The ANC, The Arms Deal and Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spearpoint.

18^th August 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as clearly, this is not democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spearpoint.

2^nd August 2008

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.