What do the racist tweets, e-tolls, the POIB and rhino poaching have in common? Recently they have all been the focus of public outrage. Outrage is a useful thing. It was outrage that saw Jessica Leandra stripped of her endorsements and title, outrage that put a temporary halt to e-tolls, and outrage that has forced changes to be made to the POIB. Whether outrage over rhino poaching will achieve anything besides selling lots of bracelets and Woolworths rhino shopping bags remains to be seen, but we can hope.
All kinds of outrage are not equal, but what’s clear is that if you want to achieve results, you need public anger, and lots of it. As Mandy Wiener puts it in this piece on Richard Mdluli, “It was the sway of mass criticism, galvanised and deftly channelled, that saw tolling being temporarily derailed.” Wiener makes the point that at a time when we got our collective knickers in a knot over racist tweets, far more important issues are at stake.
Why aren’t people mobilising against the shenanigans in the SAPS in the same way they’re protesting against e-tolls and paid parking in Parkhurst? I wondered. Is it because people can’t see the practical effect it will have on their day-to-day lives?
Why do some causes grab the imagination and get us off our collective backsides, and others – many of them more important – not? How do we get South Africans to care about a man eminently qualified for the position of head of crime intelligence – a post he held until being promoted sideways last week – primarily because he is a under suspicion himself? Racist tweets, e-tolls and rhinos suggest that outrage is most successfully fomented and channeled when the following criteria are fulfilled:
It must be simple. The k-word, dead rhinos, less money in my pocket because of tolls. If it isn’t simple, make it simple. Many if not most of the South Africans who joined in campaigns against the POIB didn’t really understand its implications, but all those petitions, protests, black Wednesdays, twibbons and black Facebook profile pictures made it easy for people to participate even if they didn’t have a good idea of what was going on.
It must be visual. We can’t relate to things we can’t see or feel. Jessica’s profile picture, graphic images of dead rhinos, those e-toll gantries looming over the highways. This was the power of the campaign against the POIB: collectively, the media and various groups of activists took something amorphous and gave it substance.
It must be immediate and tangible. People care about things that affect them. E-tolls affected everyone. The South Africans offended by Jessica and Tshidi could personally relate to the insults. South Africans who spend time in the bush care more about rhinos than those who don’t.
It must be broadbased. All the middle class fury in the world would have achieved nothing if Cosatu hadn’t gone behind closed doors to persuade the government to postpone e-tolling. (Rhino poaching will only be a crisis perceived as relevant beyond wildlife lovers if it is positioned as a matter of national heritage and national pride.)
Which leads me to Richard Mdluli, now a leading candidate for the mantle of most feared/loathed figure in the imagination of the chattering classes (taking on the mantle of Winnie, Manto, Julius et al). If he is as big a threat to our democracy as many clever and insightful people think he is, then it’s in our interests to do something about it. So, learning from campaigns against e-tolls and the POIB, how should we approach this tricky situation?
Any campaign cause focused on taking Mdluli and his backers on will need marketing, not just to generate interest in an apathetic public, but to condense a complicated issue into a narrative ordinary South Africans can relate to. We need a campaign with a catchy name and a logo to tie it all together visually. The name should be straightforward, memorable, and preferably focused on some kind of result. Importantly, it must be flexible enough to be used in other situations, so it should lend itself to being hashtagged and also chanted in protest gatherings and marches. I’m leaning towards “Mdluli Must Go” – #Mdlulimustgo – but there are many other possible iterations of this.
This is a rotten apple.
Then there’s the logo. What sort of visual device could we use? The man himself? He does resemble an evil zombie accountant when viewed from a certain angle, and zombies are still big, especially in the Daily Sun. Still, we should probably look to what he symbolises for inspiration. A rotten apple might work well, or a snake, or – to use a biblical analogy – both.
The most important task of all will be to unlock the compelling consumer insight that makes the issue relevant to ordinary South African citizens. What do we all care about regardless of our differences? What is equally meaningful to an office cleaner who lives in a matchbox house and travels to work in a taxi and a mid-level manager who drives an Audi and lives in a cluster in Broadacres? Wiener notes, “… you can’t see the impact today, or tomorrow, it will come and you should be worried now” but that’s just the problem. The campaign would have to link Mdluli to the challenges of daily life, to things that affect us right now.
Wiener also quotes a police officer on why the kid gloves treatment of Mdluli is so dangerous: “It creates a perception to police officers that it’s okay and acceptable to be corrupt as long as you are ‘connected’ with the right people, that it’s okay to influence and compromise the outcome of investigations. It creates distrust between those in senior management. The country will become chaotic and ungovernable.”
“Chaotic and ungovernable” are words we’ve heard before, and they’re not words that carry a lot of weight for South Africans who’ve lived with chaos for most of their lives. So the threat represented by Mdluli will have to be articulated in ways that are relevant to those who have failed to see the better life they were promised.
The final point is that Mdluli is himself a symbol of a wider malaise. By condensing a range of complex issues into a single figure, it’s already much easier to take on the threat he represents. But if he goes anywhere, it does not mean that what Sam Sole describes as “the matrix of covert, informal exercise of power that represents a threat to our democratic and constitutional order” will not still be firmly in place.
“The dread we should be feeling is not about what may be happening in secret,” Sole writes, “it is about what is happening right in front of us.”
Best, then, that we stand up and make our feelings known. Just because there aren’t any gantries straddling the highways doesn’t mean this isn’t going to cost us if we don’t do something about it.
And I don’t for a minute believe that the recently reported “suicide” of a black human rights advocate was suicide at all.
So, what you are saying is that instead of using this occasion to examine civil society-police relations, the poor state of policing, the dangerous relationship between the present government and its secret police networks, the highly questionable state of the judiciary, or basically any other important thing which the Mdluli episode brings up, you want to reduce everything to sound-bites in an advertising campaign.
You say, by the way, that Mdluli is a criminal. You say that in ignorance, since Mdluli has never stood trial. So, basically, you are saying that you are not fit to discuss the matter because you are prejudiced against him. Because you think it’s funny to make accusations the truth of which you don’t know. And, on this venal and worthless basis, you wish to whip up a facile campaign against Mdluli.
This is odious in the extreme.
Mandy’s point is right and while you were in KZN on holiday we at the IdeaOrgy were talking about movements and social change and the “social media enabled grassroots movement” phenomenon.
A very interesting discussion.
Your mini hate campaign to stir up fear and outrage is similar to the dead-or-alive poster put out by the Bush administration to topple and capture Saddam Hussein. This demonization of another human being is what you will forever have on you conscience Sarah.
There is a pattern of abuse of our legal system by the usual suspects:
What you fail to mention in you mini hate campaign is the insubordination of Glynnis Breytenbach to her superiors in the National Prosecuting Authority – yet another example of an apartheid-era operative engaging in legal shenanigans for political purposes on the eve of our elections.
Similar actions to “Judge Hans Fabricius” (Heck, I could not FABRICATE a name like this for a judge even in my wildest dreams LOL) – another apartheid era judge handing down the most bizarre ruling hoping to use our court system to further destabilize Zimbabwe in their upcoming elections.
The SANRAL debacle where Judge Prinsloo, another apartheid-era judge put a halt to e-tolling thus directly affecting SA’s creditworthiness. btw. This same judge also issued the outlandish ruling in 2010 ordering our government to pay damages to a white South African farmer whose land was expropriated in Zimbabwe!!!
To find you quoting ex-apartheid spin doctor Sam Sole, who’s known to crawl out of the woodwork during election season, is pretty weird too! As Darth Vader out it – Your journey to the dark side is complete.
Whew, Sarah, you taken a bit of a beating here in the comments section, and its without reason.
The only reason the political elite have had the charges against Mdluli dropped is because they would more than likely have stood up in a court of law. If they were just a fabrication, then why not let him go to trial and let the trutch out. Given the leaked Hankel report there is surely a huge case to answer for. There are so many reports regarding this man, that even if only 50% were true, its enough to exclude him from any public policing job.
Our President has, during his time, shown aweful judgement in his selection of heads in the security clusters, Mdluli just being the latest and worst effort.
Sadly, with the masses supporting the ruling party, they will generally buy into anythin the ruling party does.
The other issues you mention have little “political” impact, hence the relctance of the masses to become outraged. Oh, how I wish it was difference.
Btw…..your’e beautiful!
@Harris: “Similar actions to “Judge Hans Fabricius” (Heck, I could not FABRICATE a name like this for a judge even in my wildest dreams LOL) – another apartheid era judge handing down the most bizarre ruling hoping to use our court system to further destabilize Zimbabwe in their upcoming elections.”
Dishonest troll is dishonest. Can you tell me when Fabricius was appointed to the bench? I don’t know myself, but given you call him an apartheid judge you must know. We’re talking about very serious allegations of torture, and under international law, South Africa has a duty to investigate. So where exactly what Fabricius wrong on the law? Please tell me Harris.
“The SANRAL debacle where Judge Prinsloo, another apartheid-era judge put a halt to e-tolling thus directly affecting SA’s creditworthiness.”
Again, back up your accusation of “apartheid-era judge”. And also, while you are at it, tell us where he was wrong on the law.
It seems any white judge whose judgments Harris does not agree with is branded an “apartheid-era judge”, but Harris offers us not criticism of the merits of the decision.
@Reducto
Acting Judge HANS-JOACHIM FABRICIUS – High Court Transvaal from 1990 – present and prior to that Senior Counsel – Pretoria Bar
So since we were liberated in 1994, Fabricius is therefore an apartheid-era judge.
Now Reducto, how about you showing some initiative for a change by giving us a biography of Pretoria based Judge Bill Prinsloo to prove that he isn’t an apartheid-era judge? Or will would once again simply refuse the challenge and again prove why white affirmative action for so many centuries?
@Beddy, for some reasons the public all have a love affairs with the hoods and this is why nobody is mobilizing against Mdluli. This was also true for A Capone, Gotti and the other hoods in the US. Speaking of suicide, the mob in the US killed people the same way and they were called suicide, only later the government found out they were hits. Why does Zuma needs these hoods around him unless he is part of the mob?
@Peter, Moelesti Mbeki made a speech the other day and said that seventy per cent of the people voting for the ANC don’t work and received family grants. He says that this is why the masses look the other way at the corruption in the ANC.
Exactly. we need to show our total disgust at the state of affairs in the police service just the way we did with the e-tolls.I challenge the citizens of this country to do what ever it takes. Support the guys financially who fought the toll case in court and take to the streets in protest over this president and all his gangster friends running the peoples government Show that we are sick and tired of this. We are being run by a gangster state. Zuma and all his cronies need to get out.!!!!!!!!
Is “Dave Harris” for real?
@Harris: And yet you haven’t dealt with the merits of his decision. When he was appointed does not negate South Africa’s duty under international law to investigate torture.
You also haven’t told me where Prinsloo was wrong on the law. Which is the main issue. I merely asked you to back up your “apartheid-era” claim, followed by a request to tell me on what legal grounds these decisions were wrong.
So Harris, why was Fabricus wrong in ruling that South Africa must fulfil its international law duty to investigate torture? You intentionally lied in another thread that it was to “prosecute” over land expropriation (which would really be a civil matter, no prosecution involved). You keep avoiding the serious matter here: torture.
@ Sterling, I didn’t know the stat, but that sounds about right, thanks for the info.
@ Dave Harris, can I assume from your opinion that anyone employed in the Judiciary prior to 1994 has no role to play in South Africa. Not everyone prior to 1994 believed in apartheid.
You can’t start a Country, as you seem to want to suggest. Despite an abhorant system, a country existed before 1994, and MANY people made some very valuable contributions to it, both good and bad. We have the lack of service delivery issues we now have because the ANC rapidly moved public civil servants out of the system and replaced them with their own cadre’s. What you ended up with is total inexperience, and add to that new systems and procedures……and what do you end up with……….the civil unrest we have today.
Many apartheid appointed civil servants would gladly play a hugely positive role in service delivery, if allowed.
My wife is a teacher, appointed in 1983, does that mean that because she’s an apartheid appointed teacher she’s morraly incapable of teaching kids right from wrong.
Dave, I defend your right to your opinion, but I also have the right to tell you you sound like a baffoon!
Is it not of great interest as how adept the ANC is at moving the focus and setting up red herrings all over the place? Mdluli is irregularly appointed as head of the Intelligence unit prior, we all suspect, before he is moved to the Zuma personal protection brigade as head of the police force. Mdluli has a huge stink over his head including murder, theft and corruption but as we all know those are qualifications for the top job.
Now we have many police who are hopefully the good guys, objecting to the placement (which was political without a doubt) objecting and raising their voices. The good guys are being investigated for political meddling in a political matter and all the charges against Mdluli are placed in the background. Up come the red herrings from the ANC and now it’s the cops who are to blame? When our new “General” Cele was appointed, again a political appointment with no experience in policing whatsoever, he joined the likes of Selebi as totally inadequate for the job and is also accused of being as corrupt as his predecessor. Experienced cops were overlooked because they were not Zuma’s pets. If I were Zuma, I would do as he has done – everything legal or otherwise to not have to face the numerous charges that he faces but that have also, been dropped for ‘political interference’. In South Africa it is obvious that politics is above the law. Shout ‘politics’ and you can get away with murder and usually do.
By the way, where are the tapes?
Impimpi sounds like a good word for the man.
Another thought. If you are in the Airline Business and the pilot sees storm clouds ahead, he can either fly around them or over them. If you are in the corruption and crime business, as many politicians are, you can neither fly over the clouds or around them as the storm cloud is stuck to your head. As a person with clouds over his head is promoted upwards the clouds go up too and if he is promoted sideways the clouds move sideways as well. No matter where you promote or move Mdluli or Zuma for that matter too, the storm will remain and follow them. Zuma or Mdluli Airlines give a very bumpy ride all the time so no one else should try their airline. Same applies to the Arms Deal, all the tender Deals and now the Toll Deal as well. The only way to avoid or clear the storm clouds for ever is to have them cleared in the ‘weather’ court. Once you are declared innocent in a court of law the clouds will disappear. Ducking, diving, climbing and delaying will not suffice. Judgment day is the only cure.
@Peter
Not all the apartheid-era judges are bad apples, but MOST of them are, since they were groomed from an early age to ENFORCE the inhumane apartheid laws and still sleep at night – it takes a special kind of human to pull this off. Now these judges are handing down rulings that are shortsighted and downright bizarre. I can give you more examples of these outrageous rulings but my comment space is limited.
@Reducto
We allow our apartheid torturers to live and work among us but then we want to hunt down foreign Zimbabwean alleged torturers? Your indoctrination and ability to reason is mind-boggling!
BTW. Where is evidence that Judge Bill Prinsloo is not an apartheid-era judge? I’m waiting…
@Harris: So if someone comes to court, and asks for justice because they have been victims of torture, is the judge suppose to deny them that – and ignore a country’s international law duty to investigate torture – on the grounds that in the past similar perpetrators have got off and not been prosecuted? You don’t seem to grasp that the judge can only make an order on what is argued before them, and apply the law to those facts. And you haven’t told me where the judge was wrong on the law. Where was he wrong on the merits of the case that was argued before him? How was he wrong in requiring South Africa fulfil its international law duty?
As for Prinsloo, YOU, let me repeat, YOU made the claim he is an “apartheid-era judge”, and I asked you to back it up. Since you act like a child, I am going to treat you like a child, and spell out how debate works. If you make a claim, you back it up, you don’t tell the person who asks you to back it up to go and find the evidence for your claim.
But even if he was appointed during apartheid, that is deflecting from the main issue, which is: where was Judge Prinsloo wrong on the merits of the case? When a judge was appointed does not negate a right decision. And you have not told me where on the law Prinsloo is wrong. You deflect to side issues, because that is all you can do.
@Dave Harris………..19 years in and you’re still harping on the past! If these judgements were so bizarre and/or short signted then they surely would have been overturned on appeal, given our new Constitution. The bottom line is, as abhorant as apartheid was, it doesnt mean we now have to go easy on any one practicing the same system under another guise.
Believe you me, if these judges were as bad as you make out, they would long agao have been worked out of the system.
I also don’t agree to your term “MOST of them were”. Are/ were these individuals so brainwashed that they couldnt have their own thoughts / morals / opinions.
I think your thoughts are what is wrong with South Africa today, everything prior to 1994 was wrong, and only since then do we have anything moral / right / acceptable. Thats a pure extremist view and just on the opposite end of the scale to the AWB and their clans
@Reducto
Your laziness shows that you’re clearly a product of the apartheid education system. Lets leave it there.
@Peter
“.. if these judges were as bad as you make out, they would long agao have been worked out of the system.”
I wish you were right, however, like a cancer, this racist ideology festers in our judiciary. Their apartheid mindset can NEVER be magically transformed overnight after our liberation, and to claim that they transformed overnight means that you’re either a liar or delusional. Remember, unlike the Nazis after WW2, the perpetrators of the evil apartheid regime had decades to plan out how they will cling to their ill-gotten gains. Fortunately, the agendas of these apartheid-era judges and operatives are now becoming more visible with each outrageous ruling. Now its just a matter of time….ticktock.
@Harris: Funny you talk about laziness when you refuse to engage with the substantive points in my post and the questions as to the merits of these cases I have posed to you. It seems your only defence is to say I am a “product of the apartheid education system” (actually, I was educated post-1994). You are an intellectually lazy troll.
If an honest person, or a politician born of meritocracy were to speak out or rise to political power, in the current environment an acceptance, comparable to the present imposed complacency in Mexico regarding killing of journalists and citizenry, i.e. we must go on, would manifest typical South African humor, castigating the lone voice of sincerity and competence as naïve, weak, and out of kilter with the machine that dominates political and economic life; in particular, a government or rather, a party whose lifeblood is an essential Festival of corruption. This festival is not only cultural, familial, tribal, clannish but is a transposition of modernity over a long history of injustice – all the while maintaining and perpetuating the basic format of that same ingrained injustice. When rule of law becomes the law of the few, respect for the institutions specifically set up to govern the nation becomes as the youth respects not their elders. Rewriting and in due time ignoring the Constitution, packing the judiciary with ANC lackeys, legislating a police state without free speech; we will all laugh at the honest man, our ideal politician, a joke, such is the pace South Africa is on, and Richard Mdluli is but one indicator, one pustulant boil of the disease. Do not protest too late.
@Dave Harris.
Your extremist views are exactly what is worrying in this Country.
This Government is in so many respects just like the Apartheid Government, they’re just so much more brazen about the fact. Hell, why wouldnt they be, they brought the National Party into their fold, not to close them down, but to learn from them how to do it!
Our constitution is useless if we can’t extricate Mdluli type people from the system. You’re worried about a few judges who make a few judgements you don’t approve of, whether they’re right or wrong in law. What about some of the newer judges like Hlope in the Cape who it would appear is clearly biased in his actions, and in fact has taken cash from a company as a retainer. There’s the old saying of taking the tree out of your own eye before………
You can “tick tock” all you want, and maybe you’re right, but for all the wrong reasons buddy!
Dave Harris’ whole debating style hinges on deflecting from the main issues. As you can see above, he can’t tell me why these judicial decisions are wrong, why it is wrong that South Africa should fulfil its duty under international law to investigate allegations of torture and prosecute those responsible. The problem is he can’t actually find fault with the judgment in terms of the law, and thus deflects to when the judge was appointed, as if that negates a correct decision. And when I try engage with him on the main issues, he calls me a “product of the apartheid education system”. Dave Harris is wholly incapable of intelligent debate.
This isn’t the first time. When I pointed out to him why the Traditional Courts Bill is unconstitutional, he called me a “BOA” and ended his post with “LOL”.