When the ANC held its 52nd national conference at Polokwane, concerns were expressed that should Jacob Zuma be elected as party president, it might well leave national President Thabo Mbeki as a lame duck for the balance of his term. As it turned out, the ANC became divided into two centres of power — the government, led by the Mbeki faction, and the party, led by the Zuma faction.
Into that mix we also had to factor the corruption charges against Zuma, claims by his supporters that the Mbeki faction had engineered his prosecution, the vested interest of Cosatu, the SACP and the ANCYL in seeing Zuma elected as the country’s president, and lately others who are staking their own claims to profit from a Zuma presidency by pressurising the judiciary, criminal justice system and even the media.
Going into Polokwane I confirmed my support for Mbeki as I believed that despite glaring errors, he was doing a decent job overall. Post-Polokwane I have taken the view that the delegates made their decision, which must be respected. The party faithful must unite behind Zuma as the ANC president, which, in the ordinary course, should lead to the national presidency at the next election.
As it transpired, the two centres of power manifested itself in the form of an ugly running battle that has materially weakened the party’s ability to restore discipline within its own ranks and sanction those who allegedly support it but are using this division to feather their own nests. Moreover, any suggestion that the split should correct itself after the elections does not take into account the ongoing faction fights that occur every time even the smallest post is up for grabs.
The JZ corruption trial and the effect it is having on the ongoing factionalism within the party and on the country itself requires all South Africans to keep applying their minds in an effort to resolve this issue sooner rather than later. Poverty, crime and a global economic crisis require a government that is focused on the front line rather than concerning itself with what is happening back at party headquarters.
We have already looked at the possibility of the party bridging that gap through the granting of an amnesty or finding a political solution that is acceptable to both factions, while bringing in opposition parties to negotiate the deal in order to strengthen our constitutional democracy. This, unfortunately, in my opinion, will still leave the factions very much in place and the ANC leadership indebted to those who have assisted them in achieving that result, should this prove to be the case.
In light of the above and the ongoing unrest that the Zuma trial and the factionalism is occasioning, I believe that the next item on the list for consideration should be the question of a compromise candidate for the presidency of South Africa. This would be a candidate that both the Mbeki and Zuma factions consider acceptable and who would unite the party under one banner once again.
While we should never underestimate the anger that this will occasion among those who have supported Zuma throughout, there are greater concerns that need to be addressed — issues relating to the party’s inability to defend itself from attacks from within and from outside, and none of which relates to the opposition parties. The total disregard for the party and the conflicting instructions coming from the top have exposed a very vulnerable underbelly that can be exploited by opportunists whose only concern is positioning themselves at any cost to party or country.
This will not result in a healthy shift in the vote to the opposition parties as you would find in a more established democracy but rather a government paralysed by internal strife with those opportunists, on an ongoing basis, taking advantage of both factions to expand their authority. This is to no one’s advantage save the spoilers themselves.
The obstacles to a compromise candidate are not, in my humble opinion, insurmountable. If both factions were to endorse the compromise candidate unconditionally, the masses would be aggrieved at first but then accept their decision. The benefits are obvious as the ANC would then act as a unit and concentrate on preparing for the election while focusing on government priorities and instilling discipline across the board. Vitally for the country, there would be no danger of the factionalism continuing after the election; most important of all for the party, the leadership would no longer be at the mercy of those seeking favours in return for assisting a faction.
Let’s look at a possible scenario.
The two camps would agree on the compromise candidate. In this regard I am not going to suggest anyone because that would taint the person concerned. It must be a party decision.
Simultaneously the legal representatives of JZ would enter into a plea bargain (section 105A of the Criminal Procedures Act 51 of 1977 as amended) for the ANC president. If we could allow Mark Thatcher this opportunity, we can certainly do the same for JZ. In addition a substantial package of benefits would be given by the party, not the country, to compensate JZ for standing down on the biggest job in South Africa. Whether it would allow him to continue as ANC president would be up to the party, but in order to restore unity this must be given careful consideration.
In terms of the Zuma faction, the NEC is already in place and while JZ won’t be the one handing out Cabinet posts, there would be sufficient representation at the top to ensure that most of those promised their day in the sun would still achieve that. However, anyone who made a mockery of the party by militancy, threatening the government or the country, showing their backside or any other conduct not worthy of the ANC, regardless of whom they are prepared to die for, must then be thrown out of the party permanently.
An immediate instruction would be needed from the top that any form of factionalism would henceforth result in anyone starting or belonging to a faction being permanently thrown out of the party. Any disrespect shown to the party or leadership would bring immediate sanctions against those individuals involved.
Any threats from other bodies purportedly allied to the party would be considered in the most serious light.
Obviously there would be a whole host of other considerations that would need to be addressed prior to implementation, but this is another way in which this issue can be resolved.
Over to you.
A plea bargain means that the accused must before the court plead guilty to charges leveled against him. Zuma has insisted he is innocent; he has maintained along with his entourage of hooligans that all these charges have been manufactured and are politically motivated.
The naive and uninformed supporters truly believe their leaders that Zuma is being persecuted and there is no valid case against him. By Zuma pleading guilty and admitting to be a fraudster would certainly damage the image he has moulded himself around. Furthermore, the prospect of a compromise candidate would unsettle the aspirations of those who invested heavily on Zuma becoming president; and hoping to reap the fruits of their labour post 2009.
That most of Zuma’s supporters are motivated by opportunism and careerism is an open secret; and they would certainly not support an arrangement that interferes with their self-interests.
Over to me….
Trapidomise,
Sorry to say this bud-but you are on the wrong track.
Your editorial sounds like the start of a new book .. “Trapice in Wonderland”
You should have blogged about the Zumen’s latest attempt to get the NPA to drop the charges.
“Zuma and his Zumen are not backing down”. Stay in after blogging and write it out 100 times. And post it on this blog!
* “Msholozi will lead us behind bars, he’s our president in orange suits”
* “You hit a head, you kill a snake”
*”If Scorpions bite wrong people, we’ll kill them. Like a dog when it starts biting relatives at your home.You get rid of it”
Hmmm
Makes me wonder what ‘entertainment of compromise candidate’ Traps is talking about. [???]
By the way, if you want to see whether the Pipe Smoking internet based health Scientist is capable of encouraging two parties to bring a compromise candidate, look further than your neighbouring Currency-less Banana republic. There has been a stubborn and aging elephant trouncing on civilians lives for excessively long…Compromise candidate, what candidate?
The Polokwane ANC masses have spoken. There had been some grunted individuals about Zuma’s election, and they’ve been constantly clamouring about respect of ‘constitution’, therefore I believe the ‘ANC constitution’ and ‘processes’ should be respected. Zuma has been chosen by people who knew his legal battles, so to actually talk of ‘compromise candidate/s’ barely 8 months after his election is, to large extent, unsound.
Can the compromise candidate deliver more juicy jobs-for-pals and tasty gravy than the main man himself? That’s really what it’s all about in a kleptocracy, Traps. We all know that.
Trapz,
I think that the following anomaly would be a fun topic for your “Thought Leader” blog…
As you know a South African Human Rights Delegation (SAHRD) has recently returned from Israel and has relentlessly lectured us about its human rights policy.
However, I wonder whether an Israeli Democratic Delegation (IDD) could immediately come to South Africa and investigate the strength of our post-apartheid democratic structure and state of the art constitution.
I draw your attention to the fact that in Israel it looks like President Olmert has had his chips. However, in South Africa it appears that the NPA might kindly soon be giving “President” Zuma an extra portion of chips with some tasty democratic remnants fried up on the side.
So which country is more democratic? Perhaps, the SAHRD and IDD will soon let us know?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220526726166&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.businessday.co.za/weekender/article.aspx?ID=BD4A837889
Traps
An important fact that we have all lost sight of is that the main charges against Zuma don’t relate to the arms deal at all. The Scorpions were not investigating the arms deal at the time – they were investigating allegations of fraud about the allocation to the Shaik brothers’ companies of the contracts for the new credit card drivers’ licences, and the contract to upgrade the road between Joburg and Durban (R2.6 billion contract). The main allegations against Zuma are that he awarded state tenders to Shaik companies in return for their supporting his lifsyle because Zuma could not come out on his salary. THAT is why Shaik is in jail! Just ordinary corruption! How can there ever be any justification for Zuma being president if he is found guilty ?
I like this – yeah, bring up the Compromiser. No names, but I think we all know who is the most likely candidate, huh?
But the whole concept reminds me of that old Biblical story about two women who claimed motherhood of the same baby, and the wise old king said “No problem mate, we’ll just run the blighter through a band-saw and each of you can take half”. One woman accepted it, and the other woman protested bog time, to the point that she would give up the ankle-biter to the other woman if the kid was left unhurt.
My point? Give the compromise option to the ANC. The true ANC, the ones that lead this country to freedom, Nelson Mandela’s party, would say yes, please, anything to let the party survive. The bunch of monkey-boys will wail and gnash their teeth, and say, no, its Zuma or nobody. True colours will see the light.
Yes, Moolah Mark Thatcher was given a plea bargain – BUT he had to admit his guilt, pay a hefty fine, and flee the country. Same deal for Zuma? Sure! Let him admit he is as guilty as sin, let him pay his fine, and no, he doesn’t need to leave, we’ll even give him all the wives he can handle and paint-cans full of beer for the rest of his life if he promised to never, ever, touch politics again. If he is unwilling to do that, then let him take his chances with the court to see if he is going to wear an Armani suit, or an orange suit. I’ll accept either result.
PS: can someone, ANYONE, please explain to me this obsession with Zuma from certain ANC members, why they are so violently pro-Zuma, to the point of threatening anarchy? What does this man do for them that ensured this pure in wavering support from the man in the street that doesn’t have any chance of boarding a gravy-train. The young MPs I can understand, riding on coattails and wotnot, but this blind following by the proles is above my IQ – which is in the upper 80’s on a good day.
I don’t think they will because it would be much more exciting for them to kill a few people after carousing and drinking at their conference. Coming up with a workable solution does seem too much like real work.
I totally agree with you, a compromise candidate will be ideal and unifying in the ANC. If teh ANC does not unite just before the election next year, we foresee more squabbles and them loosing the 2/3 majority because of people boycotting the election or voting for other parties, including myself.
We do want to see a controversial president and trying by all means to block justice and everybody who proclaim justice. We are heading for a lame duck ANC if they dont replace Zuma with a unifying candidate.
What are the conditions needed for a plea-bargain to be legally sound? I mean the actual details.
Also, who would make the required decision on behalf of the prosecuting authority, and by what process would such a person reach their decision?
The problem is that a party decision would then require the NPA to act in a certain way. Somebody from outside the NPA would have to approach the NPA with the “plan”. I contend that any such approach would constitute “interference” as contemplated in s 32(1)(b) of the NPA Act.
The only way to avoid this would be for the accused or his legal team to approach the NPA with a plea-bargain proposal. This might be done after the ANC has got its ducks in a row in terms of a deal. However, the proposal itself would not be binding on the NPA (the NPA Act and the Constitution specifically preculde this possibility). Where would JZ and the ANC be left if the NPA then turned down the proposal?
In order for such a delicate deal to be done, it would have to be carried back-and-forth by some form of “broker” who obtained agreement behind the scenes from all parties before any of them were seen to be committing themselves to the deal.
I contend that this process would be unlawful in terms of the NPA Act.
Two centres of power Mike.That is a recipe for disaster.Also it would serve to nullify the outcomes of the ANC’s highest decision making body-the national conference.
Care to tell the ANC branches that their biggest resource in the ANC (their vote) counts for nought?
Traps, you’re deliberately missing the point. The purpose of relentlessly charging Zuma was to achieve exactly what you propose to be a solution.Mbeki is not contesting any power, he has served his terms, so why do you insist on putting him in the equation.For most people who have been following the Zuma saga are in no doubt that the judiciary, the NPA and the press are doing everything possible to bump off Zuma. Your proposed solution is more in support of the Mbeki group aspirations than being an honest attempt at a solution. You conveniently ignored to address the possibility that state organs are being used to bump off an unliked candidate.
Trapz,
Lets be clear about your political analytical trajectory…
Prior to your son’s barmitzvah, you believed that Jacob Zuma should be the next SA President.
Post your son’s barmitzvah, you believe that a “compromise candidate” should be the next SA President.
So… we are now in a post-barmitzvah era. Have you undergone some sort of religious experience in synagogue which resulted in a political analytical conversion? Did the Rabbi tell you that it was Moses, NOT Jacob, who delivered his people to the promised land?
Gerry
MASSIVE amount of funds spent on a media image campaign by his pals to indoctrinate the masses. Don’t forget we have over 40% unemployment – they have nothing else to do. AND the are bussed in – free entertainment for the day. But in reality their loyalty is to the ANC, and if Zuma was not ANC president it would dissipate. A lot of it is also anti-Mbeki fervour (AIDS, ZIM, CRIME non-policies). Any enemy of Mbeki’s is a friend – and Zuma has been painted as Mbeki’s main enemy.
Mike
BOTH Shaik AND Zuma were offered a plea bargain in 2003 by the Scorpions – and turned it down.
Sipho
You are right – Mbeki is no longer any part of the calculation. He is out of the loop. It is now up to the ANC NEC.
Traps, interesting proposal, but unlikely to fly given the vested interests by all concerned. I would prefer the ANC internal squabbles lead to eventual split in the ANC. Then we could have a more “normal” democracy where 1 party/coalition (with 1 set of policies/persons) can replace another party/coalition (with another set of policies/persons) by ALL the people in the land.
For all those who feel that the “people” have spoken in electing Zuma at Polokwane, just remember that he only garnered 60% of the ANC vote (assuming the delegates at the ANC conference accurately reflect the broader ANC voting public). And 60% of the 70% the ANC got in the last election equals 42%. Assuming non of those who voted for the opposition in the last election actually support Zuma, a wholly 58% of the electorate DONT support Zuma. Even if 1/6th of the opposition’s 30% support Zuma (PAC, UDM, etc), those that DONT support Zuma is still more than 50% of the electorate.
Unfortunately, a large % of the 40% who voted for Mbeki at Polokwane will still vote ANC rather than switch to another party (This just shows us the state of opposition politics in SA.) In a more “competitive” democracy, this will not happen. It seems that only a split in the ANC will break the monopoly power of the ANC at elections. None of the factions in the ANC will consider a compromise (certainly not the new faction in power) until this becomes a realistic possibility. None of the speeches or rumours have indicated this as a possibility.
A compromise candidate? Now that’s a tempting proposition, except that it was scorned at prior to Polokwane and it now seems like a distant but fading dream of the moderates within the ANC. However, I agree that it must be pursued and if anything, it seems to be a rational alternative that could take the ANC out of the current political cul-de-sac it created; although a much better alternative would be for Mr Zuma to relinquish his pursuit for the presidency and save the ANC and the Country any further embarrassment and possible bloodshed, something he is unlikely to do.
There are however several challenges to this proposition. First it would require the ANC to admit that in choosing Mr Zuma as their presidential candidate they made a collective error of judgment, something the ANC will not do easily or at all. Secondly, Mr Zuma will be exposed to the full wrath of the law without the protective bosom of the ANC, and he is unlikely to admit guilt and enter into plea bargain arrangements, having protested his innocence for this long; besides he will suddenly look like he has been conning his comrades all along. Thirdly, the corruption charges against Mr Zuma may be withdrawn, the court may order a permanent stay of prosecution or he may eventually be discharged. It is these possible scenarios and the fact that Mr Zuma is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that could out-weigh, at least in the short-term, any possible consideration of an alternative presidential candidate. Mr Zuma might fancy his chances with the legal process and/or take cover behind the ANC’s political solution that will see him not having his day in court and installing him as the country’s president.
Failing a compromise deal, that would see an acceptable presidential candidate to both factions within the ANC, the Zuma issue must see out its life-span if we are to protect and preserve what’s left of our young democratic systems. We have been through the worst of times to get to were we are and we just cannot throw it all away just so we can save one individual and placate a thousand others. The law must take its cause and it would be preferable for Mr Zuma to actually stand trial for the State to prove or disprove the allegations against him once and for all.
A thinking young man encapsulates the political system.
The ANCYL leader has so much power and prominence in the ANC that its influence over the NEC is terrifying.
He leads a few thousand bum bragging hooligans – and they had the power to decide WHO would be the future President of this once great nation. What happened while the nation blinked ?
from Sowetan – Top Stories
Guest Columnist Tendayi Sithole reckons that Julius Malema’s war talk is intended to mask his lack of a programme of action to deal with issues facing the country’s youth
YOUTH VIEW: By Tendayi Sithole 8 September 2008
I am still confused about the direction that the ANC Youth League is taking and question what its members have to say about this state of affairs.
If what its president Julius Malema says is the broad consensus of the movement and what it stands for,
then my concerns are serious regarding the future of this country and the movement itself.
The culture of silence has found its way into the political circles of the ANCYL.
Maybe there is fear and members tend to censor themselves to avoid being given ‘anti, dark or counter’ labels.
It has to be questioned whether the youth league consists of yes-men and yes-women who toe the line nor matter how skew it is?
This because it seems there is no one who has the guts to call Malema to order within the league itself, or is he untouchable?
It cannot be ignored that he continues to make senseless statements in public and some of them are not in line with the Constitution and the party policy itself.
He is misleading the youth by injecting them with militant political sentiments that do not reflect the realities and challenges that are facing them.
If everyone in the youth league buys the pseudo militant revolution and struggle that Malema propagates,
then the ANCYL is not meeting its mandate.
The fundamental mandate that the youth league has is championing and advancing the interests of the South African youth.
This serves as a proof on the basis he has no programme of action that aims to address the challenges that are faced by the youth. He has so much work to do, but since he assumed youth presidency he has not started, instead he is deviating.
The youth league should be in the deep discussion on how to avoid the problems that are blanketing the youth. They should try devising strategies jointly with the youth to fight HIV/AIDS, skills development, crime, and substance abuse among others.
The future of this country is vested on the youth who will be leading this country tomorrow.
(Will there be a country to lead after this fiasco?.)
Spaces should be created in which vibrancy of the youth will be featured in the future political arena where sanity and various schools of thought will prevail.
For this to be realised opposing views should not be seen in the light of the disloyalty, but as a way of engaging to find a consensus.
Opposing should be considered in a way that will make diversity of views to prevail within contested political space.
Such contestation should be a way of working towards the achievement of common good in the benefit of the whole society.
Such vibrancy should not be in the context of militant politics based on the “so-called” struggle and the revolution that is non-existent.
I say this because Malema and his cronies fails to give clarity on what is that struggle or revolution that they like to shout about in their “rhetoric”.
Diversity and critical engagement are the benchmarks that ensure the lively nature of the political movement. This creates an environment in which members of the movements are strengthening and continually building their country.
Loyalty is part of the value system of the political movement and what it stands for. Critical voices are also loyal to the movement since they voice out the opinions of other members who differ in thinking or who point out something not ion line with the movement.
Blind loyalty is not good for participatory political culture and it is equivalent to poor politics, which comprises of lack of engagement, political correctness, lack of focus, patronage, and personification of politics.
This is by ensuring that there should be more respect to the democratic institutions since they are for the importance to the society. The future lies ahead the youth and they should be the ones who are shaping in the political circles. So, Malema should lead by example and stop being power drunk like a despot.
Tendayi Sithole is an intern at Freedom of Expression Institute; he writes in his personal capacity.
Mike A/ Lyndall – Section 105A of the CPA does not limit itself to only certain charges. It’s a plea bargain which would usually cover all of them.
It is drawn up by the accused’s attorney and submitted to the State. It would in the ordinary course require the consent of the investigating officer, complainant and prosecutor with the necessary authority.
Once signed by both parties it is submitted to the Judge who can accept it or reject it.
If it’s accepted that’s the end of it if it is not then both accused and state withdraw and the matter could then still go to trial but not in front of the same judge.
Sipho – If Mbeki was finished with politics we wouldn’t have two factions.
Siyabonga – It is that issue which has always concerned me ie that the delegates chose JZ to be the candidate at the next election.
As I say I’m just throwing up different permutations so that the guys can give each their considered opinion.
As I say time and again I’m neither right nor wrong just giving you guys some ideas so you can bounce it around.
Sentletse my buddy, the amount of guys who have sworn they are innocent right up and until they sign the plea bargain….
Trapz,
Strange that you do not mention the name of the “compromise” candidate.
Is it a big secret who you are now backing??
Spill the post barmitz beanz. Who is your ANC (wo)man of the moment? Kasrils? Manto?
Gerry
The answer to your PS is that, though everyone will deny it in their various ways until the end, the ANC party is split into at least two major interests – let’s call them ‘left’ and ‘right’. It is a simplification, but without making it we cannot move forward at all.
The ANC is not a party of the left, if it ever was, and definitely not a communist party. It is not a ‘revolutionary’ party anymore either, whatever it says. It is in power, the party of government, and that is where it wishes to remain.
This situation, plus the fact that the global world today makes socialism in small, vulnerable economies like SA’s a non-starter, rob the ‘left’ in the party of any route to power within the party itself. Mbeki ruthlessly pursued neo-liberal policies for 15 years. It was a long time for the left and their allies in Cosatu and the SACP to take a back seat, and the resentment grew.
Because of the (almost) coincidental event of the Zuma affair, the ‘left’ (arguably a small minority in SA electorally speaking, though there is no certain way of demonstrating that) unexpectedly found a champion. A carefully prepared and orchestrated Polokwane conference overthrew the unpopular Mbeki, who was too arrogant to see that he was no longer acceptable and too opinionated to stand aside for the good of the country. No compromise candidate was allowed to get a look-in and Zuma got the job with the backing of all those who reject Mbeki and everything he stands for.
Was it a coup by the ‘left’ or simply a coalition of the disgruntled? Probably both, but it is clear enough now. Zuma needs this ‘left’; this ‘left’ needs him. They need each other to secure control of the party, the ANC being the only route to power in SA. It is futile to call a general election: voters will simply return the ANC and we will all be back where we started, with the two factions fighting.
(Incidentally, this is why the ‘right’ will not agree to a snap election. They know that the ANC would win and that the Zuma faction would claim the result as an endorsement by the SA people of their candidate, confirming Zuma beyond further argument.)
If you find yourself differing from any of this, try to answer this question (because I most certainly cannot): which ‘compromise candidate’, as proposed by Michael, would suit the people who presently support Zuma and at the same time suit the people who presently support Mbeki?
It is no criticism of Michael to say that he cannot, even dare not, mention a name, because no name would be acceptable to both sides. A luta musta continua.
The truth is SA needs to move to ‘democracy’ and cannot. The voters, the SA people, cannot settle or decide anything in this matter. Forget the ‘man-in-the-street’. He has no alternative party to vote for even if he wishes to.
And the desperate extremists threaten to ‘kill’ for Zuma because if they lose him there is no one else, and no democratic way, to win their cause.
@ Paul Whelan
Excellent post, thank you.
To pick up on Paul Whelan is saying.
The ANC is now officially split but refuses to acknowledge this reality because it means the end of the all powerful political monolith as we know it.
I personally think that the SACP and Cosatu are merely opportunistic hangers on in a desperate last ditch attempt to find their place in the sun. The real fault lines arize from Xhoza/Zulu imperatives but not even the rank and file voters have as yet realised this fundamental truth. Scary stuff if I am right, and nobody wants to give birth to this particular spectre.
A compromise candidate must be sought outside these two groups but this has serious gravy train implications.
I would be very happy if anyone can shoot this viewpoint down in flames.
If you can lay your hands on a copy of Millenium by historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto read what he has to say about South Africa in the Epilogue.
Mbeki is not part of the equation his time is up next year and more and more of his faithful circle will increasingly move over to the other faction over the coming months.
I do not see a plea bargain here, JZ says he is innocent and he will remain so until proven otherwise and I do not see there been a ruling of any sort before he becomes president of the country. Too many people have backed this horse and they are not going to let it go out to pasture.
Its not to long ago that JZ was dismissed as deputy president and also went through a rape trial where he was made to look like an absolute idiot for having unprotected sex with his accuser.
Most people thought he was finished but he has bounced back big time. In this country this man is a winner and is seen by his dedicated followers as indestructable and above reproach. He is not going to disappoint them by admitting guilt and entering into a plea bargain.
The ANC government have messed up on a large scale, health, crime, home affairs, quiet diplomacy, etc etc. They needs a hero at the moment and cometh the hour cometh the man
One realist left in the ANC !
”
There is a disturbing trend in the African National Congress (ANC) of confusing patriotism with party loyalty, according to former ANC MP Carl Niehaus.
Writing in the Cape Times on Monday, he said the greatest danger for the ANC comes not from any other political party, but from “mixing up” issues of party loyalty and discipline, with patriotism.
This results in an expectation that the party line and leadership should be followed blindly, and that the judicial and democratic institutions of the state should merely be instruments to carry out ANC policy.
“There are disturbing trends in this direction, and if it continues, this, more than anything else, will become the undoing of this great people’s movement,” he said.
It might seem from the high seats of power that the people will always vote for the ANC, but there is no given “eternity”, and people are not voting-fodder.
Political office is no longer seen in the party as a place from which to serve, but as a platform to launch personal ambition and for self-enrichment.
“Those who squander the ANC’s liberation dividend in this way must not think that no damage is done,” he said.
The damage might not be visible in next year’s election results, but history offers precedents for a slow process of erosion, followed by a devastating collapse.
Niehaus, a former political prisoner, is now executive director of a Johannesburg-based consulting and investment company. — Sapa”
AND WHITE – this could label him a racist.
BL – I am not suggesting a preffered candidate because those of you who read the Times last week will have seen an article by a senior ANC leader in which he confirms that Tokyo and Cyril were killed by being promoted by commerce and the white community.
Like many of you I have an idea if such a compromise is considered. But I won’t be giving him the kiss of death by naming him.
Amused Reader – Paul’s take is always on the money.
It is quite unlikely that in the presence of names like ‘hooligans”, “naive and uninformed supporters”, “opportunism and careerism” we can mend fences.
How could it be that “forever peaceful loving intellectuals” who cant’ even kill a fly are so attached to such demeaning words to other warm blooded beings. I hope this is not the way your intelligence will be remembered (developing the best humiliating vocabulary).
Sentle…love is blind my broe…as much as you are in love with politician of your choice, it is then part of the reason why s/he is the messiah who will never fault. Why people of Zim are so mad about Bob?…answer LOVE IS BLIND.
The questions:
1) Whose money did JZ took?
2) Who initiated the bribe, was it JZ?
PS: I’m just waiting for the news that Sunday Times will be sued for telling us about 30m. If not, JZ is being made a total scapegoat not mention Tony.
Traps, I didn’t say Mbeki is finished politically, I said he cannot be honestly presented as a competitor for presidency with Zuma like you do. What is it that Mbeki can bring to the table to counter Zuma’s claim to the presidency?
Your solution would make sense if a compromise candidate is encouraged to register as an independent to stand against the prefered candidate of the 60% of the ANC members. The disafected 40% can then mobilise on behalf of the compromise candidate, and if they win they’ll form a government and banish the dreaded Zuma to the dustbin of history. I’m sure Ms Zille wouldn’t mind to form a coalition with this group, seeing that she has positioned herself as more anti Zuma than Mbeki. I think it’s too late now to impose your prefered person on the ANC. But then again there’s no law against trying.
@ Paul Whelan ( on September 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am),,
You presented a clear and insightful analysis. Well done indeed.
However, I think that to some extent, SA is in a classic pre-revoultionary situation. An extremely wealthy elite, lives like kings, whilst the masses are suffering.
So Cosatu and the SACP are in a position to ignite this dissatisfaction.
you write:
“the fact that the global world today makes socialism in small, vulnerable economies like SA’s a non-starter, rob the ‘left’ in the party of any route to power within the party itself.”
But is socialism a non-starter? Perhaps the revolution is actually just about to start?
Why is everybody so concerned with unity in the ANC? I say split them into two factions, with a candidate each.
That way I can vote for an ANC without Zuma.
Again.
This raging battle is between individuals as pretenders to power, not about ‘factions’, or even the party, and certainly not about the country.
Think Jacob Zuma will step aside to improve the chances of his ‘faction’ come next election?. . . hell will freeze over first!
It is rather misguided to entertain the possibility of a compromise of any sort, since this would imply a joint decision by the party, for the party. These individuals represent only themselves; they no longer represent the party, and by extension, no longer represent the people.
The People ‘spoke’ at Polokwane?
Humbug!
Like everyone else, the delegates are appointees of the party. No one ever got to vote for any of them. How can they ‘represent’ me in our uniquely odd ‘proportional representation’ system?
The ANC deliberately installed this party list system knowing full well what the inevitable result would be; an effective one party state with limited accountability achieved through highly indirect ‘representation’ That’s what they wanted, and that’s what we got. The party in fact, only had to contest and win one election… the first. After that, the die was cast.
As Paul Whelan (correctly) says:-
“The voters, the SA people, cannot settle or decide anything in this matter.” (Or any other matter, de facto.) What kind of democracy is that?
An unintended but equally inevitable result was unsustainable party unity. It comes with the territory, and compromises to not lie within its boundaries.
Sipho – I think by now it’s common cause that there are two factions. Having said that I would never try and impose anything on anybody simply suggest ideas and see where they take us.
Oupoort, Traps and Paul,
If all this talk of amnesty, charges being dropped, political solutions etc etc had happened BEFORE Polokwane and not only started AFTER Polokwane – Zuma might not have won at all. Ever think of that?
Why do we need a compromise candidate?
Surely the non Mbeki faction must just come to their senses and remove JZ from contention. They won the day so they must just put forward another less blemished candidate.
Thanks Paul!
Something to ponder of a pint.
Or over a dram of Lagavulin 16-YO Single Malt.
Traps – I’m also suggesting that you punt your prefered compromise candidate and stop worrying about Zuma. It’s bad marketing to talk more about the competitor’s products than your own products.
I have never disputed the faction thingy, in fact if you were to look closely you’d find that there are more factions in the ANC. Until now the anti Zuma argument lacks respect, you need to make it more respectable to convince me that your concerns should be my concerns.
Excellent blog with really clever people saying really clever stuff. I’m impressed and only hope you can sort it all out and come up with a decent government at the next election.
There is no compromise candidate. This is because Zuma controls the ANC; there is no possibility that Mbeki’s nominee for the Presidency, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, is going to get in. There are no alternatives foreseeable. If Zuma is removed, one of his cats-paws or one of his bankers (like Ramaphosa and Sexwale, who are anyway tools of white big business when push comes to shove) will get in.
Nice idea, shame about the real world.
It was thanks to Ramaphosa that the unions developed in SA, AND funded the ANC in the early days. He is no-one’s tool. AND when he went into business it was with a black partner who was openly scornful of AA saying he had managed without help thank you, on his own ability.
I don’t know as much about Tokyo – maybe some-one else does.