sport (limited usually to soccer or rugby – neither of which gets my juices pumping) or mindless and repetitive hip-hop type ‘music’ which, for a man of my age, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for crimes uncommitted.

Even the SABC’s arch-rival, eTV, ever the populist ratings chaser, can only muster either repeats of programmes from earlier the same night or a truly dumbass and mindbendingly boring ‘game’ involving dirge-like monologues from a single presenter purportedly taking phone calls from supposed contestants trying to ‘win’ ridiculously small prizes.

On top of which, in a cunning conspiracy against Spearpoint, broadcast signals to my home from both the SABC and eTV are apparently scrambled as part of a shrewd plan to force me to subscribe to the local satellite TV carrier (DSTV). This wouldn’t be so bad if I could afford the lunatic sums required to be able to access those channels – such as the History channel, the Discovery channel, the BBC, CNN, a couple of cooking or travel channels, and so on – with some interesting content. But no, Spearpoint is financially limited to the most basic of satellite packages and which consist of the three SABC channels, eTV, al-jazeera English news (actually quite good if overly centred on southern Asia), a single sports channel, a poker channel (which I quite enjoy on occasion since there used to be a time in my dissolute youth when I used to make quite a bit of money and a few enemies playing the game) and a feed from Botswana Television.

Now Botswana TV (BTV) during normal viewing hours is pretty much the same as many African national television stations; very focused on its own affairs (although it sometimes carries good movies and documentaries). However, BTV after hours can be very interesting – as in recent weeks – when it doesn’t shut down its late night transmissions. Prompted, no doubt, by the Presidential race in the USA, BTV has recently been carrying a feed from the American TV station MSNBC.

Of course, the programmes transmitted are governed by the time difference between deepest, darkest Africa and the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, so the full range of what MSNBC offers is not available to us paupers here.

Nonetheless, what a joy!

For the first time in my life I have been able to follow, in some detail, the progress of an American Presidential campaign – from an American perspective rather than as edited by non-American anti-Americans in places outside the USA.

And even allowing for an apparent bias towards the Democratic Party by the hosts of those talk shows that I am able to watch, I have been greatly enlivened by the style and content of hosts such as Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and their stables of expert commentators. Thanks guys (you know what I mean, Rachel).

(I’m just praying that BTV hasn’t been pirating the feed from MSNBC, gets caught and has to shut it down. If that is the case then I’m praying, equally hard, that MSNBC doesn’t find out until well after November 4th.)

Anyway, based (in part) upon MSNBC’s influence upon me, I humbly proffer the following Spearpoint-assessment of the Republican Party Presidential candidates as I understand them at this time. Justification for being so brazen as to offer opinion on an electoral process that is not mine is based upon the simple fact that, no matter what America does, how or to whom it does it, we in the Third World (and elsewhere) will be directly affected in some way, sooner or later.

To begin with, I have to say just how intriguing it is that, for what is probably the most advanced and sophisticated country on the planet, America and Americans appear to be so engrossed in the style and packaging of their Presidential candidates rather than the content of the policies being proposed.

This pre-occupation with presentation leaves Americans open to a number of dangers. Take, for example, the present incumbent, George Dubya.

Riding on the coat-tails of his father (who, it would seem, knew at least enough to be able to start and stop a just war without bankrupting both his own country and the rest of the planet), George Jr., although probably spoiled and indulged as a child and youth, exuded an apparent air of toughness during his campaign for the White House. The American public seemed to love it, with results that everyone on the planet will have to live with for generations. What was missed, unfortunately, was that the air of strength was, in fact, a rich kid’s petulance and poutiness backed up by daddy’s position in life. And, I suspect, an overindulgence in Tom Clancy novels.

Beyond that, and although supported by clever and ambitious political hitchhikers, George Dubya has proven to be an intellectual and moral lightweight with the attention span of a snowball in a blast furnace. Poor George always was in over his head.

It would seem that the great packaging flim-flam is again being perpetrated on the American public again with the Republican Party Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

John McCain, to this outsider at least, appears to have made a political career based upon his earlier (and unfortunate) experiences as a POW in North Vietnam. His POW status looks as though it is the central plank of his definition of his service to the American nation and he seems never to tire of speaking about and referring to it. This, of course, falls in well with America’s apparent perception of any uniformed service (military, paramilitary or civilian) as being tantamount to semi-divine elevation.

Now Spearpoint has had the very real privilege of having known and worked with a fair number of ex-servicemen over the years. In all that time, most of those individuals known by me have always been so modest and reticent about their war time experiences as to be, at times, infuriating. But, if anything, their reluctance to speak of and to take advantage of their past glories (if one can use that term) only served to heighten their stature in the eyes of all those around them. I remember one with particular affection; a quadriplegic who, for some reason, seemed to take pleasure from sharing conversations and cigarettes in the sunshine with a young and callow Spearpoint, only ever conceding that his terrible wounds had been sustained at Gallipoli but never, never, referring to or otherwise speaking of his military experiences during the Great War. Or another, captured during the North African campaign in World War II and so savagely tortured by the Germans that his feet and legs carried the disfigurements and pain decades later. These were men to be revered and respected.

There was one, however, who reached field rank in a combat unit during the Burma campaign of World War II. In addition to insisting on the use of his military rank in civilian life, this man then calculatedly used his previous status to never cease talking of his (presumably real) experiences as he relentlessly carved out a commercially successful niche for himself and his business, forever trading on the natural awe and respect most people have for old warriors. His eventual reward was to be regarded with disdain, dislike, distrust and, in certain instances, with outright contempt.

None of the above comments is intended to take anything away from either John McCain or his experiences as a US serviceman. However, and at a personal level, Spearpoint will always be skeptical and suspicious of those who make self-glorified capital (of any kind) from past experiences that were, to a greater or lesser extent, shared by many, many thousands of others who survived those same types of experiences. It should not be forgotten that, aside from those who managed to make it back home, there were many thousands who, killed or missing in action, didn’t get home and whose stories and histories– perhaps more glorious than those of McCain – we shall never fully know. And, as is often the case in war, pure blind chance all too frequently determines survival, rather than skill, prowess or battlefield bravery.

It is also the experience of Spearpoint that, career soldiers/airmen/sailors aside, the main effect of military service – particularly when drafted against one’s will – was to provide the mettle in one’s character upon which could then be formed a better citizen in any of a thousand different ways. Most military experience is gained when one is very young, when one’s knowledge and experience of the world is extremely limited and when one tends to be most enthusiastic and unquestioningly accepting about one’s beliefs, norms and values. It is also the time in the lives of most individuals, before the advent of spouses, children, mortgages and a million other social responsibilities, when young people are adventurous and carefree, able and willing to embark upon reckless exploits before the true value of human life is properly comprehended by the participants. It is only in this way that wars have been such a permanent feature of human existence; the young are too stupid to understand the effects and costs of the jingoism being thrust before them and are, therefore, perfect cannon-fodder. Middle-aged men make for poor grunts since their age and general life experience tends to allow them greater powers of threat-recognition and subsequent circumspection.

The point here is that it is fallacious to base one’s entire persona and identification on just a couple or so years’ experience in very early adulthood. Especially when, as with John McCain, one is on the final, steep dip-slope of life. Because, surely, a person is – or should be – more than what they were for a few years as a youth or young adult, even if those early experiences lent or swayed them towards certain pre-dispositions.

Perhaps Spearpoint is being less than fair towards John McCain, in which case an apology is extended; I know little of the man beyond what I have seen on television and read in the press over the past few months. But Spearpoint is old and experienced in his own way, has no particular axe to grind, and has a history of being right much of the time about people and their motives – even at a remove. And Spearpoint has, at the moment, a firmly negative opinion of the man.

It is also unfortunate, perhaps, that John McCain presents himself as hugely competent and experienced whilst constantly appearing to be taken unawares when the unexpected happens. His willingness and propensity to prevaricate and then to attack from a position of weakness has, I think, been clearly demonstrated during this presidential campaign. Similarly, when caught out or under pressure he has a distressing tendency to look like a rabbit caught in a spotlight; gambler he might claim to be, but a poker player he is not. The body language is, somehow, not right.

And, speaking of body language, Spearpoint has noticed something about McCain when in the presence of and when talking about Sarah Palin, his Vice-Presidential running mate. The guy is distinctly uncomfortable – and Palin is equally discomfited.

The public embraces have been perfunctory and decidedly cool. No kisses on the cheeks have been seen to land. The arms in the embraces are stiff and defensive. There has been little eye-contact – Palin’s eyes sweep over McCain as if he is not there, whilst McCain’s eyes are everywhere except on Palin where there is any chance that she might notice.

When McCain speaks of Palin it is as if he suddenly switches to a ‘Palin sub-menu’ on his list of ‘correct-things-to-say-about-party-and-running-mate’. He flashes a stunningly insincere – and immediate – manufactured smile measured in milliseconds and then changes the subject as quickly as possible.

Spearpoint suspects that, (and despite other commentators suggesting that he is merely embarrassed at having inappropriate thoughts about his attractive running-mate – although have you noticed how fiddles with his wedding band when he stands behind Palin on the rally platforms?), John McCain does not like his Vice-Presidential candidate. Spearpoint further wonders whether John McCain had any say in the selection of Sarah Palin for the coming task – that, in other words, Palin was foisted on McCain against his better judgement. (Which, if true, would somewhat raise McCain in Spearpoint’s estimation).

There is little doubt in Spearpoint’s mind that Sarah Palin is reasonably smart and fanatically ambitious. There is equally little doubt that Palin is not averse to using her – at first glance – good looks to charm and sway those she would seek to influence and that she uses her sexual weaponry, together with her homey hockey/soccer mom image and populist and fundamentalist views and certainties of life, in place of any significant breadth of knowledge or interests beyond what she grew up with as a child. Palin has, I suspect, little room or use for the very real philosophical and existential uncertainties of life as experienced by the majority of the people of America and the rest of the world.

If that is, in fact, the case then one must feel not only very sad for America in terms of the quality of the leadership being offered by the Republicans, but also extremely fearful for the consequences of pitting a Palin against, for example, a Putin or a Medvedev – both of whom are just as ambitious but far, far more educated and worldly-wise; there is not much doubt in Spearpoint’s mind that both those gentlemen not only know by name the titles of their national newspapers and magazines, their editors and where they live but they also know, to the millimetre, the position of every one of their national borders.

To expect someone – even as photogenic and outwardly attractive as Sarah Palin – to somehow assimilate all of the necessary and basic information and background to the role she has been chosen by the Republican Party in a matter of days is clearly too much. The woman is, I believe, in her early forties, set in her ways and opinions and the task is simply beyond her; neither she nor America has the luxury of boundless time in which to improve and hone her brain.

Nor is it purely a matter of style. The job of Vice-President requires substance more than anything else – particularly when there is a very real and distinct possibility of an aged John McCain being unable to complete even his first term as President. Palin might be sufficient for Alaska and Alaskans (I don’t even want to think about what that might say about that State and its inhabitants), but it is manifestly clear that being an airhead (one might be tempted to go so far as to say a ‘bimbo’) is not heavyweight enough for the job of running the most powerful nation on the planet – unless, of course, one wishes to fulfill the prediction of the Iranians that the American empire is about to disappear. Look at the trouble George Dubya got us all into – and he grew up with smart parents in a political household.

The prospect of a further George Dubya administration under the title of ‘McCain and Palin’ does nothing to quicken Spearpoint. The likelihood of a Palin administration is just too terrible to contemplate.

The USA will lose tremendous credibility around the world if the McCain/Palin ticket wins in November.

The problem is, I suspect, that McCain will, true to form, stoop to whatever level he thinks fit in order to achieve his personal ambitions. I would be surprised, for example, if, come the vote in the House on the $700 billion ‘bailout’ package, McCain does not engineer an ‘intervention’ by himself so that he can claim that he – and he alone – managed to heroically sway the dissident Republican members sufficiently to agree the package and thus to save America and the world.

Spearpoint’s high regard for and respect of the United States of America cannot here be proven or demonstrated – but it is there. I just wish, now and then, that America would realise that, in selecting its own leaders, it is also selecting global leaders with a reach and impact far beyond your own shores. We outside America often dream of achieving what you have achieved and we are fearful of what it would mean to have an America no longer capable of not giving us not only wonderful science and technology but also the aspiration and standard of the love of freedom together with a chance to follow your example. Just please give us a good example.

Spearpoint.

2nd October 2008

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.

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.