The ‘Spear – painting’ deservedly got painted!

Amidst public outcry, court-cases, and protest march

Silly claims of innocence, with no harm intended

Two men, one ‘black’ and one ‘white’

Decided this abuse will not see this night

Two men, one  ‘young’ one ‘old’

Found this image simply cold

Two men, armed with paint red and black

The one a brush, the other only his hand

Guts they did not lack

Two men, representing our humanity

Two men possibly representing different class

Yet one in their pursuit

One in their conviction

Totally one in their action

Their arrest marred in controversy

The only time these became colour-coded ‘black and white’

For the ‘black’ manhandled,

Head-butted even, choked

Wrestled to the ground, with support

When he offered no resistance

The ‘white’  left standing, interviewed

As some wanted to rationally engage

Only much later decently cable-tied

Today the ‘painting’ deservedly got painted

Today,  I celebrate them for they are heroes

Heroes for they understood,

The depravity of a sick mind

The heartlessness of a claimed superiority

The abuse of a constitutional franchise of freedom of expression

Two men, who both in humanity,

Relived the shame of Cuvier’s dissecting of Mother Saartjie Baartman

An abnormal obsession Cuvier had with Baartman’s womanhood

Now depicted in Murray’s tasteless, racist depiction of Zuma

Today Brett Murray got deservedly painted!!

By : Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

May 22, 2012 ( 12h24) Copyright observed

- Are we as South Africans not open for blackmail by some who played a role and today feel entitled to dictate? Are we taking ‘struggle heroes’ too serious?

Listening to an interview of the debates on the status of the RSA constitution as conducted by Robin Kurnow of CNN with Adv. George Bizos, one cannot help but wonder if some people claim an inalienable right to know Nelson Mandela’s thoughts. Equally what is good for SA as a whole, only because they played a role?

Bizos claims that Nelson R. Mandela is a very sad man.  Mandela according to Bizos is disappointed. Bizos fails to tell us the source of Mandela’s sadness or disappointment. We know Bizos as a jurist and individual is public about his views on the constitutional and judicial review debate. The same which we respect, yet these must not naturally be conflated as Mandela’s views. It appears that Bizos is still held captive for serving at one stage as one of a number of attorneys of Mandela.

If it is that former president Mandela is ‘sad’ and ‘disappointed’ – in what exactly is this sadness located, if indeed he is disappointed in what is this rooted?   I ask these questions not of former President Mandela but from those who claim to speak either officially or unofficially on his behalf.  I believe that Nelson  Mandela  as a loyal and disciplined member of the ANC has access to the existing leadership to share such ‘sadness’ or ‘disappointment’. Nelson Mandela has always conducted himself with such keen respect for the Movement that made him, his respect for such Movement as shared in his recorded work speaks volumes.

Bizos’  reminded us of the words of  the scholar Manning Marable in his book on Malcolm X: A life of reinvention – who reminds us studiously “the great temptation for the biographer of an iconic figure is to portray him or her as a virtual saint, without the normal contradictions and blemishes that all human beings have”.

Nelson R. Mandela is on record for disassociating himself from this sainthood claim that some continues to invoke upon him at the expense of the ANC.  The Mandela we know is a human being like all of us. As a member of the ANC he also understood the dialectical tension between  dreaming of change and  leading the charge for transformation, the same an ANC led administration since 1994 is making progress on with its equal success and failures.

It is my observation that there is a concerted, meticulously crafted myth in SA propagated that seeks to separate Nelson Mandela from the ANC. This flawed separation pits him in ‘sainthood’ as diametrically the opposite of  an ‘evil’ ANC organisation.  In this separation there is a further need to see the dawn of democracy as a Nelson Mandela project that which he in magic wand fashion dreamt up and magically was able to deliver.
The debate on the constitution cannot be a closed-ended one in which  there are proverbial holy cows. It cannot be a debate in which some parts of the arms of state remain naturally above question and others necessarily the subject of suspicion. The debate on our constitution cannot be hushed into silence only because some for unholy reasons want to regard the constitution as sacrosanct. The debate asks from all of us to rise above pettiness and a  parading fear based pre-occupation rhetoric.

Our constitution as powerful, historical and tone-setting initiative and document  remains our hope and dream therefore a work in progress. Yet it equally asks of us to interpret and reinterpret constantly the nature of relations of the arms of state to give meaning and definition to its values and creeds. Such checks and balances  – dialectical tension in the abundance of caution demands of neither of  the arms of state to be hijacked by agendas that ill-serve the ideals of the hope of equality and the demand for transformation as a non negotiable.

If our democracy is under threat it is under threat from those who claim a right to maintain the status quo in class definition, economic disparity and land ownership definition as it depicts in 2012. This attempt to use  the very constitution to counter the transformation agenda  warrants condemnation. This maintenance of status quo as propagated by the self-appointed custodians of democracy is in defence of an Apartheid era, our collective history of suppression where democracy was a swear word.

For the record the attainment of freedom for all South Africans  is and remains an ANC led process in which its leaders its people and those who believed in such vision from across all spheres were willing to lay down their lives.  This organisation and its leaders must receive the credit and equal condemnation if it fails to deliver the democracy for which they were entrusted.

The debate on the constitution remains a healthy one, one in which we as South Africans must engage with an open mind and not out of fear. We need not approach this debate from the cheap vested corners, nor is this a naturally deduced  attack on the judiciary, which has become shaped by the myopic “majority-gevaar” prism, in typical ‘swart –gevaar’ tactics of yesterday.

If democracy rules in SA it must respect the will of the people and we need not fear majority rule as the innate enemy of such democracy. From where a belief that democracy is only safeguarded by an opposition? From where the one sided conviction that we are fed in SA that the opposition holds the key and true prove of our democracy?

The defence of the SA constitution is not the arrogated right of a few who act as if they are the ordained gatekeepers and founders of the South African dream, but all of us. Asking questions and reviewing  our constitution and its relevance for the transformation agenda must not be misconstrued in a heretical sense as diametrically opposed to the intentions of democracy but a normal outflow as we chart our common way towards the dream of equality.

An equality which for many sectors of our society exemplified in rural hinterlands, peri-urban communities and former townships remains a demand that must be answered. Our defence of the SA constitution must not be out of self interest and in  disregard of the prevailing disparity of economic definition of the majority of the people of South Africa or service delivery failures. This constitution must deal with and answer why South Africa remains geographically owned by a minority. It must ask why the SA economy has remained an apartheid based economy in which a handful of permitted Africans share. It must ask what the tension between those who own and those who do not own mean. It must fundamentally ask what the  rights of individuals mean in the bigger scheme of our historical background and how this relates to where we heading.

One may be forgiven to think the defence of the constitution is not at all times and honest pursuit by some for these believe those who hold political power as trusted by the masses necessarily constitute the enemy of the very constitution. An illogic that finds meaning in opposition rhetoric politics.

For the record no individual including  George Bizos is the founder of our democracy, hence no one should be allowed to act as such founder, be he /she a  politician, jurist,  priest, academic, business baron, analyst, former political prisoner, former exile, former inzile,  student, journalist, owner of media house or member of an opposition formation.

It is my view that we afford some people in our society too much respect and power that they uniquely feel entitled to dictate, even  blackmail us in the name of our heroes. These act as arbiters of where we are in the course of the transformation agenda and share their views as the gospel because we afford them such space. This again has nothing to do with the enshrined freedom of speech right, but deals with the psyche of some who arrogate a right above others to dictate.

Saying this does not in the least negate the right of a Bizos or anyone to share his/her views, nor to question the role he/she  played at a time historically, and even in a later epoch. However we must prove cautious to delink the so called ‘prima-donna’ status or ‘exaggerated role’ some have played for it blinds us to critique, question and challenge them in this epoch. It shuts us up to say, you wrong because we are constantly reminded what so and so did, in a specific epoch and we are to eternally prove conscious and indebted to this ‘exaggerated’ roles played.

History has shown these like all of us can be wrong in their assumptions, these like all of us are open to a change of heart. These like all of us  are open to influences and sentiments (negative not excluded). These no different to all of us are not free from the entrapments of the ego of arrogated power, the same Lord Aton warned against a long time ago. We must pause and accept that  not everything that proceeds from the mouths or pens of our ‘icons’ or ‘struggle heroes’ is the gospel. The question of struggle heroes remains a highly contested arena, but that is a debate for another day.

If Nelson Mandela is today  sad, and disappointed as stated by Bizos on the subject of the constitution which is under attack we must ask who is the official spokesman to share that with the world? Is he quoted verbatim, or is he used to blackmail those who lead today?

If Mandela is sad and disappointed is it because he never expected a debate or assessment of the judiciary and the constitution on the road we had traversed in democratic pursuit? Perhaps the Mandela  name that has enriched many is at times used to blackmail South Africans such blackmail is rooted in a foreign  agenda.

-You not inspiring confidence-

The Boks have a new coach so we are told, the name of this coach is Heynecke Meyer, his previous success in the domestic cup competitions as club team made him the preferred choice.   

Some cried foul when he was firstly overlooked for they  even believed that he instead of Pieter  De Villiers should have been the coach. Yet recent mutterings and press briefings from Meyer details and unravels  another story. 

Meyer selected and as others opined loaded the staff compliment with people he believes are competent though many claim it was essentially strongly Blue Bull spiced. In all of this he secured the services of Rassie Erasmus former Cheetahs player and coach, certainly this must count for something given the repute and history of Erasmus. 

The appointment of support staff, is the manager/ coach responsibility and prerogative hence I am all for him finding the right people that would support his vision which is really delivering a successful Bok- Team by winning games and ultimately the coveted world cup dream the same that eluded De Villiers for crazy reasons. 

Given Meyer’s background and success at club level this feat though a cumbersome one therefore should not be an insurmountable one for his history speaks volumes. 

I am afraid that is how far I can give Meyer credit because his recent media statements leave much to explain. 

Meyer firstly complained sbout a lack of options on choosing a captain from the existing crop of players. In Meyer’s mind this problem can only be solved by luring retired players back into the squad to assume the role. He attempted to recall retired players to lead the Bok squad. Everyone knows the importance of a proper leader on the field hence the choice of captaincy constitutes a critical component in the success equation. That is not the point of contention rather Meyers obsession that only a captain of yesteryear will work. 

Understanding Meyer correctly, he bemoans the fact that the current Bok- squad lacks a captain hence his forced romancing of a Matfield to return. 

The error of this lays at levels, firstly Matfield went into retirement by choice having served the nation and participated in two worldcups. He is without any doubt a success story at both club and national level, but the man retired and must be afforded his rightful rest. What may inspire a Matfield more ? 

The error of holding onto players of yesteryear as inspirational as it is understood in the mind of a Meyer does not inspire confidence for one of the young lads to raise their hands to fill the vacant shoes for their coach with these myopic utterances expresses his lack  confidence in them from the start. 

The celebrated Bok- captains all were developed into what they became none of then arrived as the final sellable package. 

Central to this confusion of Meyer thinking is the veiled emerging dialectical tension between country success and personal image. It is time Meyer is told that the success of the Bok- Team comes first and his personal legacy a distant second. His decision to conclude it will be difficult to appoint a  captain does not augur well for developing leaders on the field of play and it does not inspire confidence from the most important man to give us our new leaders. 

Perhaps I could forgive Meyer for searching for a captain in all the wrong places, but his latest media statement or excuse of him having to resort to young players for the England  matches, irks the daylights out if me. Off course Meyer from where did you think you will draft the Bok-Team  if not from the young ones, the same you have shown no confidence in.

Can you for once walk out of the shadow of a Jake White and Pieter De Villiers thinking and prove  your own man. Jake White’s reasons for supporting Meyer on a Matfield appointment is laced with personal pride and not national pride.  Lest we forget White has always believed he is the only coach for the Bok- Team and a resurgence of old players will confirm this testosterone driven ego based belief. White even tried to interfere with a Pieter de Villiers choice as coach in the middle of De Villiers term declaring himself available to coach the Boks. Arrogance sheer arrogance. 

 Meyer please get busy to  develop your own team and succeed or fail, but stop the whining. Good coaches find, develop and build great players and ultimately cups. 

Your latest antics gives me the sense SARU appointed a coach who is much more concerned with his personal image to remain squeaky clean, when coaching demands getting dirty. 

The Bok- Team is not need of a spokesman who gives interviews all the time, but a coach who can deliver, we had enough of the interviews tell us who are the next leaders your eye have spotted. Give us your plan, yes a plan from scratch. 

So coach Meyer, leave the media stunts in which you hog attention for the wrong reasons, please coach and manage the team for which you are handsomely paid. It’s time you earn your fat salary and deliver a team with a captain and vice spotted by you, groomed by you and developed by you.

 I refuse to accept that the young lads have no leadership potential. It’s simply sophistic to claim there is no one to raise their hands in captaincy, get on with your job for that is on what you will be judged. 

You like all coaches will not escape the wrath of us supporters for failing no amount of talking to the media will deny you our wrath if the team falters. 

Next time you talk let it be inspiring and confidence boosting for your statements thus far borders on the negative even pessimism. This Mr. Coach simply  does not augur well for the collective morale of a young team less us who believe in them and you to deliver the goods. 

Clyde N. Ramalaine
A concerned Bok- Supporter

The End -Malema expelled!

                 –   he came he saw and was slain by his own ego, now buried in political grave -

The long in the making much publicised, almost over analyzed and anticipated end of Malema has finally come. This a few days shy of Freedom Day, April 27, 2012. Thinking on this end of Malema I thought how best to summarize his swift political rise and end and came up with “He came, saw, became intoxicated, swaggered in bombastic arrogance and was slain now he lays buried in a grave he meticulously dug despite several warnings”. This must encapsulate the closing chapter in the Malema commentary.

Julius Malema from Seshego is this morning expelled, politically buried, in a deep grave he meticulously dug for himself. As unassuming as he made his entrance to politics so with less public fanfare the NDCA confirmed the expulsion of Malema as ruled by the NDC, from the party. The very party he joined voluntarily and later confused to be his personal possession. The same he and his cohorts assumed they could control with untimely utterances laced with utter disrespect of an ANC leadership.

Malema is sent into political wilderness and knows this morning like Barcelona notwithstanding the skill of a Lionel Messi, that they are out of the EUFA Cup Finals beaten by a ten men Chelsea (my favourite English Football club) team.

This ‘silent’ no public fanfare handling of the expulsion was the best the ANC could do in my estimation. It is my view that the ANC made too much of its first NDCA findings with a live broadcast, for it afforded Malema and his cohorts a space and place it was not deserving.

In an organisation like the ANC disciplinary hearings happen all the time with less media attention. Affording Malema and ANCYL leaders this media attention was in my assessment and error the same the ANC leadership learnt from as this ruling came almost unnoticed and devoid of fanfare.

In understanding the Malema demise one must understand that his election at the 24th ANCYL conference was never really recognised. The ANC leadership simply never acknowledged or afforded the ANCYL leadership recognition, for it must have known the child it was raising will never respect it.  Perhaps Zuma’s call for discipline at the last NGC in 2010, was the start of the disowning of a Malema ANCYL leadership. The ANC leadership never entertained the ANCYL leadership elected at the last ANCYL Conference. This is  another prove that Zuma in political leadership is streets ahead of many and those who think his grin is one of stupidity do so at their own peril.

Not only is Malema send packing, but his two chief lieutenants Secretary General Sindiso Magaqa and the motormouth spokesperson Floyd Shivambu, are effectively silenced with suspensions of one and three years respectively.  They are suspended on their current appeals, notwithstanding the fact that more investigations against the two are in the offing for their ill-timed latest salvo of insults on Zuma and Ramaphosa respectively.

As the days tick by the political landscape hogged for the last 3 years by an obscure young man from Seshego who became Newsmaker of the 2011 year will yearn for some ‘Juju magic’ and yet such yearning will not be answered. For Malema is no longer wearing green, black and yellow the very  colours that made him such an appetizing and non gratifying diet.

We read how he pleaded even offered to relinquish his post as ANCYL chairperson as long as he was given the right to stay on as a member of the ANC.  It is him as ANC member challenging, defying and disrespecting the ANC leadership that made him so welcome in media embrace. His pleading could not have been sincere because he remained unremorseful and defiant, marked as unrehabitable in ANC constitutional embrace.

Without the ANC the movement that many live to hate, critique, and condemn, yet must contend with as the only organisation in post apartheid consistently trusted with the public vote remains the party to beat, Malema finds out he is just another guy from Seshego.  Others left the ANC thinking they could go on by themselves and found out it is rather cold outside the ANC.

Perhaps the words attributed to Malema as a voicemail message he left for the very media whom he not so long in typical Lady Di manner romanced helps us understand the tragedy of the man from Seshego. “At the end of everything else we will not remember the words uttered by the enemies against us but will remember the silence of our friends during this difficult times…”

This mouthful philosophical summary perhaps becomes Malema’s most pungent attempt at being diplomatic, if only he depended more on this less known philosophical side.

This is really a cry from someone who overestimated the “friendship” shared in political agenda and circles. Malema laments the absence of those who claimed a friendship in promise. Perhaps this is again prove that Malema  in political  childhood misunderstood that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, but common interest with unknown but definite expiry dates.

His saying to his “friends” in ANC and ANCYL embrace you dropped us; you have not honoured what you promised to do. These unseen “friends” that Malema refer to  previously begged for opportunities to speak at ANCYL events know themselves and must not be surprised if Malema later on mention their names, for he has nothing more to lose and is a wounded one. He is saying if we had enemies these made themselves known if we had friends these too made themselves in this season unknown.

Could this be a veiled reminder to a Motlanthe, Phosa, Sexwale, Mbalula etc, all pretenders to the various thrones promised, again only Malema’s friends know themselves? What did Malema really want his ‘friends’ to do in  this season, or is he reminding them to honour their promise of NEC intervention?

Now the proverbial curtain is drawn, with a bunch of legal cases and investigations shading Malema’s future he is perhaps memorialised in political museum immortalised as one who came, saw, got inebriated, swaggered in bombastic arrogance and was slain by his own ego, banished to the political wilderness from where no one who left the ANC has ever made a comeback.

Indeed the end of Malema and any hope of NEC motivation to overturn this NDCA ruling remains a mirage which with time will evaporate into oblivion as self-interest the trading commodity of politicians weighs more than an expelled ex comrade, from Seshego and his lieutenants.

ANCYL will soon as foretold by Zuma appoint a new leader and continue with the business of its youth programme the same which was left in abeyance dwarfed by the personality politics that became a defining characteristic of the modern day ANCYL dictating its role and purpose.

As Malema rides off into the sunset of possible farming the jostling for ANCYL leadership has long begun and those who never really supported a Malema leadership lifted their hands availing themselves for the post. Yet this morning with one proviso the ANCYL is a much slender in size, an even lighter in weight and a trimmed down entity who will never again become the playground of defiance of an ANC constitution or leadership.

Perhaps Mbalula’s true legacy is that he produced an ill-disciplined Malema because the latter was his handpicked successor.  Malema’s true legacy is that he perhaps eternally robbed ANCYL from its so called claimed ‘kingmaker status’, a militant thinking structure to a  toothless young lion, a disciplined structure of the ANC, for no one ever will dare what Malema dared in ill- discipline.

The media must now find its next newsmaker for Malema is done and dusted and the word former ANCYL leader is already ringing in our ears. My question what makes  anyone with so much potential, who literally raised the critical economic redress debate, die such a premature political death, the answer the EGO or pride, that which makes and equally can kill us.  Indeed pride do comes before the fall….

Clyde N. Ramalaine

-Walking with the wounded, the gateway to Tuynhuis –

‘Advice to the ‘anointed President Motlanthe’: Take a leaf from the books of Mbeki and Zuma’

There is an adage that an old clergy shared with me many years ago on the three stages of the life of a pastor. He said the first stage is when they sing your praise, the second stage they question you and the final stage they call for your head. In my short life I have seen that over and over yet this is not limited to the church but is playing out in front of our eyes in ANC politics as the political trade winds are blowing across the arid spaces of South Africa.

This weekend the subject to final appeal expelled president of the ANCYL, Julius Malema in Limpopo in mix masala of threat, sadness and defiance, at a rally officially called for a replacement of Zuma with Motlanthe his deputy. This call is gradually gaining momentum in some circles. It appears we are set for the sequel of a Polokwane 2007, which i for nomenclature shall call  the ‘Promised Mangaung of REVENGE’. It is said history ‘repeats itself the first time in a farce the second in tragedy’.

One most probably can go through the entire history of the ANC and draw parallels as to a role the Youth League played in electing ANC leaderships. Yet that is not the focus of my attention in this article for I draw a distinction between the ANC elections before an ANC Led government and elections under an ANC Led Government. It is still my contention that as powerful the presidencies of a Tambo and others are made out, it simply cannot be compared with that of Mandela, Mbeki, Zuma and potentially now a Motlanthe. These come mixed with power and enormous control of resources, purse strings and political machinery attended by governance these bring a dynamism to the table that the ANC itself is apparently struggling to acclimatise with, and possibly like other things of governance was not ready to contend with.

The history of the elections of presidents of the ANC who ultimately become SA presidencies lends itself to the same dictum of firstly celebration, then question, defiance and ultimately either recall or dethroning. Perhaps with the exception of a Mandela, who opted for one term only, all others are subject to the adage of the clergy.

This past weekend the deputy president of the ANC and SA as requested by the Youth League addressed as keynote speaker a Youth League rally at the Nkonkowa stadium in Tzaneen, Limpopo. The process followed as confirmed by the secretary general of the ANC is that requests are  lodged at his office for a speaker to attend an ANC or structure rally or gathering.  The ANCYL complied with such procedure and  its wish was granted to have their “anointed president” address them. Hence Motlanthe attending this rally came with the blessing of the ANC leadership.

The print media headlines for this weekend and this morning attest of the happenings of the rally.  It is without any doubt Kgalema Motlanthe’s finest hour,  the dream elections are made of when a constituency as powerful in historic and mostly in rhetoric claim outrightly confirms once candidature, without you asking for such. This though the actual succession debate is claimed to only officially open according to the ANC in October 2012. One would be fooled to believe no election campaigns are under way, with the visible lobbying and preferred lists doing the rounds.

The reality is Motlanthe will do well to appreciate the fate of others before him who similarly were once first celebrated, adored, then questioned, defied and ultimately demonised.

Less we forget that it was the Youth League under the late Peter Mokaba who was instrumental in the election of a Thabo Mbeki; it was the same Youth League, under a Fikile  Mbalula who along with a concentration of voices began to complain of his aloofness, his claimed use of state machinery to silence contenders. It was the Youth League who questioned his loyalty to the ANC and accused him of silencing debate in the ANC.

So harsh were Mbeki’s detractors  until T-shirts with his face on was set alight and Ma’ Mbeki a loyal and disctinct member of the old guard had to respond in defending her leader who happens to also be her son. It is in the final analysis the same Youth League as propelled by a Fikile Mbalula who in the spring of 2008 called for his proverbial head as president vowing to remove him before the end of the  the longest week in post democratic politics. This articulated in the mouth of a Malema declaration.  By late that Saturday in the spring of September 2008 in what Mbeki’s most loyal and forever lieutenant Rev. Frank Chikane immured in biased fashion memoralised as a claimed coup-d’état, his head was delivered in the same  way Herodias asked for of John the Baptist’s on a platter. He would not even conclude his second term of which a mere 7 months was left.

Then the villain was Mbeki, and the victim Zuma. The Youth League declared their undying love for a Zuma, a love which would see them take a bullet for Zuma.

Malema even swayed COSATU’s Zwelinzima Vavi to also admit his preparedness to take a bullet for Zuma. The songs “my president” reverberated as Zuma went from court to court until Polokwane and ultimately Tuynhuis. The youth league was fierce in their support, unbridled in their pursuit and claimed a victory in having their man, Zuma regardless of a legitimate case to answer or not. Vavi, talked in his scorched voice of the unstoppable Zuma tsunami en route to Tuynhuis.

The same Youth League led the charge for a political solution. It is hardly three years since then and the tables have so decisively turned. In the first year of Zuma’s reign, the Youth League began to claim the lack of leadership, mobilised by a cohort of interest thinly snared all vying for the soul of control of the ANC. The centre of the ANC became contested terrain as the  claim love waxed cold. Celebration made way for questioning as they began to question more and more with veiled nuances  a mumbled suspicion of the Zuma leadership.

The Youth League, by virtue of their offical spokesman, Malema proved more and more defiant as they began to pronounce as if they lead the ANC. The first signs and indications of this questioning of mother body leadership and jibes were shielded by amongst others the president and the secretary general as youthful utterances. They pleaded with the public that we all prove patient and afford Juju time to grow as a leader for he possessed the qualities of a future president.

It was not long when Juju led by whomever openly began to compare the leaderships of Zuma and his predecessor. The proverbial horse bolted, and questioning grew into defiance. It took the NGC of 2010 for Zuma in his political report to lay down the rules of organisational discipline. Yet as much as we celebrated this as the return of sanity and discipline in the organisational context, the factions were formed and the dissent was mounting. Malema briefly suffered haemorrhage at the NGC; as he cut a lonely figure save for the  available shoulder of Mother Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. The Youth League managed to get their twin-proposals of nationalisation adopted as future research work and the generational mix leadership nuanced manifested in a Fikile Mbalula and Malusi Gigaba becoming deputy ministers among others in this first round of reshuffle, they both ultimately would be given full cabinet minister status in the second reshuffle. The Cabinet reshuffle of Zuma did not quell the dissent, for it appeared the council of the wounded was fractured and all bidding a leading of the ANC, in which the sitting president became the target of all to share their views and ideological stances.

To make matters worse the demand of discipline from some circles in the ANC particularly the old guard became louder as the need to align the Youth League to what is called ANC organisational discipline culture mounted.  The ANC instituted disciplinary hearings which concentrated the us – and – them  of imaginary circles.  Knowing our South African insatiable apetite for a victim and villain narrative, the Youth League begin to claim a victim status as the NDC and NDCA findings confirmed the variety of cases against them.

Let us not forget how the open defiance and rejection of ANC leadership under Zuma was evidenced when Zuma in the middle of his speech turned around on the podium and publically rebuked Floyd Shivambu the spokesman of the ANCYL. Zuma resorted to the vernacular to emphasise his rebuke. The lines were drawn for if Floyd Shivambu was this vocal, on the strength of what did that come or as we always say on whose behalf did he speak? The Youth League never speaks alone but shares the views of some in the motherbody who have their own political agenda, it was the same with Mbeki, Zuma and will be the same with Motlanthe if he manages to make it to out of the Mangaung elective conference as the President of the ANC.

The second disciplinary hearing, though necessary exacerbated the gulf between what the Youth League defined as leadership and what a Zuma leadership stood for. The die was cast, as the voices began calling for the proverbial “substitute Mr. Referee”.

This weekend the Youth League sported in defiance the T- shirts of their preferred president, they went to Limpopo, where presidents are made, recalled, rebuked and ultimately dethroned. Limpopo where victims become villains and villains become victims. Yes Limpopo where it is claimed Malema runs the tenders and companies associated with his friends have won tenders of over half a billion rand. Limpopo a provincial Government where 5 departments are National Administration.

Kgalema Motlanthe the apparent reluctant and claimed less trusted lieutenant in many circles, accused as one who waited very late to join the Zuma group at Polokwane has finally shown his hand, as the Newage Newspaper  Henry Jeffries pleaded for him to do a few days ago.

For lifting his hand Motlanthe deserves no rebuke for there is nothing wrong with that in an organisation that claims a democracy of structure and being as ethos. If he has any hopes of running South Africa again, then he needs a constituency. If he has any hope of running successfully in Mangaung he must need start early. The constituency that elected him the Youth League more out of anger has chosen him as the anointed president. As Motlanthe spoke and delivered a speech it was soaked in Youth adoration, it was critiquing the very administration he is the second in command of. It was his call for a militant youth- this under normal circumstances an acceptable call, yet now loaded with ambivalence for the political machineries are at work in the ANC and campaigning is underway.

The Secretary General Gwede Mantashe came under attack for an augmentation or claimed fabrication of NEC minutes and was openly questioned by among others the aspiring secretary generaland anointed future secretary general if the Youth League has its way. Such is the tale of a sea-saw power  in which emotion and less reason dictate the meridian of sanity.  This past weekend’s rally even had a Zanu-PF Youth leadership member castigate and  articulate his rebuke and dissatisfaction of a Zuma mediation, by telling Zuma – ‘Zimbabwe is a sovereign state, and not a 10th province of south Africa”. It is becoming clear that SADC’s second longest serving president Oom Bob Mugabe except for Angola’s quiet Eduardo Dos Santos, has invested more than a few cows in the ANCYL president’s future farming prospects but may have an active hand in the happenings south of the Limpopo River.

As the Zuma star is falling, (with all over community uprises, a COSATU and its antics of e-tolling, a DA successful appeals court bid to have access to information on why charges were withdrawn against Zuma by the then serving national Prosecuting head Advocate Mokotedi Mphse, real challenges of service delivery as exposed by a visible public protector, who more and more is seen as the president of SA) and he is now the subject of open abuse, cursing and scorn, a Motlanthe star is rising and shining ( not witsstanding consistent media reports of shady corruption deals) if the rally is the barometer of assessment. It is Motlanthe who walks among the wounded, as their hope for unseating what Julius now call the man with a bighead in reference to the one he swore to die for.

So for now Motlanthe like Zuma  and Mbeki much earlier must be allowed to gloat in his moment of blissful Youth Celebration, for the same Youth League maybe with a new president will afford him less than a year before the vicious cycle is repeated. The same the wise old preacher warned me about in which as a preacher you are firstly praised for you are invited to all parties and dinners then the questioning informed by mistrust, which leads to open defiance and ultimately your head is called for in which you become a villain and the very ones who praised you the victims. For Zuma joins Mbeki in the song they together bellow in melancholic tune captured in the Holy writ of  Old Testament prophet Zechariah : “i was wounded in the house of my friends”.

Hence we wish Motlanthe well for, he will need all of this, when he as is claimed is elected at a Promised Mangaung of Revenge, for as the same Youth League now sings his praise so they will question his leadership, accusing him of indecisiveness when he fails to deliver nationalisation the way they see it. The will castigate him when he prove slow to enact the wishes and prove bias against their personal empowerment aims. They will tire of him trying to lead them, as their wishes prove not consistent with his. They will remind him like Zuma is reminded of his many sins from a claimed rape, corruption, pregnancies and who knows what. They will remind him of his claimed oilgates saga, his partner’s claimed corruption of R10million bribe deals and anything that has a tinge of taintedness in his past known and unknown, for Public Protector or none, they will have the arrows when it matters, tested or not to release against him.

One thing is certain in SA a two-term presidency for elected individuals appears something of the past if the Youth League has its way.  I suppose come 2017, if the Promised Mangaung of Revenge happens it will be a Sexwale or a Phosa who will be invited to the rallies as the new villain will be the current celebrated future president, when he too is offloaded for having misled them to champion the cause of nationalisation etc.

My biggest fear was heightened when Malema for the first time fired a salvo of a tribalism, the precarious and venomous ingredient we all simply cannot afford, for it is not impossible that the Promised Mangaung of Revenge may finally become tainted by the less stated, hushed theme of the advent of tribalism. My prayer may we not get there.

Respectfully submitted.

Clyde N. Ramalaine is a member of “The Thinking Masses”

-Defending a Constitution that needs no defence -

Ramphele, the public intellectual and former Black Consciousness activist joins the chorus of those who sing from a hymnal “Our democracy is under threat by the ANC”.

She was scathing in her venting on the president and the ANC for betraying the legacy of what it stood for.  Ramphele who has held virtually all significant posts rightfully so, has also taken on the role of headmistress of the South African society, it is this last designation that we hear when she is scathing in attacking the ANC on the question of Constitutional progress in the developmental state.

She joins the chorus of those who claim to know informed by her conviction that the ANC when it asks relevant questions on our constitution necessarily seeks to obliterate the constitution.

Firstly, this argument is less honest for it thrives on the myth that the constitution is a document that is finalized and cast in stone and must not be touched or questioned, even if it means for the advancement of the cause of progress for a society that seeks answers for the conundrums it faces.

Ramphele like many others argues that our constitution cannot be regarded as a work in progress but sacrosanct and finalised notwithstanding the evolving challenges a developmental state presents.  South Africa as it stands prior to its hallowed constitution is a politically negotiated settlement the same that gave impetus, texture and context for the very constitution. That very negotiated settlement was never blindly celebrated, but unequivocally acknowledged with its inherent deficits and challenges.

By the time of its adoption we have enshrined ideals that we have not lived in practicality; we have embraced what we less understood in praxis, we have enjoined what were not free from challenge.

To therefore act as if the constitution was a worked out tried and tested recipe that guarantees the same predictable results is to be less honest with the spirit and history of the constitution. It is common knowledge that when the proverbial founding fathers sat down and came up with this writ it borrowed from all those it could for SA until than knew nothing about democracy as practice.  Our constitution was regarded by many is ultra progressive, tone setting in global context even surpassing 200 year old democracies. That was the context of the constitution.

Our transformative developmental state has in my opinion a constitution that proves less workable in some areas if the agenda is levelling the playing fields.

The second reason why this argument of democracy is under threat fails to hold resonates in this. The proponents of the ‘fear rhetoric’ proves silent when they are confronted with the confirmed reality that it has been said ad-nausea, our constitution has been altered for a variety of reasons no less than 16 times since its adoption.

This must attest to the resilience of our entrenched democracy, that notwithstanding the many times it was visited by the demand of change, it came out stronger more effervescent and better for the developmental state called South Africa. This must lend credence to our claim that the constitution in that sense remains a celebrated work in progress document.

Ramphele in the centennial year of the ANC chooses to read the ANC the riot act, as those in opposition to a constitutional democracy. She takes her proverbial caning to the Zuma presidency and if that was not enough swipes at the entire ANC leadership claiming it is  silent when one of the architects of the constitution and  ANC – NEC member Cyril Ramaphosa and  head of Policy development and Minister of Justice, Jeff Radebe along with the President dealt with this even in his opening of parliament decisively. ANC leaders have made it emphatically clear  what the ANC’s commitment to the Constitution is and remain.

Perhaps what Ramphele do not tell us is that she joined those who believe democracy is only experienced, in opposition. These remonstrate that those who lost in the ballot are the natural custodians of democracy, and therefore also the ones whose voices must be taken serious notwithstanding the ideological cage of those.

It leaves one to wonder from what premise or angle this headmistress sjambokking comes.

It is the undying believe of the claimed ‘custodians’ of democracy that the ANC cannot be trusted with democracy. That the ANC is the enemy of the people’s democracy. This sophism parades from judiciary, public intellectuals, media, and untransformed civil society and opposition parties and is shared liberally in a narrative that seeks to shape public discourse with politically vested interest.

Some of us have consistently argued we cannot transform this economy exemplified in land, etc to inculcate the place it suppose to be for those who are necessarily the poor, left behind and “black” masses, if we do not revisit this constitution from time to time for we are a developmental state.

It is alarmist and less honest to see this in a myopic sense of undoing the ANC legacy, and bespeaks the agenda of making the ANC the enemy of the people as if the people do not know different.

Ramphele, have joined the chorus of the liberalist and ‘white’ elite having benefitted grossly from the new dispensation to critique the ANC its president and leadership from an ivory tower of a claimed morality.

Her veiled association with a Democratic Party leadership as a touted future leader of such (though she has not admitted to such) leaves one no option but to accept for some of our public intellectuals the politics of opposition for opposition sake proves real.

For Ramphele and those who politically want to scare us into the night with the typical fear-factor ticket, we say we will alter as was done before this constitution, for it is a means to an end. Our tampering with it is necessary as we define and redefine our developmental state demands. Doing this will not be the sin mea-culpa or the unpardonable sin and should not be conveniently made out as such.

The constitution remains a “work in progress” that must find meaning in the dichotomy of our  sojourn in finding correct measures to deal with the historical reality of an apartheid that left more than indentations that can be panel beaten into correction, but must be obliterated at other intervals.

Another challenge with this glorification of the constitution is the fact that it is a false one for it asks for worshipping of it for unholy reasons. If the ANC negotiated in CODESA in what is termed and called the first phase namely political liberation and now after soul search has to contend with the reality of an avalanche of economic disparity where whites still earn, own, mines and land and control Democratic South Africa backed by a constitution that proclaims our equality less our disparity, is it not right to ask what has been the role of the constitution in perpetuating unintentionally this disparity.

Ramphele and the new elite black voices speak from the comfort of their interest and have claimed a right above others to reprimand, castigate and accuse all informed by a liberalist ethos. Lest we forget it’s the voice of Ramphele that gives meaning to the untransformed civil society structures like FUL who often seeks to confirm the stereotype that South Africa governed by an ANC needs direction the same it claims it knows how.

Clearly black voices speaking white minds, for lack of a better word.

Finally those who prognosticate a gospel of a sacrosanct SA Constitution tampers with infringing our rights as voters to determine what we need when and by what means. These will work to demonize the legitimate issue of a 2/3majority and will breathe fear into a public discourse where the ANC remains the enemy of the people. Perhaps democracy is under threat by those who want to reduce the ballot as a substandard of our democracy, in which other arms and means, is found to co-govern this country in the name of a constitution from a lost ballot.

These advocating a questioning of the constitution and interpreting of such as the undoing of ANC Legacy, must not attempt to blackmail us  who voted and is still held immured by the nightmare of a “blackness” visited upon us by an identity that wanted all to believe in their “whiteness”.

It does not bother Ramphele and her cohort when SA in constitutional embrace remains owned in land 86% by those who constitute 12% of the SA population.

It is of less concern that this economy remains and apartheid economy protected by a bill of rights.

It is no issue that the majority of SA, unlike the few elites, still struggle for a living wage.

Ramphele acts as the typical headmistress of South African society, with a claim from a black consciousness association in the superlative, yet she speaks the mind of the liberalist, the ethos of the integrationist, need I remind the same her mentor Steve Biko vehemently opposed.

The Legacy of Vavi, a cultic personality driven agenda based leadership

     - An opposition from within  alliance embrace -

Recent rumblings in organised labour exemplified in COSATU is lending itself to the critical question has COSATU, the workers vanguard, fallen prey to usurp by individual or personality politics.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to discern how much of what its voiced, as Vavi talk or COSATU consulted policy. Vavi is the legitimate general secretary of the COSATU and is its primary spokesperson so he must speak.

That is not the challenge nor the point of contention but what is being said, warrants scrutiny. I would be the first to admit that it is rather challenging to understand how a COSATU functions daily as it represents a cohort of federations scattered across the job sector of an SA economy, to articulate in a daily fashion on critical issues in a leading sense.

Yet the COSATU we talk about has many challenges, not to mention the politics that it finds itself mired in with competing individuals readying themselves for its upcoming elections. These contestations while in democratic sense normal and to be expected has in latter days emerged in factions of those who endorse the ANC leadership and those who increasingly have assumed the role of an opposition within alliance embrace. It appears the flu of Mangaung has infiltrated the workers body, if the dissenting voices manifesting in COSATU leadership is any indication of assessment.

COSATU increasingly seeks to deconstruct itself separate from the ANC as the hope of a South African economic future. It off late has become the champion against corruption with its well publicised Corruption Watch, the same we must still see if it will deliver the claimed fruits. COSATU seeks to be known as the face of the legitimate custodian of the SA citizenry and people. It purports to be the watchdog of human rights. An internal opposition in a tripartite alliance who claims a right above others.

So oppositional is the COSATU as led by Vavi in its daily utterances that one could mistake it to be in alliance with the official opposition of Democratic Alliance.  COSATU with its approximate 2million members is involved in ANC politics and pronounce on ANC issues that has little if anything to do with workers issues. It is vocal on lending credence to a claim that it is out to unseat the current ANC leadership at least by being defiant, often in tit for tat remarks if the last exchange of membership to the ANC of the workers is read carefully.

COSATU’s Vavi is the medusa of androgynous reinvention; the hydra with many tentacles of sjamboks dishing out lashes to the ANC, Government and Business.  It is Vavi who knows about hit lists. It is Vavi who knows who has what knife out for whom. It is Vavi who castigates ANCYL’s leadership as charlatans parading in self interest. He exerts and challenges the authority of the ANC in leading this alliance, arguing the centre of the Alliance must be in what I choose to call a “hung parliament of dualism”. Let us not forget that at some stage there was a call for restraint others went as far as asking that Vavi be disciplined.

COSATU’s mouthpiece hogs the media as he barks at all and has shown COSATU or rather himself in contestation to run this country either in co-governance or by false attempt at manipulating the leadership of the ANC. One is simply not sure when it is Vavi or COSATU speaking.

COSATU’s mouthpiece spares no opportunity to prove the opposite of an ANC leadership claiming a moral high ground of being immune to corruption and has chosen the corruption mantra the convenient political football in SA politics as his campaign theme, and assegai with which he hopes to bury his personal political foes.

So vocal has Vavi become on none-worker issues that his president Sdumo Dlamini found his utterances objectionable on the ANC President, clearly revealing the factions and camps in COSATU.

Dhlamini also asked for explanations on the Malema address of the COSATU Gauteng march. The provincial Chairperson of COSATU in Gauteng wrote a scathing article in which he in his personal capacity is taking the COSATU president to task.  These are clearly signs of what COSATU has become under a Vavi leadership.

It appears that Vavi thrives in factionalism, his latest antics on the DA application  for access to information on the NDPP scrapping of charges against Zuma (which is the DA’s right) is another salvo he delivers from a loaded and pointed gun.

The love affair he shared with SACP’s leadership namely Gwede Mantashe (Chairperson of the SACP and ANC Secretary General, Blade Nzimande (Secretary General of the SACP and Cabinet Minister) and Jeremy Cronin (Deputy Secretary General of SAC and a Deputy Minister of Transport) seems not existent anymore.

May I add not because COSATU stands disparate from the SACP in common economic outlook principals but more so due to personality driven agenda based politics, that profusely finds enemies in comrades despite the legitimate cause of redress and transformation for which the alliance came together to create a better life for all.

One would not be wrong to say that there is gulf between COSATU and the SACP not by original design or member animosity but by individual personality driven politics. Nzimande warned recently against this personality and agenda informed campaigns where workers or the poor is used by some to fight the legitimate and duly elected government.

To show the twisted saga of  personality self-interest politics, Zwelinzima Vavi, not long ago was at pains to call the Malema led ANCYL leadership and others tenderpreneurs hellbent on robbing the masses, necessarily undoing the gains of the freedom fighters through crass materialism intoxicated by avarice and greed.

To demonstrate this accusation COSATU organized its march against the Limpopo Administrion of Cassel Mathale an ally of Malema, its claim was a march against corruption.

The same Vavi told all on the eve of the much publicised e- toll and ban labour brokers drive and march that “no politician will be on any stage”. He however as is claimed succumbed to the call of the workers to have Malema a politician speak.  Anyone that understands politics could see right through this as a means of defiance against the ANC, who subject to a second and final NDCA appeals hearing has expelled Malema.  So vitriolic is this desire to be oppositional that any and all tactics are acceptable even when one may use one who is directly the opposite of what one claims to be in morality.

The same Malema, Vavi generously accused of crass materialism. Clearly a game plan for those who know would tell that at some time in the not so long ago history, Vavi was promised the low in stock value ANC chairmanship (for it was offered to many). He was unfortunately  not the only one offered that others include Paul Mashatile, Tokyo Sexwale, even Thabo Mbeki’s name came up around the time of the Centennial celebrations.

This lead one again to ask is Vavi on his personal political and even “presidential” campaign where he seeks to bully his way in the name of the workers. Has COSATU become this factionalised beast, the product of self-interest and tool to create or extend ones political career?

Are all views expressed by Vavi, as the spokesman of COSATU, policy positions or are these personality positions? I’m on record for observing this trend as far back as 2010, which I observed then as the first signs of Vavi concoction of COSATU in personal interest emerged.

Off course he has a right to his political ambitions, off course he has a right to his views, off course there is nothing sinful in him aspiring. Yet there is everything wrong if he seeks to do this in the name of the workers.  There is everything wrong if he seeks to challenge an ANC leadership in oppositional faction mode when his constituency shares a tripartite alliance in which critical programs are discussed agreed on adopted.

If you ask me, Vavi does not learn for less we forget how the workers lost in 2010, when an ANC led government dug in its hills and refuse to concede to the demands of COSATU with its adamant 8, 6% and R800 housing allowance. After a marathon of all night deliberations, the bespectacled Vavi emerged on morning live sounding like he was contesting for the job of Themba Maseko, then spokesman of Government. He was considered by many in COSATU as a sell out for having agreed with government.

Again now with the e-tolling a legitimate challenge for we ordinary public must raise our voice. But COSATU as an alliance partner was part of the deliberations on ANC Manifesto and government plans in which e-tolling was discussed at least  so we are told by ANC leaders. The same ANC leadership who this week is meeting its alliance partner COSATU again for the umpteenth time to iron out differences.

Differences not in policy or necessity but differences emanating from the toxic personality politics, for the cult of individualism rules COSATU. The essence of the alliance is sutured not in  personalities nor in co equals but in sanguineness of mind that dictates the prevailing need to continue working for a better life for all as rightfully and legitimately led by the  ANC.

Government dug in its hills and said it won’t move notwithstanding Vavi’s threat to take the next march to the gantry’ infested Gauteng freeways. This last march was a success for the groundswell of numbers in opposition to the government e-toll plans struck a chord with a much wider constituency the same COSATU cannot claim as theirs.

For the record the people did not march against prevalence of labour brokers, the subject which is handled at NEDLAC. Government’s stance is clear regulation not abolishment; this is irking the daylights out of COSATU’s Vavi. Who is yet to find a correct weapon to stave off an ANC leadership who fears not to govern despite threats?

Vavi has become the darling of the media, as they found in him a voice that strikes an opposition chord. Given the tension one wonders with all the bickering and complying why COSATU has not yet gone on its own to contest elections informed by an economic system that constitutes the axis of a claimed socialist model.

I guess it can’t do that for the role and place it finds itself in is an enviable one where COSATU claims a right to reprimand all but itself. It is yet to own up to its role in job shedding, it is yet to accept joint responsibility in the mess our education finds itself. It is yet to acknowledge that COSATU leaders are not as clean as they purport to be. That it too desires the power to control this country in governance without accepting legitimate responsibility for its failures.

We should not be surprised if more emotional rhetorical views are shared, for in the build up to Mangaung and the COSATU elective conference political expediency will rear its head more often as friendships prove less longevity and enemies kiss and make up in the name of personality cultic and individual interest, the fuel behind much of what we see in our public tripartite alliance discourse.

Clyde N. Ramalaine, a Member of ‘The Thinking Masses’