For all those political junkies out there, I tried something new (for me, at least) on Wednesday night and blogged about President Thabo Mbeki’s interview with the SABC.
After 10 minutes, the political editor of the SABC has only asked boring, sweetheart questions. The SABC would find it difficult to defend itself against claims that it is a cheerleader for the president and part of his re-election campaign unless the questions get a bit more probing.
There is now a long question quoting Statistics South Africa on how much people’s lives are improving — which is, of course, true — but it is for the president to make these points if he can slip them in, not the SABC’s political editor.
Finally a question asking the president why he only got nominations from four provinces. Mbeki says people may not look at the issues raised by the SABC about how their lives have improved and may therefore not have voted for him. He adds that there is a democratic process that must be respected and so be it. It’s a bland answer, but at least it is correct and sounds generous. One point for the president.
After 20 minutes, Mbeki is still droning on about the tripartite alliance and I am once again reminded of just how uncharismatic he can be when he gets stuck in bureaucracy-speak. He says the “objective facts” (a favourite phrase) that required the alliance to be formed still remain in place today, so the alliance will continue regardless who wins at Polokwane. He does not talk at all about the fights, the vicious attacks on him and the ANC by Zwelinzima Vavi and members of the so-called “ultra-left”. This means he really failed to answer the question.
Maybe Mbeki is not wanting to pick a fight with Vavi at this stage for clever, strategic reasons (attacks may energise Vavi and his supporters), but I fear it sounds as if the president thinks if he ignores the crazy attacks on him by the alliance partners, and merely states that the “objective” facts still require the alliance to continue, it will be so and will be accepted as so — regardless of what people might think they have seen happening in front of their very eyes.
After the first section of the interview I find Mbeki’s performance bland and seemingly out of touch with what is happening in South Africa. Maybe I’m just jaundiced, but there is no engagement with the real issues raised by people inside and outside the ANC.
Back after the break, and here we go again with softball questions.
A questioner asks about the two centres of power and the decision at the ANC policy conference in June this year where delegates said it would be preferable if the president of the ANC was the same person as the president of the country. Mbeki ignores this part of the question and explains that the ANC is bigger than one person and that there could therefore be no such thing as “two centres of power”.
The government merely does what the ANC has decided and this means it is one big happy family. Once again this sounds out of touch, as if the president is in denial about the tension between the ANC rank-and-file and tripartite-alliance partners on the one hand and the government on the other, about specific issues and about the possible tension that might arise when the president of the ANC is different from the president of the country. To be crude, this sounds as if human beings in the ANC have no agency and are part of a Borg-like entity (like in Star Trek) that assimilates everyone and allows the Borg to operate as a single collective without any individuality. Surely this is far-fetched? Can he really believe this or is it politics?
Mbeki says the leadership contest is not a bad thing, but if a person wins he must not think that he should “fix” his “enemies”, because the ANC is bigger than all the short-term differences the camps may have. What is required is for the battle to be fought in a way that would ensure factions are not created.
The brave political editor of the SABC, of course, fails to ask him what he thinks of the attack by one of his lieutenants, Terror Lekota, on Jacob Zuma. This response might seem a bit rich even without Lekota’s attack, as Mbeki is seen as a man who always “fixes” his enemies in the long term. Ask Tokyo Sexwale, Matthews Phosa, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and, of course, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge. Many people would say this is exactly why Zuma is so popular — because so many people have been fixed or are at least perceived to have been fixed. Is this a wrong perception and if not, does Mbeki not see the irony of his answer?
The SABC interviewer is getting bold (laughing nervously while asking the question) by tentatively asking about the “perception” out there that the president had centralised power in his own hands. Mbeki replies that no one has ever been able to say — when he challenged them — where this perception comes from. In any case, he consults people in the ANC, including chairs in the provinces, even when appointing premiers. Mbeki may not have thought of the possibility, of course, that people are too scared to challenge him and may not have been brave enough to say why they have this perception exactly because of the real or perceived view that he “fixes” those who disagree with him. Irony abounds.
Mbeki is then asked about floor-crossing and he rambles on explaining in very long and complicated terms how the legislation came about, but he first hints that maybe floor-crossing should be scrapped and then he hints that maybe it should not be scrapped. “Let’s put all the arguments in one pot and see what comes out of it.” This is fence-sitting of the highest order, but that makes Mbeki an ordinary politician, like Zuma or anyone else, I suppose.
No questions from the SABC about any of the hot-button issues: HIV/Aids, Zimbabwe, Zuma’s view on women, the fact that Mbeki is seen as aloof and cold, the “conspiracy” against Zuma, the suspension of National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli, Mbeki’s support for police National Commissioner Jackie Selebi and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. Oh well, the political editor must be mindful of what happened to Jimi Matthews and John Perlman and must need his salary more than he needs his self-respect as a journalist.
Now it’s time for listeners to ask questions, so maybe we’ll get some serious questions.
Petrus phones and says: “We were happy with the president,” but why can’t he give somebody else a chance. The president gives a ridiculous answer: the members will decide, this is how they elected Mandela, for example, and this is democracy; it is not for Thabo Mbeki to decide whether to stand again. But Mbeki may have a choice, of course, and could have decided — like Mandela — not to encourage the members to elect him again, in which case they would not have nominated him. He failed to do that, so his answer doesn’t hold water.
Dealing with questioners seems to be beyond the SABC’s technical abilities, so many callers don’t seem to make it on to the air. Many callers who phone in wish the president luck in the election and complain about the “others” who are sending out negative messages. Mbeki says we should always respect the truth (but not on the arms deal, of course) and “while there are some among us who are campaign on the basis of lies, it is a mistake to think that people are fools because in the end the truth will come out” and they will vote for the right person.
A questioner says we should bring back the death penalty because that will stop crime. Mbeki agrees that crime is a big problem and, yes, let us discuss all issues relevant to this but the Constitutional Court has said we cannot have the death penalty and this is the ANC position as well. I quietly cheer the president for his principled stance. It is much better than the answer given by Zuma last week when he said people’s views on the death penalty could be tested, which seemed to suggest that if the people demand the return of the death penalty, he’ll oblige.
Suddenly it is all over and I am not sure I am much the wiser. Mbeki clearly aimed to sound presidential, but may have inadvertently come off as boring and distant. He is obviously a policy wonk, and I am not sure that plays well with ANC delegates because it could easily sound as if he doesn’t really care about peoples’ problems when he gives a technical answer to a problem raised by a caller.
I agree with your suggestion that the brave interviewer from the SABC was less than interesting. We needed a Deborah Patta or Tim Sebastian type interviewer.
Perhaps they accuse him of fixing people, being vindictive, dictatorial, etc, conspitorial because “they” are lying!!!???
The man is obviously hiding more than what he is revealing. That is why South African ‘democracy’ and the Constitution are so bigoted.
The real truth, such as what will be Mbeki’s approach to communism and dragging this country into it, will not be revealed until it is too late.
And while we are talking about bigoted, Pierre de Vos, on the one hand defends the ANC whilst on the other hand he criticizes them. He needs to decide on which side of the fence he is on to be an effective Thought Leader.
On his blog, I have found his stance on any subject to be most confusing with vigorous finger wagging and righteous rants of “RACIST” standard responses to any challenges to his opinion. It must be difficult to serve two masters at the same time.
I hope the above does not sound too harsh. I’m just exercising my constitutional right to free speech.
Jonn
Frustrated white people. Time to go back to Europe
This is a very flowing analysis, Mr Vos. I enjoyed your balanced approach, as well as the obvious conclusion that the interviewer lost an opportunity to serve the audience.
To dispel the commonly held stereotype that he is aloof and disdainful, President Mbeki decided to speak out on 02 December. He chose the hallowed pages of the Sunday Independent, a publication which is virtually unread by most ANC members. Mbeki’s aim was two fold: to break the momentum which had built up over the past week in his opponent’s favour. Secondly by speaking informally, (while wearing a golf shirt) he intended to convey an image of a dynamic leader undaunted by the rising tide of his unpopularity. On both points, there is much to be done.
The ANC chairperson Terror Lekota had a few days before used mass based media, including Metro FM, to open his old whine in new battles. Lekota reminded his audiences, among other things, that the ANC deputy President, Jacob Zuma asked to be fired from the country’s deputy Presidency as he felt he was innocent, a claim that seemed to help Zuma’s case. Yet it remains unclear if the majority of ANC plugged into the new counter-attack strategy. In general, Zuma and Mbeki’s constituencies arguably read, if they do, the Daily Sun or Sowetan – South Africa’s biggest dailies. They also listen to SABC African languages radio stations.
It therefore provoked less surprise than outrage, nonetheless, when the President on 05 December got the SABC to clear its schedules and accord him live airtime across all its radio stations and at least one TV channel. The SACP was not alone in calling this an abuse of the public broadcaster. Be that as it may, the race for the ANC’s top posts has taken a bruising turn. The media pack, with snouts red from the endless tearing of the ANC’s wounded beast, licked its paws with fresh relish: “the gloves are off!”, “Mbeki in desperate fight back”, “Zuma’s cabinet announced”, the headlines went.
SA journalism has a serious investigative capacity deficit. It is true that journalists have failed to predict Mbeki’s drubbing in the recent provincial nominations for party President. Some readers have asked where the polls gauging ordinary members’ attitudes to the party are? Where are the random interviews which sample high street opinions? Journalists feed on their own theories, and oblivious to the nature of the mass democratic movement (which possesses a healthy skepticism to their trade), they were blindsided by the developments mentioned.
So with a crystal ball in their hands, journalists would have us believe that ‘all hell will break loose after Polokwane’. That is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Even as the campaigning swings to dirty mode, what is clear is that the result that will be announced will be met with great outpouring of emotion from the defeated side. Mbeki’s people may actually be the more dignified as they process the announcement of their loss. But a defeated Zuma camp will cling onto the belief that they were robbed. This may force a tense showdown, particularly if Zuma is charged with corruption before or after the conference. This is not to suggest that Zuma is ‘entitled’ to win. However, justice should be dispensed where there is legitimate grief. We all know prisoners who became Presidents.
There is a sense of imminent climax permeating South African politics. The stakes could not be higher. Mbeki’s latest talking points appear geared towards a decent political obituary. He laments the nature of the conference as seen by an “end game” among some comrades. “The ANC will be there after Polokwane”, he states. The President’s Director General, Dr F Chikane reminded international media that Zuma is “shrewd enough to know that economic stability is more important”. The blatant personalised attacks on Zuma as a tribalist, populist and other unsavory things seems to have been abandoned to make way for an approach which can swing the ANC fence sitters.
The monstrous Zuma that Mbeki’s media campaign tried to build has not conformed to the script. By avoiding to speak on his own past record of delivery, the President strayed into territory which even his long term as party leader did not adequately prepare him for. There is the half-heated strategy to promote a gender inclusive ANC (read female sensitive), a strategy fatally undermined by Mbeki’s own decision to stand.
“If the ANC Women’s League had nominated Mbeki instead of Zuma, would the Mbeki camp had expressed the shock and disappointment which followed Zuma clinching this nomination?” Many ANC members appear to think not.
As Mbeki tries to appeal to rational discourse, while ferociously resisting ascendancy to the Presidency of anyone but himself, his efforts may be misguided. The negative sentiment which his autocratic Presidency has cultivated cannot be undone by last minute appeals for reason. The ANC demands its soul back. The President can expect a tough life after Polokwane.
The seedlings of Mbeki’s demise was sown in the relationships he cultivated with various people during his long term in office, notably Jacob Zuma. It seems strange, nonetheless, that the two most powerful forces at play in his script have now came full circle to snap his overstretched internal resources. First it is Mandela and then Mbeki himself. Nothing could have prepared the ambitious, hardworking Mbeki to succeed in an arena previously occupied by a legend. This is not Mbeki’s fault, and he failed to realise this. He worked harder to attempt to meet (and possibly surpass) Mandela’s legacy.
While it took Mandela a mere 5 years in office to cement an incredible record of political reconciliation, it has taken Mbeki a bit longer to carve out his name in the sun. In retrospect, Mbeki would have also noticed the missteps he took, fuelling his determination to use yet another term in power to correct the errors. The mistakes are human enough, a fear of political assassination by spurned comrades, a decision to confirm intellectual robustness by questioning conventional views (even as they were endorsed by Mandela), and a desire to be acknowledged as significant by constituents. On the latter point, the fall and rise of Zuma’s star among a mass of people disenchanted with Mbeki’s delivery programme would have knocked the feeling of legitimacy that he had painstakingly earned on the ANC street, where revolutionary songs make or break leaders.
But the search for perfectionism is dangerous illusion. It breeds anger, because no one can ever attain it. This explains Mbeki’s refusal to face up to the knowledge that he feels betrayed by those whose approval he devoted himself to gaining. This should not have been so. A greater man would have refused to stoop to a level where he contests from a weakened position. A greater man affirms himself from a place inside himself. When times change his inner locus of control remains firm and unchanging. He speaks of his own record of progress and achievement and is ready to yield to a different ‘deployment’ when the writing appears on the wall.
Sadly, Mbeki’s convictions derailed a humbler view of the situation, and sabotaged an atmosphere where correction was possible.
Whenever leaders get into their heads that they are greater than the people they lead, you can almost guarantee a rebellion from below. In the same light, you can also predict the leaders’ determination to use the means at their disposal to suppress and corner their foes. This is when truth is strung and lynched by all sides, causing a wound in national consciousness which generations of historians rise up to study and heal.
If white people must go back to Europe then surely you must go back to Zimbabwe and beyond if you follow the Great Trek South. Stop being a racist. By the way I am black
that’s why he didn’t agree to do e-tv’s interview, he knew that deborah patta is going to grill him, and because sabc give him a platform to continue campaigning for the presidency, their questions are childish, anyway they are protecting their jobs
Can’t. It’s full of African refugees.
What do you mean, John, most of these puffballs are already in Europe.
Poor John Malama, aren`t you the one who is frustrated. It`s only that I don`t know where you should take your frustration.
The ANC-leadership race took a dirty turn really with the interview by the SABC and I’ve never seen Thabo bend to pressure before this and making the most predictable move, the whole PR package and an interview on top. Is this how desperatley he wants to ‘stay on’ or is it how badly he does NOT want a Zuma-lead SA? Thabo always said leadership of the ANC is not about who it is but someone who must know and understand the mandate given by the people. I wonder if he had convenienlty forgot about the mandate or maybe has no confidence in Zuma to carry out the mandate. I’d prefare our country with neither Zuma/Thabo as a president, they are clearly bad candidates already.