Last year I spent a few hours in prison. Not as a guest of the state, I should add, but to accompany students on a study tour. Contrary to popular belief, a prison is not a great place to spend one’s life. It’s cramped and dark, the food is foul, one has no privacy and one’s dignity is severely compromised. Besides, I don’t think anybody looks their best in an orange prison suit.
For the state to send somebody to prison is therefore a very serious matter indeed. That is why our Constitution safeguards the rights of accused persons and why the state has to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is an extraordinarily high hurdle for the state to overcome, and with good lawyers and enough money many guilty individuals are acquitted. Some accused are also acquitted because the police bungle the investigation or because they really are innocent and were framed by the police.
Because sending someone to prison is such a drastic infringement of an individual’s liberty and rights, our Constitution also requires that every individual be given a fair trial before an impartial and independent court where an accused will be presumed innocent until such time as the state has shown — once again, beyond reasonable doubt — that the accused is guilty of the crimes of which he or she is being accused.
This is also why Jacob Zuma — like every other South African, whether rich or poor, black or white, politically connected or not — should never be presumed to be guilty of a criminal offence, by a court, by the media or by ordinary citizens, until a court of law has found him guilty. To hold otherwise would be to undermine one of the basic tenets of our constitutional state based on the rule of law.
Zuma — and the ANC leaders who support him in his dark hour — is therefore correct to insist that no one should assume that he is guilty of an offence merely because he was accused of wrongdoing by the NPA. They are correct, also, that he should not be treated as a criminal merely because he is an accused in a criminal trial.
However, does this mean that we should be prohibited from making any value judgement about Zuma’s character and his fitness for high public office until such time as he is either acquitted or convicted by a court? I think not.
When we make value judgements about an individual — especially individuals in the public sphere — we are not required to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether any allegations of wrongdoing by that person are true, just as we are not required to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether an individual is a good or bad person, a kind or nasty person, a good or bad leader, before we decide whether we want to befriend that person or elect him or her to high public office.
A provocative example will suffice to illustrate my point.
A few years ago, Dr Wouter Basson (dubbed “Dr Death” by the media) was charged with very serious crimes, including murder, for his role in assisting the apartheid military in various “dirty tricks” campaigns. Basson was acquitted and therefore not sent to prison. Evidence presented in court and widely reported in the media suggested that Basson was not a man of particular integrity — to put it mildly.
Because of this evidence, most sane South Africans formed an unflattering opinion of Basson; I am sure if he were ever to run for public office, there would be — rightly — an outcry that such a man could even think of sitting in Parliament. Although a court found there was not sufficient evidence to send him to jail, evidence presented in court allowed ordinary South Africans to make a value judgement about his character. This is how we always form opinions of public figures.
Very few South Africans would say that because Basson was acquitted, he is the kind of man for whom we would fight and kill, the kind of man that should lead South Africa as its president. I, for one, would be freaked out to wake up from an operating table to find old Wouter bending over me with his scalpel. Quite frankly, I would not even want to have him over to my house for a cup of tea.
This is because the threshold for everyday value judgements about public figures is much lower than the threshold employed by a criminal court. If it were otherwise, it would be almost impossible to form any opinions about public figures or to make any ethical value judgements about the character of any politician.
I happen to think there is no moral equivalence between Wouter Basson and Jacob Zuma. Zuma spent several years on Robben Island and paid a high price for his fight against apartheid and is — in my opinion, at least — of much higher moral character than Basson. I would love to have Zuma over to my house for a cup of tea. He looks like a fun guy and he would have such interesting and inspiring stories to tell about his time on Robben Island and in the ANC in exile.
But Zuma is an accused person in a criminal trial. The highest court in the land has confirmed that he received money from a fraudster and then did favours for that fraudster, that he met arms-deal representatives who then paid him a bribe via the fraudster, and that he lied to Parliament about this.
All this does not make Zuma guilty of any criminal offence. However, in the absence of any plausible explanation by Zuma about these findings, it does make him, in my opinion, unfit for high office. This does not mean I am presuming he is guilty of the charges brought against him. It merely means that given all the evidence presented by the state and reported in the media, and given Zuma’s own lack of explanation, I have made a value judgement about his character, much in the same way that I made a value judgement about Wouter Basson.
Those who defend Zuma and utter dark threats to all and sundry about killing or dying for him seem to conflate criminal guilt or innocence with this other kind of judgement — namely whether, in the absence of any plausible explanation by Zuma, any of us should consider him a good, trustworthy, honest man worthy of being president of South Africa.
Because Zuma clearly has a real case to answer and because all the facts known to us point to his being a deeply flawed man, they want to force us not to form an adverse opinion about him before a court has found him guilty. But this is not how human beings operate outside of a criminal court setting. We make value judgements about people based on available evidence and, so far, it’s not looking good for Msholozi.
I suspect that is also why defenders of Zuma are attacking the courts and the NPA and making lengthy procedural arguments in his defence. They want to bully us into suspending our ordinary common-sense way of judging an individual’s character and wish for us to adopt a standard that is not workable because it is far too high and only fit for a criminal court that must decide on whether to send a poor man to jail for 15 years.
Of course, Zuma may well prove us wrong. He may at any time produce plausible explanations for taking the money from Shaik, for meeting with the arms-company representatives, for lying to Parliament. Sadly he has not done so. Instead, he has muttered darkly about conspiracies without addressing the real concerns presented by the conviction of Shaik and by his prosecution. This silence, more than anything else, makes it very difficult not to conclude that Zuma — while not convicted of any crime — is not a suitable candidate for the president of the ANC or South Africa.
Good piece. I agree with the distinction between moral and criminal judgements.
One question though: how can it be that the “the highest court in the land has confirmed that he received money from a fraudster etc ” but “All this does not make Zuma guilty of any criminal offence.” Please explain.
Speaking for myself, I would not like to have Zuma over for a cup of tea. Sure, he does seem like a barrel of laughs, but – what if the tea was not to his liking? I shudder at the thought of biscuits that he does not take to. And I wouldn’t want to displease his entourage. They could get “unfriendly” should I offend him.
Nope, best he drinks his tea with the likes of Shaik et al.
Excellent piece! The more noise there is around Zuma before the outcome of his trial, the more I am inclined to think he’s guilty.
Plus my value judgement does not allow me to think highly of Nzimande, Vavi and Mamela. Thus far they are the only ones who are coming up for Zuma, and none of them have any evidence of their claimed political conspiracy.
That’s like Die Groot Krokkodil saying Dr Basson is not such a bad guy, there was just a conspiracy to tarnish his name.
Well thought through piece but Pierre, you miss one important point. This is a political trial.
It’s clear the arms procurement process was deeply flawed, with lots of corruption. deLille, Feinstein, the German authorities, Scotland Yard, our press and others have drawn our attention to this yet only poor Sheik and Zuma have been pursued. Instead of hunting down the corrupt, our government have followed a number of strategies including, stonewalling, setting up bogus enquiries, refusal to disclose information to foreign police and threats to close newspapers. Are these that actions one expects from the innocent?
Fortunately, the truth will eventually come out. It usually does.
We are poorly served by our corrupt and despotic politicians but to be honest, each country gets the government it deserves and, until we throw out these people, South Africa deserves no better.
Dear Professor,
You seem to miss the point entirely about zuma, rather worrying for someone who is supposedly an academic.
Zuma is recorded in a court’s records as suggesting he thought taking a shower would prevent aids after having sex, (with consent or not).
He is therefor an idiot, and unfit to run a whelk stall, let alone a country, since he is unable, or unwilling to listen to expert advice explain to him the situation in the Medical world in sA (or the economic, industrial, business, political, scientific, research, electronic, construction, policiing, security etc. etc.) before making cretinously stupid decisions and actions.
If he gets into power, look forward to hearing him suggest that SA’s economy could be safeguarded by making all bankers wear African native dress and painting the reserve bank a nice shade of blue.
Morals aside, intelligence, or the ability to use others’ is needed for govt and he has shown he is unable to do that.
All and good. But who will deliver us from the dictatorship of the judiciary. The judiciary will need to seriously clean up its own image and be its own critic to earn my respect and those with no immediate vested interest in the conviction of Zuma. It can’t just continue being ” don’t criticize my poor verdict and I won’t criticize yours” dogy arrangement. The whole process of having the ConCourt as the final arbiter is iredeemably flawed. Why should it have a final word on any matter?
I suspect that Pierre would not have liked Zuma to be president anyway, criminal charges or not. Afterall some people in South Africa did not like Mandela to be president in 1994. There is more to individual choice of president and the exercise of value judgment than what Pierre suggests. It does not mean that those who voted for Zuma to be president of the ANC and those who will still vote for him to be president of the country are unable to make value judgments. Certainly Zuma carries more value to his supporters and Pierre is not one of them. PW Botha was returned to the highest office in the land more than once despite authorising killings and creating immense suffering of Black people in this country. In comparison, Zuma has not been accused of taking a life. He has not even been accused of embezelling state funds, yet he has been found guilty in the court of public opinion by people who regard their exercise of value judgment more superior than that of others.
Excellent piece! I hope high-school teachers everwhere print out this blog as a comprehension test for their students. One of the things that truely grate my behind is this commonly held belief that you can be “proved innocent”. No one is ever found innocent: the state merely fails to meet its onus of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure to meet such an onus does not rule out a finding of civil culpability on the far less onerous standard of balance of probabilities (a la O J Simpson, for example).
Dear good old Prof.
I was starting to enjoy and digest your overall analysis, but you just messed up the whole thing with/in your conclusion, so unfortunate.
I presume someone or a student (I know they’re so mischievous) gave you that ‘strong substance’ when you were about to conclude your post, so I would take it as if you concluded under ‘duress’.
If not, what’s this? “…makes it very difficult not to conclude that Zuma — while not convicted of any crime — is not a suitable candidate for the president of the ANC or South Africa.”
You forget very soon, that he was seen fit by the overwhelming majority of this country, and they still possess such instincts.
Guy, it’s rather insulting to Zuma to compare him to PW Botha – surely in a democracy we have a slightly higher standard for public officials? You seem to miss the point of the article which is really a plea for us to get beyond the simplistic labels (“innocent until proven guilty”; “criminal”; “crook”) and start debating about the real issues namely whether we think a specific individual is suitable to be President, whether we think he or she is an honest servant of the people who will make our country a better place to live in, help the poor, make society more equal and fair without destroying it, improve education opportunities for all, address crime, gangsterism and corruption,that kind of thing.
Garg Unzola, so in what form should the evidence of conspiracy be presented to you?
Congratulations professor for holding universal value judgement capacity. It is a rare talent, your students must be very proud of you. I just hope, you’re not positioning yourself for a vacancy in the civil service, though. All your postings points in that direction, I could be wrong.
There other reason for the presumption of innocence is to ensure that those who accuse carry the burden of proof. Applying your low threshold value judgement argument is flawed in that it implies that an accused person carries the burden to prove his innocence.
In the Zuma case you seem to be saying it is ethical and appropriate to treat him as a dodgy character until he explains himself. This is unfair and subjective. Imagine if Helen Zille was accused in the media of having an affair with Eugene Terreblanche and Helen Zille feels that these allegations do not deserve a response. In your value judgement argument, you would form an opinion that Helen Zille is nasty and you would be calling for her to step down. Thus your logic will create a situation in which gossip peddlers or anyone who wants to spread dirt about anyone don’t have to back-up their claims.SARS is OK with Zuma’s tax affairs but the NPA alleges tax evasion. So you have concluded that Zuma evades tax. Zuma explained that Shaik is his long time friend and financial adivisor. In my value judgement, I can understand why friends would give each other monies from time to time without signing formal loans with interest. There is also a possibility that your friend can do name dropping using your name to network in business without you knowing. Just because he gave you monies may not be that you are expected to perform corrupt favours for him. Thus there may be a plausable explanation why Shaik would be found guilty on the same evidence that is reported in the media and tested in courts without an inference that if Shaik is guilty of corruption, then Zuma is also guilty of corruption. Payments of monies between comrades during the struggle and beyond is a normal practice. At what point does the NPA say which specific payments from 1995 until 2005 and beyond totalling R4m are for corruption? Why did the NPA not include transactions prior 1995? Because, you might find that the Shaik family as part of its contribution to the struggle have donated more than R5m to Zuma and his family for political activities. So including those monies would not adequately substentiate their claim. They will have to explain also that a payment made whilst Zuma was in robben island or underground in 1979 was also to corrupt Zuma on the arms deal.
I am not defending Zuma but I am just highlighting that working on value judgements is subjective and may prejudice the innocent. Jesus Christ was crucified because of a chorus of people working on value judgements because he never bothered to explain himself.
Correct me if I am wrong – but is Wouter Basson going to stand for president? If not – why the comparison?
I am one of those gullible people who actually believe that the standards for a president must be the highest in the land, and that third rate is not good enough.
The judiciary does not decide on prosecution. They don’t run the investigations. If the State does a poor job with the prosecution, so be it.
Many tens of thousands of people have been the victim of this, yet I have seen no indication whatsoever that the current proposals are actually addressing the core issues.
I am the last to argue that the prosecution of Zuma does not seem to be arbitrary. But
1) statements in the Shaik case point to Zuma being naughty. Those statements are a bit less damning to say Mbeki.
2) the apparent refusal of anyone who has been involved in the deal, to actually testify under oath.
3) the setup of various kangagoo commissions and enquiries, which have failed to dispel the notions that something went wrong.
While selective procetion do point to a problem, you can’t blame the judiciary for it. Rape and murder are also quite selectively prosecuted (with a chance of 1 in 100 or so that a filed report actually results in a conviction; most of the reports do not even lead to prosecution!). Does that mean justice would be best served by axing rape and murder from the lawbook? Or would you even argue that a suspected murderer should walk free because others can murder without being prosecuted?
I think not.
You can’t blame a judge for setting someone free, when SAPS botch up investigations. Which they do at an alarming rate. You can’t blame a judge for the fact that SAPS has been unable or unwilling to investigate murders, theft, rapes, etc..
Do you want the judges to pick random people of the street and sentence them in show trials, to at least give the impression that they deal with crime effectively?
I hope not.
“PW Botha was returned to the highest office in the land more than once despite authorising killings and creating immense suffering of Black people in this country.”
Mind you, if that was in the post-1994 democratic elections, he would not get the support he did get. If Zuma had wanted to run for office before then, he would be disqualified by default (as a non-White). Black people did not matter to much to the apartheid regime, and even less so when they were communists and / or terrorists. As long as the NP could sell the ANC as a bunch of loonies, a lot of white people did not care.
Sadly the new powers that be since Polokwane also seem to give one iota about the people of South Africa, their problems, and the legal procedures as stipulated by laws made by an ANC-led government, and the Constitution.
In ur article u write, “It merely means that given all the evidence presented by the state and reported in the media, and given Zuma’s own lack of explanation, I have made a value judgement about his character, much in the same way that I made a value judgement about Wouter Basson”. It is u who adduces evidence to the media. U seem to be obsessed about Zuma – everytime u write an article, Zuma’s name is mentioned. It is therefore u who is feeding the media with so-called evidence. U r a professor of law at UWC and people believe what u write, and journalists quote u. I hope ur next article will be about the transformation of the Department u r working in.
@Sipho:
Cold, hard facts. The kind of facts which merited Zuma’s trial in the first place. The kind of facts which make it blatantly obvious that the ANC wants to disband the DSO before all of its members are in prison again.
Lyndal:
The Prof. (in light of his article) is comparing characters and not who stands fit for being the president of SA.
Moreover the comparison of the legal system in-terms of a free trial is compared here. Wouter received his fair trial and was acquitted, the media was not extensively involved in this as in Zuma’s case. The comparison is the fairness of Wouter versus Zuma’s trial.
I know that you are about to start on some hatred drivel of some sort seeing that you do not like Zuma at all. Whether you like him or not it is his constitutional right to have a free trial.
Goddess Beddy can cry foul but that is just how a lawful cookie crumbles.
@Siphiwo
At Polokwane only 60% of the delegates voted for JZ, so 40% did not. Add the 30% of the people in this country who do not support the ANC to the 40% who voted against JZ and one has that 70% of the people in SA don’t want JZ for president.
So JZ will be a minority president in charge of a divided party and a struggling economy.
To Lyndall:
Judging from the Prof’s comments about the infallibility of the DA he has thus ,by such action, lost your like of him.
And that simply means that you are going to attack –guns blazing and all- him again in the same manner you usually do to his articles -which strongly criticize the Democratic Alliance.
@ Madoda
My friends never give me money. You must have very very good friends…
Xolani
You don’t understand what I am saying at all!
With respect Prof, your article, in general, is not about value judgments but about judging Zuma.
Xolani
I am not a member of the DA. I support ALL the opposition parties. In fact I have not yet decided where I will cast my vote – except that it will not be for the ANC !
Xolani
The last thing Zuma wants is a fair trial. In fact it is obvious he wants no trial at all. You don’t have to be a genius to work out that the only reason for this can be that he knows that he can be proved guilty!
Xolani
Did Zuma join the ANC to liberate the people or to carve out a career for himself?
His willingness to attack the media and the courts to protect himself from a few years in jail seems to imply the latter.
Which makes him both an opportunist and a coward in my book!
To Lyndall:
Well I do like Zuma but I do not know why he joined politics but judging by the sufferings many political activists at the time endured surely thinking of politics as a career during these times was a BIG no, no.
Bearing in mind that Zuma only had Std3 on his “CV”. So yes –I believe, taking history into consideration and that he was a unionist- he –in my view- joined the ANC to liberate SA. There was a good chance that he could have been brutally killed by the Apartheid police at the time yet he insisted and took this fate for liberation.
In any case the political situation at the time Zuma was still an ANC soldier was not very positive. Bearing in mind the killing of Hannie etc.
Xolani
Zuma was, and still is, unemployable outside of the ANC. He has not even got a primary school pass, let alone matric.
Lyndall
Your vote is a drop in the ocean if you were to talk about votes that would be in favor of the ANC (Zuma) mine included.
You just won’t give up loud-mouthing yourself about Zuma.
Lyndall – don’t be offended by these responses, they say much more about the individuals than they do about Machinewami…
I assume that you like me, stood up against the previous government and are now disappointed at what has replaced it, far more evil, more corrupt and more despotic. If someone had told me when I was young that the first black government would KILL 600 000 people because they didn’t want to intervene in the AIDS pandemic, I would have called them liars! Imagine a Chief of Police involved in organised crime – Not possible! How about evading taxes, even though you are Deputy State president, sex with an AIDS sufferer, generally corrupt relationship with a financial advisor…
Any county where the “freedom fighters” take over the government is wrecked by that government. It has nothing to do with the previous regime or colonialism, it’s part of the corrupt and violent “Freedom” mindset.
- Consider the two Koreas. The Japanese colonists were far more brutal than any Western nation and straight after independence, they had a civil war. Fortunately, for the south, all the “freedom Fighters” were communist and after the civil war, they moved to the north. The north was also much more affluent and had ALL the industry and comodities. The South had to start with nothing, not even much in the way of resources. Today the South is an amazing powerhouse and the North is one of the 10 poorest nations.
- Consider Zambia and Zimbabwe. The Rhodesians left a vibrant economy to Uncle Bob but Zambia had little. Fortunately, it didn’t have much of a “Freedom Movement” either. Zambia is one of the fastest growing economies in Africa, more than twice the growth rate of South Africa! They even prosecute ex-Presidents for corruption.
- How about India. The economy during the 49 years of rule by the corrupt Neru/Gandhi Congress party totally wrecked the country. When the strange BJP party came to power, we all despaired but it signalled the amazing Indian economic recovery.
About a year ago, I was discussing Zuma and Mbeki with a Director at the World Bank. His comments were enlightening. “Zuma will be your next President. Remember you fought for his party (a bitter reminder of my activism). A country gets the leader it deserves. South Africans deserve Zuma”. As you know, the World Bank is very concerned about South African politics at present so his cynical response said a lot.
He went on to remind me that the signs of the ANC’s violence and corruption were well known long before “Freedom” in 1994. He suggested I read Van Zyl’s “the other side of History”. Did you know that the KGB had endless problems with corruption in the ANC. They also despaired that the party officials would do nothing except enrich themselves. The KGB claimed that unlike SWA, Rhodesia, Angola or Mozambique, there was no “freedom struggle in South Africa”. They were of course right.
So – What To Do?!… What to Do?!
We must continue to speak out about this ANC madness.
To Lyndal:
My previous column was supposed to say “I do NOT like Zuma but. . .” typing error.
Moving forward, how could Zuma choose to carve a career for himself in an uncertain world of dangerous and deadly politics. You will remember that he had to go to exile, and that was not particularly pleasant.
Having to leave his family, unsure if the Apartheid police would raid his home rape and kill his wife, torture his children etc. All that torment would have been too mammoth. Yet he sacrificed all of that so that his countrymen can effectively run their country.
You cannot discredit his sacrifice by claiming that he was carving his career. If you said this and SA was as it is today, it would make sense. But recapping oppressed times and insinuating that he wanted to carve a career out of death is naïve and far fetched.
You make him sound like he was taught how to be a severed statesman by the ANC-MK. And this is an abrupt lie because he received military training while in exile.
There was no such thing as a career in politics then. His choice was either to have been a gardener for the rest of his life and the life of many black families or to become a political and anti-Apartheid activist. He chose the latter and this was not for some odd “career” benefit. It was because he-and the ANC had such views- wished for the next black generation to be liberated and have careers. Politics was never a career then.
To Lyndall:
You wrongly say: “Zuma was, and still is, unemployable outside of the ANC” First and foremost, Zuma was never employed by the ANC. No political activist was employed by any political party during those dark days.
He is currently employed by the ANC but this –during the woeful days of the arm struggle was never a probable consideration. If Zuma was in anti-Apartheid activism for the sake of a “career” then his comrades were also in this for “career” gain.
This –the idea that political activists then- is like rotten sour milk to my mouth. It really is bitter and inconsequential. Tell me Lyndall, do you think that Zuma entered the arms struggle because he needed to put food on the table?
How naïve can you really be?
Xolani
Who paid for his board, lodging, clothes, trips etc? And his salary – or did he not get one in the MK army?
Xolani
You would be wrong, dead wrong about Zuma’s employment. He was paid by the ANC, the KGB and also the Chinese. According to documents released by the Russian Government in 2000, He was very well paid but did nothing for the KGB (or the ANC I presume) during his time in exile. It’s time to start reading “The Other Side of History” my Bra.
The question we need to ask is how a man so well paid through his KGB and Chinese links and numerous now well documented bribes could have squandered all of it???
How long will he take to squander the riches of my great country…
“By their fruits shall ye know them”. King James Bible
And one doesn’t need a Supreme Court Judge to tell you what rotten fruit hang on our future State President’s apple tree, if you have any intelligence, you can work it out for yourself.
I am left pondering one cynical question: “Do the new ‘Black Diamond’ class have any intelligence or do they claim that Aparthade education made them all stupid? (GOTTA BLAME SOMEONE ELSE!!!)
To Lyndall:
Zuma like other political activists was not employed by the ANC and therefore could not possibly be paid a salary.
His remuneration could be considered as his ,and other comrades- success in sabotaging government property thus making the country ungovernable as a method to push for negotiations.
The ANC paid for essentials. No money was ever given to a particular comrade for his/her dedication to the arm struggle The ANC used excess funds to recruit more volunteers into the liberation movement and buy more ammunition against the Apartheid government.
You will recognize that the ANC ,just like any other political movement in those days, did not have money as a bulk of its supporters were the working class, poor people and trade unionist. In light of this, it (the ANC) could not afford to pay comrades- Zuma included.
You will remember that the ANC has mass rallies where they thanked and praised their comrades but as far as salaries were concerned no-one was ever paid. You joined a political party because you wanted to liberate SA and not for financial gain.
Although the tables have turned in this modern ANC. It is for this reason that I argue that Zuma was not thinking of his career then. However he might as well be, owing to the manner in which the ANC handles tenders.
In short, it is fallacious that Zuma was “carving” his career during the Apartheid days however it may be true that he is in this new dispensation.
To John Bond:
In light of the following: “You would be wrong, dead wrong about Zuma’s employment.” Kindly elaborate as to what informs this.
You further talk about documents by the Russian government. Which documents were these specifically? Were they prepared to particularly investigate Zuma’s remuneration in the ANC?
You further make very vague and opaque accusations that Zuma was “well paid”. Kindly elaborate on this. So out of all the people who were paid Zuma topped the list? Why would this be? Considering that Zuma was not the most powerful ANC member.
How much then were Oliver Tambo, Sisulu, Robert Sobukwe, Steve Biko etc were paid if Zuma had a senior rank in-terms of his salary?
In case this skipped your mind but Zuma never occupied a senior position in the ANC during the arm-struggle. He had to take instructions from his political seniors at the time and that was people like Oliver Tambo who was president of the ANC during Zuma’s time as an activist.
What facts do you have backing your assertions that Zuma “ . . .did nothing for the KGB or the ANC. . “ while he was in exile. In case you forgot about Zuma’s visit to Mozambique to honour his fallen combrades. Attacks that were unleashed by the Apartheid regime to stop MK cadres from attacking the Apartheid government.
In any case why would Zuma do anything for the Russian Committee for State (KGB) Security? He has no interest in the security affairs of Russia. He is no public-man there, he has no ranking of any sort.
What other side of history are you referring to? You do not know me, we have never been acquainted therefore there is no need for you to insult my intelligence. And these kind of conversations end up being futile because of another underestimating the other.
So if you are going to be a mouthful of insults, unfortunately we cannot have a constructive discussion because we will end up calling each other racists. Something I hate doing.
So unless you consider my points on this discussion. I am afraid I will not be part of it as I had initially been arguing with Lyndall and not you.
“By their fruits shall ye know them”. King James Bible A good quote I might add however using biblical references in an argument is not a good idea considering its relevance and practicality. If you are going to use a religious backing it has to consider all religions. Something that is quite difficult to do. Which often ends up in binary religious content of which Christians, Muslims, Jews et.al might strongly disagree with leaving your point left outside and in the dark.
To John Bond:
Your cynicism of “black diamond” intelligence is worrying. Because, firstly Zuma is not a black middle class. Many black middle class citizens have vowed out intermittently on their dissatisfaction of Zuma’s “leadership” and his supporters yet despite of this you continue to affront this particular class. I wonder why this is?
Now you made a very big error by confusing Bantu education with the middle class. Not every black South African got Bantu education. Do you know “Queen”/ Sophie Ndaba from generations? Well she studied in Zimbabwe because her parents were prominent business people in SA and wanted the very best for her and at the time Zim’s education was the best.
So she went there, judging by your comment on black middle class citizens, she is stupid? How naïve bloody John.
If you had actually read all my posting and argument(s) to Lydall, you would have understood that our disagreement was not about:
• Race
• Racial discrimination
• Black wealth
• Racism or racial blame
• Repression etc
But of course asking you to listen –read in this case- and get the facts FIRST before you respond would simply be asking too much of you.
I won’t rise to your racist bate “(GOTTA BLAME SOMEONE ELSE!!!)”, sorry to disappoint you.
To John Bond:
It’s funny how racist habits die hard. The last time you twisted your tongue I told you to stop playing the racist card yet you continue to do so.
Ahh! Well I can’t change engraved Ian Smith mentality in an instant now can I?
Moving forward, I want references to the documents you were talking about. And don’t you dare keep me waiting. I am an imminent African (I am not hanging on some fence undecided) after-all.
Xolani said “I won’t rise to your racist bate “(GOTTA BLAME SOMEONE ELSE!!!)”, sorry to disappoint you.”
Xolani, Your comment shows how important the race card is to you. How about discussing the issues, what you think of me does not affect my view of the South African disaster and what caused it. (Well, maybe it does, childish outbursts like this reinforce my rather negative view of you and your ilk) Isn’t it strange that Xolani tirades, blaming everyone else and then writes this…
What future our great country when we cannot seek to correct our errors. Playing the blame game entrences the problems.
And when the arguments become meaningless and degenerate into attacks on character, I stop responding to a blog, there’s little point. I won’t change the minds of any bigots writing here but I could just give new perspective to those reading their distorted comments…
To Lyndall:
The likes of Zuma and their political activism or involvement was more to this tune:
• “. . . the driving force in my life was fighting apartheid. It was the big issue for me, and others like me. It was all-consuming: we existed to oppose this system. When it ended, I realised that I didn’t have another direction in life. I had never thought of a career. I couldn’t have imagined [one] under such a horrific system.”
These are the words of a former ANC-YL activist. Where is the “employment” there? Where is the manufacturing of careers for self-gain?
I hope that clarifies your misconceptions.
Xolani
I don’t know where John Bond got his facts from – I wish he would tell us, but the ANC WAS funded by Russia AND by the Christian West.I hope to know more when I have finished Mac Marahaj’s biography. Most of the biographies are about the exiles, not about those in MK or camps.
To John Bond:
You missed what I wrote about completely. I wasn’t talking about “BLAME” for crying out loud.
My conversation/argument with Lyndall was, and is still over, over Zuma’s alleged employment by the ANC. This had nothing to do with blame, absolutely not.
Your failed attempts at creating a hypocrite out of me will never succeed. Now let’s get to the issue at hand and leave the blame to the 1976 student uprisings.
Tell me what you think on what has been aforementioned –by myself and Lyndall-about Zuma and other political activists of his time.
Discussing race won’t really help us much as we, at-least we hope, that some day South Africa will actually reconcile.
To John Bond:
For the last time. I am NOT BLAMING ANYONE for anything.
Can we now have a constructive conversation?
To Lyndall:
There isn’t much MK or arm-struggle facets in educated ANC members. This is because of the fact that the ANC had different functions and arms (as in limbs) to foster the growth of the organization.
Much MK info is found from military veterans of the PAC, IFP, and of the ANC. Many of which are now mentally disturbed, psychologically unstable etc Nevertheless a good handful still exists in township Shebeens, all they do is drink so that they can at-least sleep. The memories of the white and black people they killed haunt them till this very day.
I doubt that Mac’s biography is going to help you thus far. But it is good that you are hearing and reading about the ANC from ANC cadres.
Xolani
I read all the biographies I can. But about what Zuma said – words are cheap. “By their actions shall they be judged”
JZ seems to be prepared to trash the courts, the media etc etc to save his own skin – and only from jail (from which he would get a pardon anyhow) not even from death.
Harly “laying down his life for his friends” is it?
To Lyndall:
Well I do not like Zuma for my own reasons. However I cannot discredit him for his contribution for the freedom in this country.
Yes, his priorities seem to have changed from ANC-struggle rhetoric to more selfish, self-serving and overly ambitious state.
I cannot bash him for his contribution to liberation in this country however I will come raining hard on him for destroying what he fought for by being an embezzler and self-serving political fraudster.
Lyndall, whether it sits well with you or me that Zuma may be our next president is not ANC top agenda management at the moment. As far as they are concerned Zuma is the next president no matter how dirty, corrupt, sexist and easily influenced he is.
In their minds they owe him that much support. However in our –most certainly mine- you have to prove to hold public office. Till thus far Zuma has failed the “public office” test most dismally.
But, a very high possibility should be vested in you that ou Zuma will become our next president. All that we can do is that we vote for the strongest opposition yet.
Xolani
I agree.
Garg Unzola: Still you’re failing to answer the question. In what form should the evidence be presented to you? Photos, slides, “hoax”emails,letters, off-the-record meetings with select journalists, lay charges first and then raid to find evidence of the charges, compile Browse mole, announce in public that someone is guilty but you won’t charge him, demote an individual and promote the wife of the chief prosecutor to that position? I suppose all this sound pretty normal to you Garg. There is no point for us to debate, because our world view is completely different and theres no hope of a convergent point.