Zimbabwean police ignored a High Court decision ordering the release of Jestina Mukoko and eight other activists to a local hospital. Reuters are reporting that instead armed police have removed them to an unknown location. As in the case of the decision of the SADC Tribunal on land expropriation, Mugabe and the Zanu-PF are showing the same indifference to the rulings of their own courts as they did to those of the region.
Accordingly law and order, as it is understood by even the most unsophisticated societies in the world, has ceased to exist with Mugabe and his henchmen accepting only those laws they consider dovetail with their own interests.
The South African government’s approach to this latest — in a list stretching back to the Big Bang — outrage is to inspect the submarines … contemplate their navel … something like that.
Of course nobody should be surprised at this development. Indeed, if you are prepared to move heaven and Earth to prop up a genocidal dictator, why would lawlessness concern you?
Problem is it now appears that Mugabe and Zanu-PF’s propensity to blatant lies and deceit seems to be rubbing off on the South African government.
“HARARE/JOHANNESBURG — Zimbabwe has received agricultural inputs from the South African government worth over R300-million”, Zimbabwean state media reported yesterday.
On Sunday, Thabo Masebe, a spokesman for President Kgalema Motlanthe, told the SABC that Pretoria would provide agricultural assistance of R300-million to Zimbabwe, but only when a new government is formed.
The Herald newspaper quoted Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Minister Rugare Gumbo as saying Pretoria had sent, among other items, maize and sorghum seed, fertiliser and fuel.” (SAPA)
In essence, Motlanthe had confirmed that, until an all-inclusive unity government was formed, this particular aid would be withheld. The reason this was done was because of the enormous internal and external pressure on South Africa to do the right thing and put an end to bolstering the regime responsible for a humanitarian disaster of breathtaking proportions.
As a glance through numerous reports will confirm, up to and including Sunday this was still the position. The interim aid to assist on cholera and feeding the population was a separate and distinct issue.
Until the genius posing as the Minister of Agriculture (by his mother maybe) from Zimbabwe decided to drop a humongous clanger (didn’t anyone explain to him the bullshit the South African public had been told?) and confirm that the aid had already arrived. The office of compounding monumental fuck-ups in South Africa then sprang to life and decided that the best way of dealing with this ridiculous farce was to try and convince everyone that, having lied to South Africans about withholding aid until a unity government was in place, all the while intending to furnish it directly to Mugabe, that in fact this was a fine gesture to assist those in dire need.
Attempt to create a confluence between the aid supposedly being withheld and that being sent as a gesture of goodwill so that in the blur one could not be distinguished from the other?
One of many examples of this intriguing explanation may be seen at News24
Yesterday I asked the question why the ANC was prepared to defy logic and decency to prop up Senor Satan and the Zanu-PF.
Today the question is slightly trickier: are you prepared to test the support of those who believe in the general principles of the ANC — me included — in order to prop up the most evil African dictator and regime of all time? Sacrifice the principles that the great men and women of your party struggled and died for in order to perpetuate this insanity?
Give careful consideration before answering. Better yet, don’t even attempt it.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, December 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pm and is filed under Perspective, News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
56 Responses to “ANC prepared to sacrifice credibility in order to support Mugabe’s lawless Zimbabwe”
I’ve sometimes wondered if Mugabe has sold his soul to the devil in exchange for youth and power - he has always amazed me in that he just doesn’t seem to age.
I’m now wondering whether he has let the ANC in on his secret. I can’t think of any rational reasons for their behavior.
Isn’t the Turkey getting cold, Traps, while you fulminate about the frothing-at-the-mouth Bob?
And as for the ANC losing your loyalty (and vote), did you not hear Zuma just after Polokwane? “The ANC will rule South Africa until Kingdom Come”. Or something like that.
Whether you like it or not? There are lessons to be learnt from Zimbabwe for when the pesky likes of you decide to get some democratic thoughts into your heads. So why stop Mugabe’s experiment?
Happy New Year, the last you will enjoy before Comrade Zuma comes into office!
The point that the ANC misses, is that a black dictator is every bit as bad as a white dictator, is every bit as bad as a dictator !
Apartheid was all abour power and control. Similarly, ANC dictators are all about power and control and idiotic statements by Cele et al merely confirm this, as do actions by the puppet Motlantle regime.
I have heard that the ANC will go far - and I hope they do… Outer Mongolia comes to mind…
You should deleve into “the method in the madness”. Of course, it is a difficult journey which will inevitably require some lateral thinking on your behalf.
Is it really just “insanity”??
Give careful consideration before answering. Better yet, don’t even attempt it.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 26th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Hummm, good question when there are thousands of our own people, going to bed hungry tonight where to we find the spare change? in the fisrt place. That man needs to be removed! Secondly while he is surly an evil, dicator. I doubt very much he’s been the worst. Aftica has a whole plethora of evil dictators in its cluch of ‘elected’ leaders as we speek!
Haning read your last series of articles, and agreed with them, eventually at some point, even liberals or pragmatists like me do inevitably start asking:
1. Were the Nats really worse than the ANC?
2. Are Black people actually capable of running country? (If so where is the evidence)
My morals make both of these questions morally repugnant, but the facts keeps slapping me with reality back in the face!
Imagine if the gatvol SA citizen decided that, instead of indirectly propping up Mr Mugabe’s brutal regime via their taxes, they stopped paying them. Just imagine.
“The Herald newspaper quoted Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Minister Rugare Gumbo as saying Pretoria had sent, among other items, maize and sorghum seed, fertiliser and fuel.”
You have to love the double standards demonstrated here again for all to see. The Herald has generally been dismissed by the “mainstream media” as the Zimbabwean government’s “state sponsored” propaganda machine and everything it reported about the MDC to be dismissed as nothing but lies and deceit. And now the Herald is accurate and fair in it reporting on alleged aid from the ANC dominated South African government and worth quoting in “thoughleaders” all of sudden?
You are starting to realise something that many of us have known for a long time. Credibility and democracy are irrelevant in the context of the ANCs core constituency. They do as they please when they please and their supporters lap it up.
anton kleinschmidt on December 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Traps, Breyten Breytenbach is correct - this is indeed a failed revolution - in all respects. If you haven’t read his piece ‘MANDELA’S SMILE, Notes on South Africa’s failed revolution’ drop me a line and I’ll send it to you.
The ANC are just as evil as ZANU-PF because of the financial and moral aid given. Coupled with this is the fact that the ANC govt has frustrated attempts by the UN to resolve the crisis.
History will judge South Africa harshly because of the actions (and inaction) of its elected government.
grant montgomery on December 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Could I just point out that the detainees include a two year old child.
And that the Zim police have now filed an appeal against the order releasing them, (with the wrong court) whilst ignoring it, and claim in the appeal that they haven’t been holding them for three weeks, and they dont need medical attention so a doctor doesn’t need to see them to verify this, etc etc….
Is it finally obvious to even the Black South African voters that ZANU is making it up as they go along, and if they beleive what they say they are mad;
And that the ANC is supporting their “comrades” to the extent of paying the wages in SA Govt’s hard currency to police officers holding a two year old Black Baby in a maximum security prison without medical attention?
And then lying about it being aid, and a plot to overthrow the Govt (by a baby)?
Perhaps the SA voters would please remember this come the next series of elections, and continue doig so until the ANC finally discover what SA thinks of them using their tax to prop up Mugabe’s child stealers.
Come now surely you have worked this out. To solve the problem in Zim one has to DO something. It requires effort, risk, careful planning and then action and since when does the ANC have the management expertise to DO anything properly. The ANC is not a party of builders. Liberation parties were / are formed on the principle of breaking things so it is not in their nature to build things and Zim needs building expertise for a solution.
Do you remember the marches throughout the world to draw attention to the sin of apartheid? Is it not time to bring the attention of the SA government to this sin of Mugabe and his Zanu PF henchmen and march again? Because clearly our government seems to have resorted to the same shameful duplicity Mugabe is prone to? I think the banners should be unfurled and the marches start again because God knows, there does not seem much more that we can do! Although judging from the xenophobic mindset of our compatriots would it do any good? And judging from Hugh Glenister’s attempt to influence this government’s attitude to the closing down of the Scorpions would they listen? But as long as good men and women do nothing evil will flourish; so we must do what we can, raise our voices and take to the streets with the cry of FREE ZIM NOW!
This is a cross-roads that many of us have reached before now. Some continued across but many of us took a turnoff we didn’t necessarily want just to get off a road we no longer wanted to travel.
Perhaps we are missing the point. Perhaps Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is indeed the endgame. In theory it has the shell of what many Zimbabweans (and South Africans) fought for. But yet the core of these struggles - the equality of all people, the right of people to choose their leaders - is absent. But perhaps both of those were absent all along. Certainly I don’t see an awful lot of equality here, nor do I see an unfettered access to political choice. I see a classist, racist system played by all sides to suit themselves. All are equal only after self-destruction when the more equal animals sweep up the human shreds. All suicide bombers are equal. It’s a curious ending.
Traps, the fact that you are only now considering withdrawing support from your beloved ANC is worrying. Why has it taken so long to shake your misplaced faith?
Loyalty is fine when supporting a soccer team, not a political party. I feel sorry for you, watching your self-created idol crumbling from its pedestal.
The most effective way to break Mugabe’s power is to remove his protective Big Brother, the ANC, from power. Those who vote for the ANC next year will by default be supporting Mugabe.
Baecoza I’m not considering withdrawing my support for the ANC. What I’m asking is whether the idiots who dictate its foreign policy are prepared to test those who support the ANC with this continued insanity on Zimbabwe?
On so many levels - xenophobia, unemployment and
failure to achieve substantial service delivery - this continued support for Mugabe is going to exact a heavy price in terms of votes lost to the opposition and discontent on the ground.
Jacob Zuma himself need only think back to the hostility he encountered when he tried to calm things down during xenophobia.
Whether the ANC believes it or not the collateral damage occasioned by this ridiculous approach on Zimbabwe is going to make governing South Africa infinitely more difficult.
You cannot waste this amount of money, allow unregulated invasion by refugees on this scale and fail to deliver jobs and housing in the face of it without paying a very heavy price.
Grant - This is what amazes me. Everyone asks me how can you support the ANC when they support Mugabe or (place reason here)?
Let’s use the most basic example - Bush supported by the Republicans (many Democrats) invaded Iraq.
Millions of Republicans - a minority no doubt, but millions nonetheless of the America First persuasion who do not want America to get involved in foreign adventures - were totally against it.
They are also opposed to Afghanistan and any other conflicts which they believe are counter-productive to Americas interest.
It flows from the Monroe Doctrine which is still seen by many Republicans (and Democrats) as the ideal foreign policy. Non-intervention being considered paramount.
Neocons and other Republicans on the other hand believe in intervention as a first line of defence. Catch it there before it comes here.
Yet both are Republicans.
The fact that millions opposed the invasion of Iraq does not mean that they are no longer Republicans.
They are very much part and pacel of the GOP but disagree with some of its policies. If you read the GOP press right now they disagree with a whole lot of policies but they remain Republicans.
The same can be said for any other policy that you don’t like about any particular party. I support the GOP but I don’t like (insert policies here).
The fact that there are many things that you disagree with does not mean you don’t support a party overall.
If disagreement with an issue/s means you cannot support a party we’d all be independants.
Iraq is a bad example - that was action without either UN or EU sanction. Action in Zim is proposed to be by the rules of SADC and the AU. They are not keeping their own rules.
And I honestly wonder if you are just pretending to support the ANC to keep your ratings up.
Your proposal moves us closer to a possible answer to the obdurate intractability of the ANC. They are a law unto themselves and because there is no downside the simply ignore all criticism.
Imagine if FIFA were to announce the withdrawal of the soccer world cup in the face of the ANCs refusal to facilitate a solution in Zimbabwe. The situation is certainly serious enough to warrant such a step. If FIFA fail to do so they may have to consider the prospect of a full scale civil war on our borders as a backdrop to the soccer tournament. That should keep the international fans away.
Mike,
Even if you now reject my Zim/SA analysis, as 2009 proceeds you will start to understand why it is pertinent.
Of course, my views might be too prescient for many commentators but events will inevitably reveal their accuracy. Unfortunately, for those who disagree, time is on my side.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
belle
“-Widespread service delivery failure?
-Rising Poverty?
-Rising infant mortality?
-Failed education systems?
-Incapacity to plan future requirements (water, power, food security)?”
Yes - all those are valid criticism of the “business friendly” policies of the neoliberal Mbeki government - failures that were predicted aeons by amongst others independent journalists like John Pilger - goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6287790/Apartheid-did-not-die.html
So instead of mindlessly bashing the ANC lets us all applaud the ANC for democratically electing (although somewhat belatedly) Jacob Zuma and his “left leaning allies” and giving Mbeki and his pro-capitalist boeties, including but not limited to Saki Macozoma, the boot for their spectacular policy failures.
“Traps, your continued support for the ANC defies logic.”
“What would it take for the ANC to lose your support, Traps?”
Belle, that is an interesting question. But could it be that Traps would support The ANC come what may?
Surely loyalty is a virtue? Should Trapzuman really be condemned as a political commentator because he is a true friend of The ANC?
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Michael Trapido on December 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am writes
“The fact that there are many things that you disagree with does not mean you don’t support a party overall.”
Yes, that is so true. Even though one has fundamental disagreements it is perfectly logical to support the party. Otherwise, the party is just left with fair weather supporters. And that is morally wrong.
Lets say, for arguments sake, that Derby County is relegated again because they are playing lousy football. Does that mean that Mike should stop supporting them? The worse they play, the more support they need!
The same applies to political parties. However appalling their record in govt, one is still obliged to vote for them. As The ANC drags you into oblivion, you should sing even more loudly for the party of liberation.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Michael Trapido on December 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am writes..
“Baecoza I’m not considering withdrawing my support for the ANC. What I’m asking is whether the idiots who dictate its foreign policy are prepared to test those who support the ANC with this continued insanity on Zimbabwe?”
Yes, Michael your faith in The ANC is now being “tested”. But don’t reject your Messiah. There will be many along the road, even “dictators” like myself, who will try to lead you astray with false Messiahs, like Helen Zille? But, I beg you, please ignore us. We are the devil’s work. And verily, that is why I have been blacklisted.
Michael, you must be strong. You must not waiver. And especially over a silly thing like Zimbabwe which is really just a storm in a teacup.
Michael, the promised land of Zimbabwe is on the horizon. And verily you are about to enter it. Do not forsake The ANC.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 28th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Michael,
I can handle disagreements, thrive on them, but when the heart becomes desparately sick and contaminates what it is supposed to give life to, then it’s time to earnestly reconsider.
I respect your stance and your freedom to choose it. Just love your insights - your party? No!
Mike,
You must admit it. I have been writing some classic comments for your blog.
So is there anyway that I can start to share in the blog’s advertising revenue? Surely, I must be bringing readers to your site?
I am always sending emails etc advertising your blog and you should take it into account when assessing how many people visit your site.
Perhaps you can give me a smaller share for censored comments? Say 95% of an uncensored comment.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“lyndall ask,i honestly wonder whether you jst pretendin to support ANC or…its jst for ratings?”
what a good question?,surely a good,loyal & committed ANC member cannot continue spew utter diatribe the way you (Traps) have been doing…
BL’s comment was edited out for some reason (not by me I don’t edit comments)Here it is :
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR :
In response to your request, I have quickly put together the following:
My “insight” is..
(1) SA/ZIM is effectively a political union.
(2)Many Zimbabweans are now, effectively, South Africans, As you know, millions of Zimbabweans are living in SA. If they weren’t, there would be widespread starvation in Zim. Hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people would be dying.
(3) Zim is a Rand/ Dollar economy. The fact that the Zim dollar is worthless is further evidence that Zim has no sovereignty.
(4) SADC and The AU are irrelevant.
(5) SA aid will continue to support Zanu PF.
You might well ask,, “Blacklisted, why is it important to understand the above 5 points?” The reasons are..
(1) Commentators, like yourself, can start to evaluate the implications of this analysis. It is no longer, appropriate just to see Mugabe as “insane/stupid” or to see The ANC’s policy re Zim as misguided/stupid etc.
(2) You can start to evaluate the rational reasons why Zumalema PF has followed Mbeki’s policy.
(3) You can start evaluating whether it is really in SA’s interest to incorporate Zim into SA.
(4) What sort of future does Zumalema PF see for the province of Zimbabwe?
(5) What are the implications for SA politics and life in SA?
I believe that neither Mugabe or Zumalema PF will lose any sleep if hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans start dying. It should be seen as “ethnic cleansing”. They see the population levels in Zim as unsustainable.
Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe are no longer needed.
It actually makes sense to have millions of Zimbabweans living in SA. They are generally better educated than SA’s indigenous population and more docile.
I would imagine that you will now say.. “Blacklisted, we have now heard your view, so please keep quiet. There is no point repeating it.”
And my response is..
“Whilst you, and many others continue to be bemused on a daily basis by what is going on, I have a moral duty to repeat it. Because, only by repeating it will a rational debate emerge and the current smoke-screen be removed.”
Mike,
I know that you have written about Zim ad infinitum. In the circumstances, I think that you should actually discuss my ideas in an editorial. Of course, you might not agree with them. But they should be discussed because it might lead to a productive debate about the realpolitiks underlying the current SA/ZIM nightmare.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 27th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“In the circumstances, I think that you should actually discuss my ideas in an editorial.”
Well sometimes I wished I could analyze in an editorial here on “thoughtleaders” how it is possible for anti-ANC political commentators to concoct a word like “zumalema PF” when the public record clearly shows that Zuma, Cosatu and the SACP has for many years now been the most vocal supporters of the MDC opposition in Zimbabwe and the most virulent critics of ZANU PF, and has done more than any opposition party in South Africa to actively oppose the Mugabe regime.
It just demonstrates once again the rhetorical clumsiness, lack of integrity and the intellectually bankruptcy of the typical anti-ANC band wagoner. I guess it must be damn hard to concede that the “left leaning allies” of Zuma has been at the forefront of the real battle for democracy in Zimbabwe and Swaziland - a battle that exceeds the selfish interests of the predominantly white reactionaries who have all but ignored Swaziland and only became obsessed with democracy in Zimbabwe after the advent of the land redistribution program in 2000.
Traps, there are so many hidden agendas and problems underlying the actions of the ANC, one doesn’t even know where to start to unravel them. It would suit you well to do a proper root-cause analysis one day, over and above describing the facts.
Maybe some of the following thoughts could guide your and our thinking:
1) Propping up a one-time hero turned mass murderer and mad dictator like Mugabe seems like a deep-rooted moral problem to me. I have once asked myself, and some of my friends (as a consequence of discussions we have had during Philosophy classes in high school), if I would treat my own father as murderer, in case he ever committed a capital crime, or whether I would still prefer looking upon him as the child-caring person I have loved before he turned into a criminal. Would I try and use all of the good things I knew about him from the past as arguments in favour of him, trying to retain the idealistic picture I once made up in my mind instead of facing the reality? Or, would I sacrifice the glorified image and replace it with a proper, reality-checked version, one that is more in line with the present, not least with my own moral standards? In essence, would I call him father or murderer and, what’s more, act accordingly? At that time, I made a decision for that hypothetical scenario in my mind and it was in favor of the “murderer” gate. So, I look at the ANC in terms of their Mugabe/Zimbabwe-stance from 2 different perspectives: (i) they are either simply immoral, provided that their constituent members were ever part of the value system I (or we) believe in; or (ii) they are working on the grounds of a completely different value system after all, and one that I don’t understand, at least am no part of. This is, in many ways, the surrogate battle many an African nation and its leadership are really fighting when they clash with Western countries over questions of principle, say, whether or not to impose sanctions on the brutal regime in Burma. Unfortunately, current and past examples indicate a strong tendency towards option (ii). If this is in fact the case, many of the comments on this as well as on other website are completely missing the point, since many of the commentators share a particular value system (including basic human rights or democracy) whereas in fact the target of their critiques, e.g. the ANC, probably don’t. So, a key task for any serious commentator will be to determine what type of moral value system the ANC belongs to and whether we would find ourselves a home there too…
2) Another key issue related to the way the SA government and the ANC are dealing with Mugabe and Zimbabwe is the leadership’s obsession with saviour-type-of father figures. From an emotional development point of view the people who seem to be running the show (now and, say, for the last 10 years), as well as – not to forget – their entourage, appear like teenagers willing to die or lie or deceit etc for one of their glorious idols. To me, this is indicative of a dangerous personal immaturity and I am wondering whether any of the affected personalities are fit to making proper rational decisions in the important day-jobs they probably have (let’s say President of this country, or Minister of Foreign Affairs). Anyway, you wouldn’t trust a 15-year old who throws teddy bears at Robbie Williams with running your company, least of all your country, would you? So, why then is it ok for Thabo Mbeki to idolise Mugabe, and for Julius Malema to uncritically adore Jacob Zuma? Because they don’t have anything else going on in their lives? Because to them loosing their glorified idol would be like letting go of the last straw of consistency that keeps them from drowning in this dangerously dynamic world of uncertainties of ours? I reckon it’s something vaguely similar to the latter. What makes things even worse is the fact that the outgoing generation of leaders has seemingly imprinted the younger generation of politicians with exactly the same fallacy, only that the affected individuals chose ANC-targets to worship instead of foreign African liberation heroes. So, where does all of this leave us with respect to the current leadership of this country and the way they can effectively deal with the problems in Zimbabwe? I reckon unless they all take part in some intensive group therapy sessions things will get a lot worse in Zimbabwe (and elsewhere on this continent because – like I have argued in (i) – South Africa has lost its standing as a role model for morality): The idol won’t let go and neither will the hardcore fans! They are in this business together, nurturing each other, deserving each other. Should the hero eventually fall (or die of natural circumstances or just be barred from fulfilling the joint vision), watchful guards will take over swiftly, creating a situation of sufficient chaos that leaves enough room for some overdue allocation of benefits and creative rebranding of the company, amongst others, so everybody can be back in business for the next season of African Idols. After all, the key message the Mugabes, Zumas and Malemas of this world are conveying is: You, I, we need a Messiah borne out of the Eternal Struggle, otherwise we wouldn’t know how to find into the mouth when brushing our teeth in the morning, or would we?
3) Ok, for those of you who have come so far, here is a piece by Bert Brecht (from his “Stories of Mr Keuner, The question of whether there is a God) as further food for thought: A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behaviour would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.”
ozoneblue on December 29th, 2008 at 4:35 pm writes..
” the public record clearly shows that Zuma, Cosatu and the SACP has for many years now been the most vocal supporters of the MDC opposition in Zimbabwe and the most virulent critics of ZANU PF.”
However, it is clear that the post Mbeki ANC administration is not supporting the MDC opposition. Nothing has changed and Mbeki is still even running ANC diplomacy re Zim.
I am pleased to now know that my Zumalema PF concoction can be attributed to my “intellectual bankruptcy.” I thought it originated from my poetic licence!
Zimbabwe, btw, is no longer a nation state. It does not exist. It has been consumed by South Africa.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The following is Trapido’s email response to my “SA/Zim” comment. ( I include it because he has not bloogged a response.)
“I don’t know why the M&G editors censored it.
To me it is the most ludicrous analysis on Zimbabwe I’ve seen so far and for me I would be loathe to have it left out. I want it there to refer to regularly.
It is so patently wrong it hardly seems worth editing at all.
The line does appear racist and that is why the eds may have decided not to allow it.” (Michael Trapido)
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on December 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
BL dictator
“However, it is clear that the post Mbeki ANC administration is not supporting the MDC opposition. Nothing has changed and Mbeki is still even running ANC diplomacy re Zim.”
To demonstrate once again how ridiculous and self-contradictory your “zumalema PF” nickname for the Zuma led ANC is. First you have to ignore the fact that Zuma/ANCYL/Cosatu/SACP has historically been the staunches critics of the Mugabe regime - with Cosatu even enforcing an unofficial arms boycott against that regime. Then you have to somehow ignore the fact that the Zuma faction are not ruling the ANC or the ANC led government by decree but has to abide by the decisions of the NEC and continue along the existing policies of the SA government. No doubt, when it comes to economic policies you would hypocritically applaud those checks and balances.
The analogy just doesn’t work on so many levels it is hard to take anything you say seriously after that.
While all the points you make are interesting and perfectly sound, they are once again essentially diversionary, like Michael’s piece.
The source of the endless difficulties (like cultural differences) in explaining actions and outcomes in Zim is the insistence on concentrating on the morality of them.
It simplifies things at once to change this viewpoint or ‘filter’ - as, for example:
We would all go to a shoemaker for a pair of shoes and possibly even to ask his opinion on the direction of the price of leather; we would hardly expect him to pronounce satisfactorily on the rightness of capital punishment or our daughter’s divorce.
Yet when we come to the ‘trade’ of politics we expect its practitioners not only to be experts on morals, but also to act ethically in every case.
Never mind that it is unrealistic; it does no help
understanding.
Politicians are motivated, first and last, by political considerations (that is to say, they only invoke morals in between). We are best advised then to ask first: what are the political reasons for the chief actors’ behaviour throughout the Zim crisis. The ‘agendas and problems underlying the actions’ are then not ‘hidden’, but in plain view.
Incidentally, you may have run across the realist’s (as opposed to the moralist’s) answer on your point 3 too - Pascal’s Wager.
Pascal proposed that it was foolish not to believe in God because if that proved to be right, you had no hope of eternal life. Best bet was to believe in God. If you were wrong you were no worse off; but if you were right, you were assured salvation.
As an aside to this discussion, it is extremely surprising that BL.D’s post was edited out and pleasing, as expected, that it was not by you.
Strange how people judge some views to be - what? -’unacceptable’ and yet, when they do, suppose others to be incapable of reaching the same conclusion on their own.
Thank you for (presumably) arguing and winning that you do not want or need censorship on your site.
ozoneblue on January 1st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The Zuma faction is now in control and SA policy re Zim remains the same. As far as I can see, the SA govt is backing Zanu PF. As a result, Zumalema PF is an accurate moniker.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on January 1st, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Paul Whelan on January 1st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Michael Trapido has now stated that he will “ignore” all my comments. Of course, he is within his rights and I only demand that my comments are published on this blog in accordnace with the editorial guidelines.
Trapido admits that my SA/ZIM comment was “censored” by Thought Leader but vehmently condemns me for reporting the matter to The Freedom Of Expression Institute. Of course I have no faith in The FXI but that isanother can of worms!
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on January 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
It is a pity that nobody has come forward re…. I challenge anyone to present a cogent argument supporting the premise that Zimbabwe is still an independent nation state.
If people think that my “SA/ZIM” thesis is rubbish, they should clearly outline precisely where I have gone wrong. If nobody is willing or able to do so, one might conclude that there is “method in my madness”.
Here he tries to justify why the USA was right in blocking Prof Habib’s visit.
In other words freedom of expression that he agrees with seems to be the order of the day.
You might want to run through that blog to see :
1. The personal and abusive attacks he makes on many of the academics of this country.
2. How popular his own blog actually was.
Somehow he feels that the people who visit “Traps” are here to see him.
They don’t consider the topics or the writer they’re actually here to visit him.
If the M & G fail to include one of his comments it constitutes a conspiracy against him but he can quite happily see one of our professors being denied access to the USA.
Whether you agree with Prof Habib or not freedom of speech (particularly if you hold yourself out as such)should be paramount.
I am not sure if this is appropriate here, but it always seems to me that any restriction on freedom of speech must produce more problems than solutions.
Even to prevent someone expressing a deeply offensive racist view (as many consider Zapiro’s famous/infamous cartoon to be, for instance) is in some awkward sense a curtailment of free speech, presumably justified by the claim that ‘others’, like children, need protection from things they are incapable of handling by themselves.
But how can a watertight case for limitations and bans ever be made where the hope is for an open society of free - and adult - individuals?
Put it like this: we can all think of things that we can probably agree we should not be ‘allowed’ to say. But what things should we not be ‘allowed’ to hear? And who is to take that decision on themselves and make it for us?
It provdies something of a path through these quicksands to shift perspective - to view the subject not in terms of ‘freedom of speech’ at all, but to grasp that the real danger is there is no logical limit to censorship.
Open the door to it and sooner or later it takes over the whole house.
Michael,
At what point in a party’s evolution does one say that this is no longer the party it once was - and move on?
Has the ANC in power (after Mandela) ever held true to its democratic ideals? If so, why the support for Zimbabwe ? Why the support for garlic ? Why the gradual degradation of law and order ? Why the banning of the Scorpions ? Why the blue-light empires ?
At some stage, you have to agree that the party is not following its own policies. Just as Mbeki and now Motlanthe were forever excusing Mugabe’s behaviour, you seem to fill the same role saying that the party is not Motlanthe, Mbeki or Zuma. But it is !
I recall many of my Afrikaner friends saying the same about the Nationalist Party. The reality is that Vorster, Botha and company WERE the Nationalist Party.
I’m afraid I see little difference between the old Nationalists supporting apartheid and the ANC supporting Mad Bob. Both are equally morally reprehensible.
Time for change - if SA is to survive.
Peter Win on January 4th, 2009 at 8:31 am writes, inter aslia,
“Michael,
At what point in a party’s evolution does one say that this is no longer the party it once was - and move on?
Has the ANC in power (after Mandela) ever held true to its democratic ideals? If so, why the support for Zimbabwe ?”
You raise some good questions. I have also posed them. Of course, such questions should be answered. If they are not properly answered, you might conclude that they cannot actually receive a satisfactory response.
A few years ago we entered the twilight era of the post-apartheid democracy. It is an era where nothing can be clearly seen. Subterfuge rules. To be honest, I find it quite unsettling. There is a monster lurking on the horizon and virtually nobody wants to identify it or even admit that it exists. If one takes a pair of binoculars out, one is immediately labelled “racist” “reactionary” or “idiotic”. It is the era of denialism and one where
questions remain unanswered.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on January 4th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Leave a Reply
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
African National Congress secretary-general Gwede Mantashe in a report in The Star newspaper on Friday called upon newspaper editors to join the debat...
The African National Congress Youth League in the Eastern Cape confirmed yesterday that it would be convening a congress in the province despite there...
One of the most fascinating aspects of the Brett Kebble murder trial in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg is the fact that the accused, Gle...
Just when African National Congress Youth League President Julius Malema believed he had an iron grip on the Limpopo province following the banishing ...
The undertaking by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe, in his address to the SA National Editors' Forum in Johannesburg on Saturday night, that the governme...
Loading ...
I’ve sometimes wondered if Mugabe has sold his soul to the devil in exchange for youth and power - he has always amazed me in that he just doesn’t seem to age.
I’m now wondering whether he has let the ANC in on his secret. I can’t think of any rational reasons for their behavior.
(Report abuse)