Open letter of gratitude to the outgoing ANC leadership!

 

 

Permit me to thank the outgoing ANC leadership as represented in its two term President Jacob G. Zuma, Deputy President Cyril M. Ramaphosa, Chairperson Baleka Mbete, Treasurer General Zweli Mkhize, Secretary General Gwede Mantashe, Deputy Secretary General Jessie Duarte and the NEC.

You as a team led during arguably the most difficult period of the organizational existence, you had to engage and navigate the complexities of an ANC in liberation movement formation struggling to be a party in democracy.

 

You had to show leadership to this broad church with its known and vetted contesting ideologies, expectations, aspirations and even opposing fundamental beliefs.

 

You certainly did an egg dance with the contesting interests of what defines an ANC in governance.

 

Despite the many challenges when you were personally insulted and castigated by the very interests you attempted to manage, you undoubtedly delivered many things during your tenure.

 

 

I have always held regardless to how fiercely we may disagree or be at variance with our leadership we must also defend them against others and ourselves and the rest of what could be veiled and open attacks that simply does not imbibe the values and principles of what this movement came into existence for.

 

 

You were made the scorn of attack and blamed for all that went wrong, seldom given the due respect by your own and those who led before.

 

 

You made like all leaderships before and certainly also after you, some blunders, you scored many own goals, but your overarching intent remained to keep the ANC together to the best of what was entrusted to you. To let the centre hold despite the reality of the demon of factionalism.

 

 

All power is borrowed and has an expiry date, you knew that before you accepted the call, you experienced it and some of you now will become ordinary again.

 

May you continue to serve in that ordinary, powerless sense convinced that unto you were entrusted a time, a period and epoch and such has now come to an end. Yet your contribution not.

 

 

Thank you for delivering the 54th Conference, we all know it was not easy.

 

 

Now what is left is to let history do what it was preordained to do from before time.

 

We remain prayerful and trust the Movement we believe defend and serve will in delicate and delegate sense make the right choices that will emancipate the masses of SA.

 

 

We may have contested and proved hard on those who raised their hands to avail themselves to lead beyond this period, know this for some of us this was not borne from any malicious intent but to ensure we get the best in leadership.

 

 

The elections contest is real and we all backed our candidates yet once the conference has pronounced we faithful cadres, voters and supporters of the ANC will submit and support and defend that new leadership no different to how we defended you and those before.

 

 

Now let history judge your actions, inactions choices and leadership in objectivity what is undeniable is you as a collective were entrusted to lead, and lead you did.

 

A humongous thank you to your families and closed ones who shared you with us for the last 10 and in some instances 5 years.

 

I pray all of you health and wisdom on the next stage of your life journey.

 

Again thank you for your accessibility to respond and meet with many of us in private setting. In this instance I wish to thank cadres Mantashe, Duarte and Zuma with whom I as ordinary citizen and member of the clergy was afforded many occasions to engage.

 

Truly, “There is a time for everything under the Sun” as Ecclesiastes 3:12 observes.

 

For some of you that time has come to part the scene, perhaps any attempt at overstaying your welcome may taint what you already have crafted as your legacy.

 

Cadre Zuma, you have shown leadership not to contest for another term you therefore afforded the 7 candidates to contest in an unencumbered space as evidence of ANC democracy in practice.

 

 

Return now to your families, write your memoirs and enjoy the African sunrise and sunsets in the comfort that you have made your contribution. We love you unconditionally.

Aluta continua!

Bishop Clyde N. S. Ramalaine
December16, 2017
3h00am

Advertisements

ANC 2017: DA’s Douglas Gibson, attests a colonial – chauvinist and narrow mind on NDZ.

This week Douglas Gibson shared his opinion in The Star as carried on the Politicsweb platform, on the potential outcomes of the ANC’s 2017 Elective Conference presidential contest.

Gibson anchors his argument on the premise of the words of Pravin Gordhan whom he cites as having said “Ramaphosa is the only leader who can save the ANC.” This according to Gibson translates to Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma not being the correct person to save the ANC. We not sure why Gibson choose to give Gordhan’s words the final authority in deity status on what the claim of “only leader who can save the ANC”, we cannot assume we know why he draws comfort from the one cites as his departure point.

Then, again Gordhan overnight became an economic ‘messiah’ in his second stint when he according to Gibson’s party, the DA, was not doing well at all in his first term. Gibson uncritically adopts Gordhan’s frame of mind as supreme.

Gibson’s second error is that the ANC 2017 presidential contest is only about a woman candidate and therefore not the qualities of a leader. It appears Gibson considers the quality of leadership as mutually exclusive to gender. This willful and conscious intent to want to force a narrow gender issue as that which is paramount is necessarily a misreading of the fact that the ANC is about to elect as always a quality of leadership. To therefore play quality of leadership of against the gender is perhaps dishonest.

Gibson must tell us did the ANC in all its previous elections chose a male in gender definition instead of a leader?

Gibson in the third instance critiques if not rubbishes NDZ’s stance on land, ownership of the reserve bank and breaking the monopoly of the banks. He claims “these are puerile and designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator”.

What Gibson simply doesn’t know is that NDZ was one of those who raised the issue of land in the ANC Policy Conference. It is her conviction that the 1913 cut off period is not sustainable since the ANC was formed in 1912 with land as the central issue. Her conviction on land as needing a much earlier date is borne out by many who make the claim that a 1913 cut off period excludes many such as the Khoisan. Some like Jeremy Cronin argued against the proposed shift to an earlier date, since it would open a can of worms.

It therefore cannot be atttibuted to sheer populism for her to raise the subject of land when she was instrumental in raising it in the relevant constituencies. Clearly Gibson is uncomfortable as to be expected with a possible president consciously opting to make land redress one of her fundamental campaign anchors. Any conversation on land for those who own it as attained in our chequered history is always discomforting.

Gibson’s fourth and perhaps biggest error is his glaring cheap patronizing of NDZ, he argues “what a tragedy it is that a woman of her intelligence, innate ability and accomplishment, with a good deal of charm and delightful sense of humour, has allowed herself to become Zumaed and Gupterised. There are three issues with this claim on the part of Gibson.

§ He arrogates a right in typical colonial and apartheid mind to be the adjudicator of NDZ as intelligent, when they really want to expose and say something else about her unintelligent she is.

§ He categorically defines her as Zumaed and Gupterised. This view on the part of Gibson smacks of utter chauvinism because he assumes the very woman whom he calls intelligent and sophisticated incapable of being her own person in her choices. He repeats what some conveniently have peddled that behind NDZ sits a male dominant Jacob Zuma hence she is Zumaed. She is merely a puppet and he the string-master. This he does when he concedes she in the uprun.

§ Gibson conclusively calls NDZ Gupterised, meaning in his mind corrupt, captured, and the evidence of the opposite of what SA stands for. This is a direct insult he feels he is entitled to exact against NDZ even without corroborating evidence. He will forgive us to read the white and maleness of the author as he advances views on strong female black candidacy.

Gibson’s conclusion is NDZ will win the contest because the Zuma rural constituency in the ANC will carry her.

Again this conclusion is patronising, sexist and elitist since it concludes NDZ can only win because of Jacob Zuma’s rural support. Gibson shares his DA ideology and rhetoric that the ANC is kept in power by the masses of uneducated and backward non-thinking what he blankets in rural definition. This idea unequivocally suggests that the political choices of the poor and rural are unconscious and uninformed choices, for their disposition renders them incapable of making good political leadership choices when it comes to the ANC.

Perhaps Gibson forgets his star Cyril Ramaphosa in 2012 made it to ANC deputy presidency position by that same constituency he reduces to rural, that same constituency he considers as the stamp of approval for corruption, state capture etc. Therefore if Ramaphosa is the only leader to save the ANC he owes his political presence in contestation for high office in 2017 to that same rural constituency.

Gibson says of Ramaphosa he is: ‘urbane charming, intelligent and well educated who knows how to behave and would not disagree with the party’. That colonial and apartheid mind on a black identity always will find space to unveil itself. One never hear whites telling you they vote for a white candidate because he/she is urbane, intelligent, well-educated who knows how to behave. It is naturally assumed that all whites are all the aforementioned, thanks to their superior created state.

Then goes further make this cul-de-sac argument because Ramaphosa is wealthy he will be immune to steal from the people. Clearly Gibson, has not understood greed yet, he assumes greed is a poor man’s entrapment, the poor will be greedy not the super-wealthy, the world and history is replete with examples of the rich overtaken by greed continuing to raping the poor.

In his praise for Ramaphosa he stoops as low as telling us Ramaphosa and his wealthy wife only have four children and not twenty as the current president. What this has to do with the price of eggs only Gibson in his white racist mind knows. For if we hear him correct he draws a line through the culture of the president that affords him more than one wife and as many children, why does Gibson find the culture and traditions of Africans understood in Zulu so deplorable and what does this have to do with Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma who had one husband and four children? Again that colonial supremacy notion simply cannot hide itself.

He advances if Ramaphosa succeeds he will be indebted to large numbers of looters, crooks, and the morally compromised that have switched to his side. This analysis of the ANC as endemically corrupt and all its leaders crooks u for looting is typical opposition politics. Buried deep in this thinking is the fundamental believe that a black led government can only be corrupt.

Gibson anticipates a significant split once Ramaphosa looses, I almost want to say, we said this as far back as March 2016 that the CR campaign as led by the likes of SAVE-SA Pityana has political ambitions. We will have to wait and see how significant this anticipated split is because judging by the three break-aways in democracy led by Holomisa, Lekota and Malema, its never translated to more than a paltry seven percent.

Yes, Douglas NDZ will become president not because she is just a woman, shares a double-barreled Zuma last name, but because she is a well respected, dignified, selfless and disciplined ANC leader who has proven herself.

She will lead the ANC because despite afforded opportunity like all ANC leaders never gravitated to money as the centre of her being. She will lead the ANC because she is not captured neither masters of capture Rupert or the pretender of capture Gupta. NDZ owes no loyalty to white monopoly capital, she showed it when she took the tobacco industry on and publicly rebuked Rupert on his dismissive ANC RET policy description. Juxtaposed this with a Ramaphosa, who remained until now silent on Rupert’s utterances, maybe this is the fundamental reason why Gibson believes Ramaphosa the saviour of the ANC.

She will lead because she engages ANC policy with land redress and radical economic transformation as central themes. You have told us how little you think of these policies you have shared what you think of the rural people as really uninformed in their choices, we say to you when will you learn the poor, the uneducated, the rural are not stupid they make conscious choices for the ANC and its leadership.

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
Political Commentator

Does an unholy chord of three strands afford Johann Rupert his arrogance if not indolence?

 

– layers of BLACK ELITISTS, ( ANC politically  connected shareholders, Civil society /Clergy, Academics and ANC presidential contestants,) gives Rupert’s claim credence-

 

Qoheleth, in the twelfth verse of the fourth chapter of Ecclesiastes a wisdom literature book in the Holy Writ reminds us: “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A chord of three strands is not easily broken.” I thought of thought of this archaic though Sacred Text, as I began to crystallize the reasons for a Johann Rupert’s arrogance.

 

The South African political plateau confirms a make belief shifting reality, yet the role of capital protests no shaking at all- it defies any tremors. In order to fully appreciate the articulation of a Rupert we must first appreciate the actual control of apartheid and colonial beneficiaries have over the SA economy. The signpost of that constituency is none but one just Johann Rupert the face of apartheid wealth and the embodiment of a successful racist regime, which always had capitalism as its jet fuel and end game.

 

I paused and thought as to why Johann Rupert can be so arrogant if not indolent to engage the true issues that challenge transformation. Rupert out of his fundamental control of whatever defines SA in economic sense ventured to define the ANC led Government policy of Radical Economic Transformation by an insulting and dismissive “a code word for theft” With this five word conclusive definition Rupert spat on policy which represents the hope of the masses of blacks still at the station to also experience true empowerment. He tells blacks you have no hope at a future, unto you was not given the right to challenge the status quo of economic control, you lack the wherewithal to engender productive and truly empowerment capacity for at the core of your policy is a corruption, the aorta of your claim on empowerment is looting.

 

It all makes sense when you realize that the 1994 Consensus has come full circle, the famous sunset clause and less said Brenthurst agreements that protected white apartheid and colonial benefit, has made more whites wealthy and quadrupled white wealth in democracy.

 

Current, Department of Trade and Industry endorsed statistics tell us that 23% of all companies on the JSE are black-owned. That figure is also to be understood in real 13% and 10% in diverse forms of black identity. We also know that a paltry 3% of SA’s economy is truly black-owned, according to DTI.

 

A closer look at other stats on senior management index leads us to conclude that after 23 years of democracy and despite all the progressive policies, i.e. affirmative action, employment equity act, etc., implemented by the ANC led government currently a mere 21% makes up the top executive leadership teams of SA’s top 40 companies and the number of black CEOs running JSE-listed companies has dropped from 15% in 2014 to only 10% in 2015. The last statistic confirms instead of growth undeniable regress of a significant 5% meaning the battle on transforming the SA economy is not won.

 

Recently Minister Edna Molewa, Minister of Environmental Affairs, in sea of unnerving silence on the part of many black elitists became the second senior ANC politician after ANC presidential contender Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to take Rupert’s arrogance head on. She described Rupert as a ‘beneficiary of the largesse of the interventionist apartheid state’. She continued to attribute the ‘stellar fortunes of his late father’, to that which Dan O’Meara described as ‘volkskapitalisme’. Her application of O’ Meara’s ‘volkskapitalisme’ reads as follow, ‘By means of volkskapitalisme, the racist Nationalist Party government leveraged state power and state assets such as state-owned banks to buoy Afrikaner businesses and turn them into the corporate behemoths of today.’

 

Molewa therefore makes a pertinent analysis and assessment, on the contradiction and mindset of Johann Rupert and his ilk, that we may surmise suffer of selective amnesia as to how the State under apartheid was used to advance and develop the fallacy of an Afrikaner nationality and nationhood.

 

Theresa Oakley Smith managing director of Diversi-T, during May 2017, in referring to recent labour statistics by the South African Labour Force, asserts “ In terms of recruitment white men make up 42,10% of that 100%. African men make up 17.9%…’ According Oakley Smith, ‘White men received 38.8 % of the promotions last year, white women 16 percent, African men 14%, in spite of employment equity….’ Oakley Smith continues to assert, “There is a very good opportunity for white men to seek out other white men, and in the business environment for example if somebody comes in for an interview, the white man walks in and there is already an assumption that he can do the job.”

 

It is here that Molewa correctly concludes in asserting that we must ask questions on the role of the private sector in levelling the playing field from an economic perspective, and whether it has, in fact, “come to the party”.

 

Appreciating the historical trajectory of a system that debased the masses of South Africans in blackness of second class citizenship combined with the glaring anomalies of what democracy means and has come to stand for in economic expression as no dissimilar to the historical apartheid reality, it is difficult not to concur with Molewa and to hear Oakley Smith that questions must be asked to the private sector. I therefore concur that we must ask questions, yet I want to spread the net wider than the race and gender as the two strands that defines white monopoly and ultimately Ruperts polluted air for a definition of radical economic transformation in the face of private sector understood in its monopolized white male and pale identity configuration.

 

Closer analysis dictates that for both Molewa and Oakley Smith, the arrogance of a Rupert is based on two fundamental issues which Molewa identifies with the enterprise of race as the vortex and the epicentre of a ever pervasive reality and fulcrum apartheid ideology which some conveniently assume is gone. When we protest it may be gone in statutory institutional form, we cannot but concede it stands in structural definition sense. Oakley Smith goes a step further than the reality of race, and puts another layer which rings the bells on the gender issue of a superior white male identity still ruling the economic world of a SA.

 

In that same tradition of unpacking the strands that holds a Rupert in power and confirms his brutish arrogance, I wish to postulate another strand of black elitist immanent of varied which in this season makes up the not easily broken chord we read about earlier. Therefore, another component to the conclusions drawn by Molewa and Oakley Smith on the comfort of business as usual attitude in agreeing as to the veracity and impending need to ask questions from colonial and apartheid beneficiary worlds is the black elitist.

 

I will therefore advance that perhaps the major reason why Rupert is this arrogant is due to the role and salience of the ANC advanced black elitist in their respective spheres attesting a set of layers. It is thus my assertion that if white male pale dominates the SA economy in monopolized sense as aided by a constitutional democracy the economic landscape and outlook of SA, it derives its legitimacy from this third strand, less from the advanced race and gender reality, which features in ontological sense strongly.

 

The prevailing disparity of white male control and monopolizing of our SA economy is directly translating to the salience of a silent empowered black constituency. The arrogance is hatched on the complicit role and not devoid of what attests a convenient silent empowered strand made up of intertwined and interdependent layers cohort immanent in black political, economic academic, civil society including faith leadership empowered elitists.

 

 

Black politically connected ‘shareholders’ layer:

 

This four-layered third strand of the chord of intertwined and interdependent configured black empowered elitists share an unholy alliance with apartheid white male and pale economic dominance and control as well as monopoly.

 

Since 1994 and with every aspect of BEE later BBEEE a crop of blacks who essentially shared a political affinity and proximity with political leadership have been empowered. We must accept that it remains the ANC intent to continue developing a middle class. Beyond this aim, which the ANC to some degrees has achieved, is a group of economically advantaged superior to other blacks group. You will recall how Tokyo Sexwale once conceded when they opted to be deployed economically, they had never a clue how wealthy they would become.

 

This group of super advantaged and wealthy black elitists granted made their money from ANC blessing and white pressurized favour in a network BEE deals that had good bad and ugly outcomes, yet never left whites poorer, but always more empowered. This groups regardless to how defined simply have no voice against the white capital that it is enmeshed in and often is used as an unleashed weapon to ring moral bells. We can think of the Jay Naidoo’s of the our world who have in singularity of purpose attempted being a conscience to the ANC led state, when he is awkwardly silent on the disparities that perpetuates the nightmare of apartheid entrenched economic dominance by the very white identities.

 

We even have some like Trevor Manuel who today categorically deny that white identity as having monopolized our economy. Matthews Phosa, Murphy Morobe, Valli Moosa, Popo Molefe, Frank Chikane, Cheryl Carolus etc, have former activists but today wealthy have a one dimensional morality that of wanting to lecture the current ANC leadership yet is comfortable with the decline in black executive leadership the anomalies of this democracy that keeps the masses enslaved to worship of a white identity.

 

Where is the discomfort of the activists the Financial Intelligence Centre, illicit financial flows cites a claims that SA lost around R60bn for the period of 2015-16 and that this figure is incrementally raising. Let us not forget the obvious capital gains enjoyed by local, mainly white shareholders. Why are these activists today shareholders in variety of white owned companies today silent on this and sees nothing wrong with that. Why this chameleon morality?

 

 

The Reconfigured Black modern civil society layer:

 

Another dimension of black elitist role is understood in those who makeup the modern civil society formations and faith stream leaders. These have a very interesting and chameleon morality where they in scripted sense seeks to red card for example the Guptas but have nothing to say about the abuse that continues in mining communities. Their advocacy has no appetite to challenge the economic disparities of our society they also have no desire to for challenge the attitude of Rupert. We not sure if their programmes and projects are also sponsored by the Ruperts?

 

We have seen the face of SAVE-SA Sipho Pityana leading this chameleon morality when he is consciously silent on the disparities of our economy in its manifested sense. This group includes also the reconfigured clergy identifiable in a hijacked SACC political agenda of seeking a president’s removal when it never can ask the uncomfortable questions from the white business that assist their foundations, programmes, and projects.

 

This chameleon morality that can be sharp to see the wrong of blacks in government and not that of whites in business is fast becoming our new reality. How does the bread price-fixing scandal of 2007 escape the wrath of the group of civil society and clergy not red card what Molewa: “that capital is not by nature altruistic, and that the country’s large monopolies have scant regard for the effects of their actions on those who are hardest hit by their relentless pursuit of profit. Why the silence on the data colluding monopolies?

 

Black Academics layer

 

The Latin phrase ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes’, as derived from found in the work of the Roman poet  Juvenal from his Satires is translated to mean who guard the guards.

 

In August of 2011, I penned a note analysing the Native Intellectual for his/her visible absence in political discourse. I cited that if they have any presence, it is fashionable in opposition politics formation. This means when they analyse it is in the interest of what I termed “white thinking” which proves pervasive in post apartheid context. My argument has matured to include all public intellectuals aka analysts. In South Africa today you are seen as lackey of Government if you share and attribute credit to the transformation paradigm manifested in the ANC led government, you are equally honoured and showered as an independent mind if you necessarily opposed to Post – 1994 political unfolding.

These and many other paradoxes leaves me wondering if we are not force fed a diet concocted by ‘imbedded analysis’ where analysts drink from the same cup of brotherhood in which they articulate in academic astuteness and pronounce in political bed rocked an analysis which sets the discourse of what we deem politics in SA.

I have already postulated in my earlier note, – The Crises of the Native Intellectual – “the challenge of Intellectualism is the proximity of its nuanced historic affinity to the concept and subject of elitism”. This notion has come full circle in South Africa and purports to be at variance with what should inform our public intellectuals experienced in written and oral expression.

In a later piece I critiqued the role of black leadership at former white tertiary institutions as having been absent in true transformation. I have postulated its role is best understood in the fact that South Africa’s black academics did not escape the captured nature of apartheid wealth. We know this because apartheids academic institutions played a pivotal role in its upkeep.

 

The academic institutions may today show a black face as Ramphele was at UCT, Njabulo or a Jonathan Jansen at UFS yet these while becoming experts on black errors of governance is yet to critique the apartheid appropriated systems of wealth, never outright challenging its benefactors to account. They therefore appear safe hands for the apartheid largesse benefactors. We must ask the black academics vocal on adjudicating the ANC led government in a one sided critique why they have no voice in engaging the statistics of an SA as confirming the monopoly by a white identity visible in arrogance of maleness. How is it they never ask pertinent questions from white business do they also attesting a chameleon academic morality?

 

If Rupert is therefore arrogant it is directly linked to the presence of the black elitists. There is unholy alliance of the black elitists to never challenge appropriated and now entrenched economic reality of South Africa in the face of growing black poverty as the recent statistics shows.

 

To therefore red card Rupert and his ilk in pure race and gender description is one part of our economic reality and dilemma. The other part, which equally confirms an anomaly of note, is connected to the black cohort of elitist; it does not end there.

 

Black ANC presidential contesting leaders layer:

 

A cardinal component of this unholy equation is and remains the role and salience of black ANC politicians particularly males. ANC led leaders are enmeshed in the ownership of our economy and their status as being a part of albeit insignificant in capital size sense but 100% in political sense.

 

You will recall until now people like Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, Treasurer General Zweli Mkhize, Secretary General Gwede Mantashe, Chairperson Baleka Mbete all contenders for ANC 2017 high office who is in the running to lead the ANC, until now have remained completely voiceless on this insult of Rupert on ANC policy. Many ANC contenders no different to the economic beneficiaries hide behind a statement released by the ANC spokesman. The glaring contradiction of the latter is confirmed when the same leaders despite Kodwa’s official statement on a Makhosi Khoza, or state capture for political reasons we must assume venture their own contradictory personal opinions. We do not hear the chairperson of the ANC Social Transformation Committee usually a vocal contributor Lindiwe Sisulu expressing her discomfort with Rupert’s statement or drawing attention to his arrogance originating out of a supreme race mindset. We don’t hear the discomfort of the monopolized construction cartels that in an unholy fashion could by and through corrupt means fix prices as they agreed to share the benefits of the development of infrastructure in the uprun to 2010 FIFA World Cup.

 

We must equally ask those same questions of those who define the horizon of black empowerment particularly those who today more and more are reincarnated as a solid apartheid defence economic bufferzone. Their silence and blind loyalty to those who made them from the Rupert and ilk stable in this season that lends legitimacy to the Rupert attitude.

 

If the executive management of JSE listed companies confirms a contraction and digress from 15- 10% it must be asked what was the contribution of the empowered blacks mainly males in this equation. Recently there was an uproar when Patrice Motsepe arguably the signpost black collective economic freedom launched his new bank and decided to appoint two white male and pale ones to lead. We can look at Ramaphosa’s Shanduka and we will quickly see this phenomenon repeats itself for more truly empowered black ones.

 

 

Rupert cannot help his arrogance, he grew up in a time when his father was the other power in a twin personality tussle of Afrikaner political power en route to a crafted Afrikaner nationalism and was offered the economic opportunity highway to make him go away, the same which saw him becoming head of an empire extended to Johann Rupert who in this democratic season exponentially continued to entrenched that apartheid reality.

 

In a large sense for Rupert nothing has changed from the day of his dad. Whites are still wealthy; they made even more money in democracy then under apartheid. Empowered blacks don’t challenge him because he had a hand in some of their wealth.

 

The land remains owned as always under apartheid, the governments changed in colour but the powerbase due to a 1994 consensus never altered anywhere or anyhow. Rupert’s wealth has quadrupled when blacks die of poverty with a black government. Rupert has captured elitists in the ANC and directs their prism of economic well being for SA. Rupert sponsors well heeled pseudo civil society formations. How can we expect of him not to be arrogant, it is business as usual. He has captured the black academics that have an opinion on black led government from a claimed high moral ground when it cannot remotely have the presence of mind or voice to red card this arrogance that confirms a despicable disparity in which the false white identity is still honoured.

 

Now when you introduce a new policy that says radical economic transformation and you start saying the fiscus will be used immanent in R500bn annualized procurement from the State, to ensure this is realized. When you start saying change is no more optional but sectors of the SA economy remains monopolized in definition of white identities of male and pale description. When you start dissecting sectors and industries and show the untransformed state of these, when you start saying there are five white families benefitting grossly from Eskom with 100 year contract in annualized billions despite he fact that we know the coal supplied to Eskom is not always of the quality these companies claim.

 

 

I hold one day in a distant future, when we are willing to let the black elitist fig leaf of our ambivalent morality fall, beyond our hype and classically conditioned minds on what patronage as is claimed of a Gupta economic fly is e may wake up appreciate this moment. Not patronage not as told by those who must thank O’ Meara’s ‘ volkskapitalisme’. Yes, beyond the white capital captured state of the majority of ANC leaders, black business leaders, black academics and black faith leaders, who despite knowing the truth in cheapness of political self-interest is wholly in concert as scripted by the very oppressors to have us focus in one dimensional sense on a black naturalized family of Guptas, perhaps economic flies in the face of apartheid tigers. Does it mean we must agree with the wrong the Guptas have done, where it can be proven, certainly no, it is the ambivalence of this chameleon morality we are classically conditioned to accept is not discomforting and alien.

 

We will then know that the Gupta’s opened our eyes as to how white males have captured our economy aided by a thin slice of empowered reconfigured black males, their spouses, families and friends immanent in the postulated strand chord made up of four intertwined and interdependent layers that speaks to black elitist group.

 

The words of Qoheleth rings more true today then ever before, a chord of three strands is not easily broken.

 

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Political Commentator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unpacking SG Mantashe’s ANC presidential contest #HeritageDay Tweets!

Unpacking SG Mantashe’s ANC presidential contest #HeritageDay Tweets.
–Captured suspended between smooth transition, succession and the relevance of organisational democracy–

The upcoming ANC Presidential 2017 contest manifests in jolts of commentary, and personal opinions that often needs unpacking, especially when the Secretary General ventures a personal opinion in a very contested terrain and space.

Mantashe the ANC’s colourful SG, for the last decade, is one not easily silenced, and fears not expressing his opinion on diverse matters. We are told he is not in any race for number one or two spots and as rumour has it has set his eyes on chairpersonship of the ANC come December 2017. The SG of the ANC is a significant position therefore we pay attention to what the office bearer says regardless if it’s a personal comment or organisational. It usually is understood as an organisational position hence the social commentary volcano that erupted in response to his tweets.

Mantashe has overtime given us in a sense his personal running commentary of how he was approached by both leading contenders NDZ17 and CR17 and how he turned them both down.

This week, Mantashe chose Heritage Day to share with us another piece of his own mind on ANC presidential handover analysis and what the way forward may look like for December 2017. Let me therefore first defend Mantashe’s right to express his opinion it is acceptable in a democracy and in a democratic ANC.

Let us now turn to his now infamous tweets: “when Tambo handed over to Mandela, that was smooth. Mandela handed over to Mbeki. When Mbeki resisted, there was a crises (sic). If President Zuma recists (sic) to handover to Deputy President Ramaphosa, there will be a crises (sic). If that happens, there will be a crises (sic). He added his personal advice: “ if we elect Ramaphosa to be a president, let us have a woman Deputy President. That will be smooth. That is my personal advice # HeritageDay.”

While Mantashe must be afforded his opinion, the challenge is his personal opinion is construed and misconstrued as an organisational position because of the centrality of his senior position.
Mantashe’s comment stands in the forming thinking of some who prognosticate unity as only attainable in what he terms a smooth transition of succession.

This transition of succession for Mantashe is a deputy president automatically succeeding the incumbent.
The first challenge with this thinking is that it presupposes an idyllic reality and not a confirmed acknowledged polarized democratic ANC in 2017 with 8 candidates vying for number one spot. It appears those who advance this want to have their cake and it eat. They want a smooth transition of succession in a democratic context, which registers a glaring contradiction.

There are those who believe the ANC is now more a democratic organisation then in the Mandela era. A quick reflection of that era will confirm a form of pragmatism because the ANC was new to governing and the then emerging culture of standing back for another as Chris Hani showed with Mbeki in 1994, is assumed as culture and standard. Back then you could persuade a personality not to contest and thus what appears or is claimed today as culture in history of this past of Mbeki election was hardly a tradition but an accidental reality aided by the reality of its newness to governing.

What is indisputable is the ANC in 2017 attests a democratic organisation if there is one thing Zuma as president came to do is to let that democracy stand, whether by de-fault or intend, this may not be understood or acknowledge by all. Democracy dictates anyone can stand for elections and everyone therefore feels entitled to stand. The means and art of persuasion is not as simple in an entrenched democratic context in a post 2004 context. To therefore prove desirous of a smooth transition immanent in a hand over when you want democracy to stand is to ask for democracy not to stand. That’s the first error with Mantashe’s prism expressed as his personal view.

Secondly, Mantashe in his most recent tweet unequivocally tells us because Mbeki didn’t want to hand over a crisis emerged. Depending on ones polarised mind one may agree or disagree with this analysis, however the prism of Mantashe is this act of resistance on the part of Mbeki, constitutes the fundamental reason for a precedent that he envisages may repeat in 2017. This is not necessarily the gospel truth.

The third error Mantashe and those of the school of smooth transition makes is to disown the 2017 ANC election as having a number of particular and cardinal different dimensions than any before. The first new reality is the non-negotiable reality of a very strong woman candidate in NDZ. The second reality is that, that woman candidacy is a rival in a very close battle, and is not in the top six. This by itself alters the historical realities that for many have became the foothold claim of a practice and even asserted policy of a succession.

Mantashe’s fourth error is not acknowledging the stark reality of a different contest, since it is the first time in the ANC in democracy after Mandela that a sitting president upfront made it clear he will not run for a third term. Let us pause and reflect, when Mandela handed over to Mbeki the leading of government business in his second year of leading SA a situation evolved that saw Mbeki leading the government for the better part of Mandela’s term and his own two ensuing terms. At the end of his two terms as ANC president as afforded by the ANC constitution Mbeki was not ready to retire. He was nominated and opted to stand despite counsel. There was not anything constitutionally wrong for him to stand.

Mantashe therefore commits a glaring mistake of not factoring in the reality of the colossal differences between Mbeki’s (2007) and Zuma’s (2017) respective choices at the end of their respective ANC two terms. His analysis is therefore flawed, unless he knows something we don’t of a definite Zuma third term. We have it on record that Zuma is not contesting so he cannot be considered as one to hand over as was rightly expected from Mbeki.

To therefore claim, if President Zuma do not hand over we will have a crisis, is to compare dissimilar circumstances and choices. In my assessment President Zuma’s handover will be to accept the contest for a new president, and not to pave the way, or anoint his successor in claims of new ANC tradition. Thus President Zuma’s acknowledgment of candidates contesting for the position he will be vacating is his biggest confirmation of handover.

Mantashe in the fifth instance assumes a former President Mbeki standing in 2007 was incorrect, yet he does not explain why, because we cannot even argue former President Mbeki was wrong to stand at Polokwane because the constitution afforded him to stand for it prevents no one a third even a fourth term.
Mantashe’s sixth and plausibly gravest error is when he advises – if Ramaphosa is elected he must have a woman deputy president. This appears an innocent comment veiled in defence of a woman candidacy but it is laden with serious contradictions. The first is on the diaphragm of his now confirmed smooth transition dictum, he sees Ramaphosa naturally succeeding because Zuma must not resist handing over.

He then continues to assume the deputy president candidate whoever that may be must be a woman.
With this SG Mantashe attempts to craft his theory of succession in which we must assume the female therefore in 2022 will succeed the Deputy President Ramaphosa if he is not re-elected for a second term. This may make for logic if you are a smooth transition succession theorist who operates in an ANC of 1994, the ANC of 2017 as already advanced is markedly different, and democracy an entrenched reality, as the plethora of candidates confirm.

Mantashe is particularly careful if not dismissive not to accommodate a scenario of – if Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma is elected her deputy must be a male or female. It is interesting that Mantashe opts to be smooth transition succession captured immanent in an automatic handover, and not to let democracy count and stand in its own shadow in presidential elections. At one level this is also personal for Mantashe’s legacy to be remembered in the dying days of his decade in that position to have worked for unity. That unity has presidential succession as it anchored tenant and that succession is only possible in handover from a sitting president to his deputy.

I would want to believe that SG Mantashe did not remotely suggest or in veiled sense imply with his Zuma handover claims, the latter has the unilateral power to ask Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to step aside to attain this smooth transition for Ramaphosa, when he suggested Zuma must hand over to Ramaphosa to avert a crisis. If this is what was meant he clearly falls into the precarious trap of denying NDZ her human agency, her democratic right to contest and therefore ignoring the branches and ANC structures that have already pronounced her as their preferred candidate. It may also be interpreted as bordering on typical male chauvinism.

We must therefore conclude Secretary General Mantashe’s personal analysis proves flawed because it is premised on four false notions, a claimed smooth transition is only interpreted in succession will confirmas organisational democracy. Mbeki should not have stood in 2007 at Polokwane; and he discounts the fact that Zuma in 2017 is not standing for a third term. Lastly a female candidate regardless to how real in 2017 can and should only deliver a deputy president in final role.

Mantashe will forgive us for seeing his own male chauvinism in claims of a woman candidate only fit to be deputy president in a season when some claim NDZ is the front runner and the candidate to beat. He will thus struggle not be read as saying the deputy president position is the male ANC offering to a loud female claim to lead.

Let us not forget Mantashe in paraphrased sense is on record to have said much earlier, the presence of a deputy cannot mean he is not fit, what would the purpose of a deputy be if he were not to succeed?
The challenge with this conclusion is its ambivalence for the post of deputy secretary general, why is Mantashe not extending that same logic to mature into saying we need no contest for the SG position because the fact that Deputy SG Jessie Duarte already serves naturally must translate to her readiness to succeed him as SG.

The one time when the SG advanced a position immanent in candidates he ventures to assume 2017 must only deliver a man still in charge with a woman as his deputy.

This thinking confuses and misdirects the undeniable reality of a rival contest between Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa. This contest is so real that if we accept, as before the pronouncements on candidacy by the Women, Youth and Veterans leagues of the ANC, NDZ is the contender to loose come December 2017.

Mantashe therefore invokes the order of a deputy president as sacrosanct and is perhaps conveniently oblivious to the choices of the recognised Leagues and to his possible surprise that of branches, who already have pronounced on their choice for number one candidacy. Are we to assume Mantashe does not respect the ANC structures and their respective choices?

To Mantashe we say the 2017 elections is therefore no ordinary contest given the reality of the candidates in leading and the ANC structures known choices, and the challenge of democracy as a practiced reality in the ANC. There has never been an ANC president that was not chosen or supported by the ANC structures. Are we to assume 2017 will be different and that the SACP and COSATU preferences will outweigh the ANC structures? From where this comfort of conviction?

Those who advocate for a non-contest and claims of farcical unity of smooth transition and handover claims, refuse to acknowledge the proverbial horse have bolted a long time ago. They refuse to acknowledge and see the two rivals in full bloom of contest for number one spot and nothing less and with due significant support.

May we remind those of the doctrine of third candidate alternate option of the 2016 Tshwane Municipal elections where branches and grassroots told the ANC to allow for a contest, and the ANC led by its provincial leaders opted for so called unity immanent in third neutral person, of Thoko Didiza which delivered an ANC loss while the divisions continue.

Clyde N.S Ramalaine
Political Commmentator
As published in ramalainetalkpoliticalanalysis.com September 25, 2017

 

 

 

Klipspruit West Crisis: Are We Getting It Wrong Again?

We are back here again and it seems we will be walking around this mountain for a tad longer than we all anticipated.

It was Davidsonville last year, now it’s Klipspruit West, evidently a manifestation of a much bigger problem and not one to be confused in narrowness of education.

Our children are denied schooling and we are told the teachers are on a go-slow. In all of this we hear some community leaders stoking the fires and threatening mass mobilisation to spread wider. As a parent and lifelong activist for equal education, I detest our children losing one hour of schooling in a cramped curriculum and academic year. I detest a politicised organised labour that has less interest in the advancement of our children but their personal made sacrosanct rights to organise.

Yet I am not immune to the plight, frustration, and agony of former Coloured communities. No matter how you look at it, how it’s understood or heard from the mouths of the people, we dare not be dismissive of their claims. It would be sheer ignorance and even blatant arrogance to assume you from outside these communities understand what it means.

On the subject of appointment of principals after all the necessary steps and processes are followed it should not matter who is appointed in a ‘normal society’, however our society is not normal and to pretend it is to be deceiving. We are a society which battles the toxic combination of colonisation and colonisation of the special kind commonly called apartheid. As if that is not enough, we also dealing with the reality of the new anomalies that the democratic state in some instances inadvertently produced in other instances in glaring arrogance.

It would appear; on the one hand all that Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi must do is provide the hardcore evidence to show the people of Klipspruit West, Davidsonville and others that there are Coloured principals in apartheid geographic spaces such Soweto, Laudium, Katlehong etc. This evidence, if it exists, is crucial to assist the misconceptions and claimed contradictions.

You will notice I refer to these racial labels, but not because I endorse them. I consciously identify as Khoisan hence I reject the apartheid labels for a means for classification of identity configuration. I do so because the democratic State has in bad advice continued to uncritically appropriate the discredited race frames for identity formulation. A subject I have raised in my submission to the recent ANC National Planning Conference. All Coloureds may not be Khoisan but all Khoisan were classified as Coloured, hence my natural involvement in these circumstances.

For as long as the GED does not share the statistics if they exist as reality, the argument of apartheid Coloured communities being the only playground for a forced cross-pollination will continue to stand.

If I were MEC I would start there, nothing beats evidence that the non-racial stratification is not just focussed on so-called Coloured areas but also on so-called Black and so called Indian areas.

To advance the argument that South Africa is a non-racial society is on the one side true yet on the other a founding myth. We cannot deny that despite our claims of non-racialism, South Africa’s former townships remain racially stratified in dominance of its apartheid demographics. Meaning you still have the majority of people in Soweto people as black and Eldorado Park as Coloured and Laudium as Indian. We must engage what this means and how we can attempt to make transformation and social cohesion stand in these apartheid communities.

The implications therefore remain, that language will be factored in as a cardinal departure point for these communities no different to others. If people go to a local clinic, police station, and even a school and cannot be heard in their mother tongue it may be argued their human rights are encroached upon if not violated. We know for example the Police Station in Eldorado Park is a classic example of this anomaly.

Therefore, resorting to labelling people racist and disbanding the SGB is perhaps the easy way out but does not solve the problem. You may win the cheap debate and right to stand on your tomato box, as the one who told Coloureds they are racist, but it does not exempt you from your own plausible racist mind in attempt of dealing with a community.

One may choose to disband the SGB because one can, because they floatedon one or other policy regulation and therefore prove dysfunctional, hardly an uncommon challenge in SA. That is short-termism and attempt at immediate crisis-averting tactics. It does not deal with the real problem that we all who claim sensibility know exists.

We had Davidsonville; what have we learnt and not learnt. We clearly haven’t learnt anything because we are back here again.

What is indisputable is exacted punitive inequality (epi), the case we lodged with the SAHRC on May 28, 2017 stands. Exacted punitive inequality suggests while the constitution demands an equality informed by an equality of humanity, politicians, civil servants and officials claim a right to exact punishment on Coloured communities for a multiplicity of reasons from as narrow as sheer disrespect for the identity to a means to show them for voting a specific way.

This issue of a school principal appointment makes up part of that exacted punitive inequality that is understood in colloquial sense of marginalisation.

Again I suggest, provide the Soweto scenarios where Coloured Principals are appointed. Show how there are both Indian and Coloured principals in former black areas. If the Department can show it, the case may fall flat.

However, if the department cannot show it then we must accept former Coloured areas are used as the testing grounds, if not laboratory, of a one-dimensional social cohesion utopia and not other areas. Why then? Hence it can be argued the department has a specific agenda.

The collective frustration of Coloureds is underestimated and completely miscalculated by some in government. I hate being a prophet of doom, but my conscience and reading of the mounting pressure confirms we are sitting on a time bomb and it won’t be long when we will ask in embarrassed if not tragic sense why didn’t we see this coming.

How many times do we have to come back to this part of the mountain?

Making Sense Of “The Gathering Media Edition 3rd August 2017” Hosted At CTICC

Last week I attended the publicised Daily Maverick “Gupta leaks” presentation. As in the case of the preceding event that failed to take off in Braamfontein last week I had gone representing the Inkuleleko Foundation whom I consciously associate with for its core values and its principled publicised mandate. I went to understand, engage and make sense of what we are pummelled with daily in snippets of salacious news advantage tit bits. I wanted to ask some questions and engage this section of the media that considers itself the anointed non-propaganda based pristine Fourth Estate.

Well we arrived and at the entrance to the actual venue room security guards were deployed. Clearly this event was not going to be derailed by the BLF or anyone the organisers identified as a threat – real or fake. At the security check-in some BLF members led by its leader Andile Mngxitama were present and although they, like all of us, paid to attend this R1800.00 per delegate event were refused entry.

The BLF was not the only denied entrance. We can confirm the vice chairperson of the Inkuleleko Foundation, Lulamile Jack, despite paying for flights, renting of a car and registration, was also refused entry. I suspect his Inkuleleko Foundation baseball cap was the reason he was denied entry. The event had as one of the sponsors Nando’s. It is clear after the embarrassment Gordhan and Jonas suffered at the UJ event; the organisers realized the event could be derailed only by those who would be inside the venue. Hence, they took much more precaution.

Inside it became quickly evident as with the Braamfontein event that these events are weighted in favour, by as high as 70-75%, of what South Africa defines as whites. We are still not sure what the overarching aims of these events are beyond a gathering some may rightly consider a talk-shop where the public is yet to be afforded the opportunity to speak or engage the panellists.

The programme was made up of an assortment of panels with a 60/40 distribution of white and black identities. The venue was jam-packed. First to kick off was the panel moderated by Bruce Whitfield where he had Sipho Pityana, the face and mouthpiece of the Save SA, Mike Abel, business matriarch Wendy Applebaum and Styli Charalambous, the Nando’s king.

This panel essentially attempted to look at what the role of capital is and should be in support of the media. Let me qualify media. Media in this sense means those present at “the gathering” and excludes what they colloquially define as Gupta Media, meaning ANN7 and New Age. Needless to say, the latter – after being denied entry – became the soft target and laughing stock of this gathering. We also were entertained to comment on the Independent Media of Iqbal Surve, whom it was claimed were invited but did not come. Not missing a chance and opportunity to poke fun at what is generally in this group accepted as propaganda media, Pityana wasted no time to promote the upcoming week’s key events, the August 8 vote of no-confidence marches.

This session was followed by a presentation of the press ombudsman Joe Tloloe. The truth is an aging Bra Joe, besides starting a nice story on his previous arrest, said nothing more than to defend his personal job. He took his aim at the ANC government which he identifies as the problem. The press ombudsman said nothing in challenge to this crowd, but came to uncritically endorse them. He attempted no counsel, neither solicited or attempted any intruding questions on the challenges of self-regulation, thus he failed to make the case for a self-critical media.

I thought the Ombudsman would ask the gathering ‘how can you claim to be independent when you have denied others of your sector access to this gathering?’ I figured the press ombudsman would throw a stone into the bush of a self-righteous media present to ask how independent they are from capital’s true influence? Well none of that surfaced or was remotely on the radar of Ombudsman Tloloe. He gave them a true endorsed free pass, therefore robbing our discourse from what it perhaps need as honest input from his venerated office.

Next up was Mark Heywood and Jay Naidoo, moderated by Xolani Gwala. This combination of former trade unionists didn’t help the debate at all. Their own glaring contradictions stand paramount and if I am correct Naidoo was not well received, not sure if he had the wrong mind or presentation for the day. In some circles, the man dubbed super wealthy ‘Dalai Lama’ of democracy spares no opportunity to tell all-and-sunder about his work on some farms in the Northern Cape. Thus, Naidoo was not going to be critical of the gathering in attempt of objectivity. He failed to engage even what they brought him for. Mark Heywood is Mark Heywood. He was not the bodyguard and doorkeeper he was at the Braamfontein event. On this day he was a panellist where his opinions fitted perfectly into this space because the media present here made up a section of the politics of Heywood.

In between breaks and standing in groups of those one may know, we had occasion to briefly chat with among others Mcebisi Jonas, also on the programme with his former boss Pravin Gordhan, and many others like Ferial Haffajee, also a panellist on the fake news and media sustainability slot.

I took time to engage some new acquaintances from the media space and found a number of Cape-based young black journalists just as lost on the motives and programme of this gathering. Another panellist was Sam Mkokeli. He reiterated the general mood of the gathering, when he labelled ANN7 and New Age as fake news outlets that must be stopped and suggested independent media the appropriate way forward. The challenge with Mkokeli’s conclusion is that he, like so many at this gathering, is yet to explain this independence which they in convenience and almost arrogance parade.

Beyond lunch it became clear that questioning the panels was not part of this gathering, it was neatly crafted to ensure that the agenda of the day was attained and not what is considered true public participation.
We came to hear the Fourth Estate of SA in self-righteousness lamenting the threats of an intruding ANC that wants to regulate them. The gathered engaged an ANC that it sees as useless in all its facets of governance, yet a government that must consider sponsoring the Fourth Estate. The next panel was made up of Jackson Mthembu (Chief whip of the ANC), Phumzile Van Damme (Communications Member for the DA) and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi of the EFF. I enjoyed Ndlozi he in his gifted sense of articulation registered sensible and salient points.

Yet, Jackson Mthembu was driven into an unnecessary corner to admit (which we all know is a sophism) that he does not watch ANN7 of read the The New Age. I fail to understand why Mthembu, as communications specialist, could not easily deflect this subject by saying as a South African I read and watch all news because I don’t have to agree with it but must hear them for they have a following. Mthembu was made to look lethargic by the younger and more agile Van Damme and sensible Ndlozi. Ndlozi had the presence of mind and courage of conviction to tell the gathering they warrant self-introspection, something not a single other panellist had the presence of mind or the honesty of heart to attempt. Ndlozi told them it is white monopoly capital, even venturing to say Thabo Mbeki would agree. So, for the day Ndlozi for me was the one that made my trip perhaps worthwhile.

The real reasons for the gathering as per the programme was going to start between16h30 – 18h30pm, with the last two slots dubbed respectively ‘#GuptaLeaks’ and ‘Joining the dots: Media and Dirty Tricks campaigns.’

The #GuptaLeaks panel was completely white: Sam Sole Stefaans Brummer, Adrian Basson and Richard Poplack. Let us not be overtly race conscious a counter argument could easily be made that they broke the story, hence them leading it.

Before the last two panels sat, I had a chance to engage John Vlismas, somewhere at the back of the venue. Vlismas was also tasked to entertain us to some comedy. I enquired as to when there would be a chance to ask questions. Vlismas politely thanked me for the question and informed me the event was not organised to entertain any questions but really to come and listen to the panellists and those on the programme. I retorted, “how public in participation is the event if we are not afforded a chance to engage panellists but essentially are here to listen?” To that there was no real reply.

After this we as Inkuleleko Foundation delegates decided to leave the event, because we had already heard Gordhan and Jonas and thought it merely a political campaign unfolding. In the end, I concluded as I anticipated before going, the event was a political gathering hosted by the media. It is certainly part of the campaign that leads us into Tuesday August 8, 2017.

It was hardly an attempt at true self-introspection of the self-righteous media; it denied ANN7 and The New Age legitimate and active members with undeniable following in the SA citizenry an equal opportunity that they afforded themselves. Somewhere during one of the breaks I remarked to Stephen Groottes from 702 and Primedia, this gathering is toxic for its self-righteous attitude, and there was no humility present or any appreciation for the ambiguity of those gathered. Particularly for denying their opposition access, the gathering confirmed its own compromised state. I asked him how different a 403 ENCA is to a 405 ANN7, which he clearly had a different view on. I enquired as to how 403 is accepted as objective and devoid of propaganda, when ANN7 is naturally accepted as bias. Groottes indicated he had to go.

I left the gathering with my few questions, key of those:

What an independent media presents?
As to what independence means, independent from what and in relation to what?
Is it independent from Government (the natural demon as led by the ANC)?
How independent can media be when capital owns media in some instances in stark confirmation of white monopoly capital?
How critical can media be when it is depending on capital for its livelihood-advertising and sponsoring of these events?
How independent can media houses be about their owners in honest reporting?

Sam Sole said on 702, the day after the Braamfontein event, that the so-called Gupta emails were obtained when two whistle-blowers approached them. Collecting a trove of emails is no small feat:
Who then qualifies to be hacked?
Will we for example also have access to emails delivered by whistle-blowers, of every president, minister, deputy minister or politician’ s emails since they assumed public office?
What will amaBhungane and Scorpio do when files stolen from the offices of the CJ of the CC and Hawks respectively surface at its doorstep? What would be the applied ethics to engage that information, which it can be accepted will eventually be publicised?
May we ask Jonas as panellist why we have to believe his version, since he like so many stood accused not just once on corruption?
Why is he silent on some nagging questions on the PIC, which he chaired?
Why no one in this section of self-righteous media find it odd not to engage Gordhan on the Treasury Internal Audit report that is public for more than sixty days?

Yes, you may assume I have too many questions. You are right, I have a ton more, but these events will not allow some of us to raise them despite our willingness to hear them, they just do not want hear some of us.

The 26+ who voted against the ANC line betrayed being a cadre!

A cohort of opposition in the SA Parliament brought its eighth motion of no-confidence in President Jacob Zuma. The Speaker is afforded by the constitution and the subsequent Constitutional Court ruling the power to choose a secret ballot, which is what transpired. The result of the motion confirmed 384 members of parliament in attendance on the day, 198 votes against, 177 votes for the motion, and 9 votes abstaining.

 
In the aftermath of the defeat of the motion many began to make interesting deductions and analysis informed by the calculus they prefer to use. The fact is the eighth motion failed despite the cited mystical numerology of the eighth motion on the eighth day of the eighth month – for those who read numbers as indicating a specific sign.

 
The ANC defeated the motion, but not without cause for grave concern. It became clear that at least 26+ ANC MPs decided to vote in favour of the motion, thus adhering to the opposition’s call for a “conscience vote”, though this can also be made out as cheap blackmail if not sheer tactics of intimidation.

 
It is perhaps important to begin to ask what does this result mean if the critical factor of an ANC Cadre is brought into play? The ANC is confronted with the undeniable reality to ask itself tough questions, one of them we attempt engaging in this musing centres on the type of cadre it may representing it in parliament.
It is then here that we must accept the ANC before 1994 and the ANC entrusted to lead in political office marks decisively distinct organisations regardless to how we from a romantic sense demand the opposite. The ANC before 1994 needed all and everyone to support or join it, because the liberation cause was for the emancipation of those oppressed. The ANC in political power as leader in democracy can afford to be more circumspect, forthright and picky as to whom it wants to accept as its member and afford the claim of its cadre.

 
The ANC has currently approximately 1-million members yet it is common knowledge the ANC is held in political power by the more than 11-million that gave it a mandate. It then must make natural sense to remonstrate is it possible that the ANC rethinks its criteria to give due consideration to include in deployment some of the 10-million that may not be members but have shown a deep sense of commitment in cadreship to the ANC?

 
It would then mean we must begin to unpack, how to interpret the behaviour of the 26+ Members of Parliament, so as to ascertain if their behaviour embodies that of a true ANC cadre?

 

 

In closing the 53rd ANC Conference held in Mangaung, President Zuma informed all that the Conference dedicated the next decade as the “decade of the cadre”. Clearly the conference saw a need to engage the subject of being a cadre as a cardinal aspect of giving effect to the values and mandate of the ANC as entrusted by the masses to lead SA. This resolution was not necessarily new and should neither be separated from the one issued by the ANC’s longest-serving President OR Tambo in the January 8 statement delivered in 1985.
President Tambo in his call for a year of the ANC cadre went further in warning of a treacherous path, in his own words a “path we traverse”, one “fraught with numerous dangers and hazards”. We may comfortably and consciously assume in both instances of the ANC leaderships of 1985 and 2012, a call for a year of the cadre proved sensitive for the challenges the ANC was confronted with given the shifting context of struggle.

 
Chris Maxon in his opinion piece in January 2013 asserts, “first and foremost the ANC has always been a movement of cadres. The criterion in this assertion is whether or not a cadre is resolute in carrying out the ANC line, keeps to ANC discipline, has close ties with the masses, has the ability to find his/her bearings independently, and is active, hardworking and unselfish. That is what has been imparted to people who wanted to become cadres of the movement.” I tend to agree with Maxon on this score.

 
One involuntarily thinks of the collective words Presidents Tambo and Zuma and that of Maxon, when one attempts to make sense of the result and the voting patterns of ANC members in Parliament in this vote of no-confidence. That resoluteness to carry out the ANC line and keeping the ANC discipline is especially challenged when we hear the chairperson of the NDC, Cadre Derek Hanekom attempt to justify not keeping the line and ANC discipline when he invokes the seniority of Members of Parliament. Meaning one’s seniority affords one to break with the party line and still be justified in one’s actions.

 
It is important to link these two presidential statements at this crucial time and in the aftermath of a very challenging few weeks. President Tambo warned of a ‘path we traverse fraught with dangers and hazards’. President Zuma announced the year of the ANC Cadre, yet in 2008 in addressing the Youth League, he explained ANC discipline as follows: “To us discipline is everything. It means that you must have a grasp and understanding of our theory of revolution and the ability to articulate its strategic objective, that of building a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society.

 

 

Discipline to the ANC means that we must learn to listen and respect the opinions of others whilst maintaining the fundamental principle of collective decision making and a respect for a culture of democratic centralism.”
In the aftermath of the defeated motion the DA buoyed by the support of the 26+ ANC parliamentarians shared its intentions to bring a motion to dissolve parliament. It therefore must be accepted that these ANC deployed ones placed the ANC in definite harm’s way of looing its entrusted right to govern thereby plausibly disrupting the implementation of critical policies and projects. The case can be made that their self-centeredness potentially jeopardised the ANC’s legitimate leadership of the society and the country could have been forced to an early election.

 

 
The heart of the ANC is best understood in those who are defined as ANC cadres. Have we this week seen that ‘path fraught with dangers and hazards’ in full manifestation? President Tambo reminds us who that cadre is with this apt summary: “Who are these revolutionary cadres about whom we speak? Where are they? They are not special people. It is we – men and women, young and old, black and white – who are involved in daily struggles, making sacrifices in pursuit of the people’s cause. It is we, the workers in the factories, the mines, the farms, the commercial establishments and offices of various kinds; we, who work in health and educational services as well as those of us occupied within the residential areas.” Have we not this week lived through the defiance of that culture of democratic centralism by ANC cadres?

 

 
To join the ANC remains a personal and voluntary decision. By one’s own volition a membership form is completed, a small fee paid and a membership card issued. Yet to become a cadre of the ANC one signs up to a life of loyalty to the organisation, its values, constitution, its philosophy, ethos, democratically elected leadership and culture of governance immanent in centralised democracy. One signs up to have an opinion, which the Movement values and needs, yet one signs up for a contestation of views in designated and duly afforded spaces, to persuade others and to equally be open for persuasion. Signing up to be a cadre is to recognise and respect the party leadership, its structures and to adhere to party lines when directed.

 

 

One therefore signs up to learn and to teach, where your age whilst respected, does not automatically translate to a rightful claim of authenticity of cadreship, instead one’s conduct.
In light of this summary of what makes a cadre, we are compelled to ask: are the 26+ that decided to reject the party line, and acted out in ill-discipline prior to and during the actual vote acting out this cadreship or were they acting as members?

 
Let us then attempt to appreciate one of the adopted and sacrosanct blueprints on ANC Leadership immanent in title of the ‘Eye of the Needle’. In its preamble and rationale, as third aspect asks the following challenging questions: “How do we deal with individual ambition, lobbying, promotion of friends and pursuit of selfish interests? How do we ensure that electoral processes do not tear the movement apart? How do we prevent attempts to use the movement as a step ladder towards self-enrichment?”
How do we deal with individual ambition, lobbying, promotion of friends and pursuit of self-interest?

 

 

We must ask those who decided to risk the ANC in legitimate power with their individual and group conscious break away from and disrespect for leadership direction, did you not with this so called ‘conscience’ vote place your personal ambition, yielded to opposition lobbying (tactics and strategy) as paramount? Were they not in pursuit of self-interest, when they dared to risk exposing the ANC because they can? Were they not parading a self-centeredness in their respective media interviews?

 
The 34th aspect of the Eye of the Needle, poignantly outlines as broad requirement of leadership the following: “An ANC leader should understand ANC policy and be able to apply it under all conditions in which she finds herself. This includes an appreciation, from the NDR standpoint, of the country and the world we live in, of the balance of forces, and of how continually to change this balance in favour of the motive forces of change.”

 
Clearly those in parliament constitute beyond doubt ANC leadership to the legislative dimension of our democracy, hence we dare ask of them how was the national democratic revolution served with their choice against the ANC decision immanent in Luthuli House and its Caucus? How did ANC MPs who consciously decided to vote with the opposition read, interpret and understand the balance of forces at play in our political context that seeks to unseat the ANC in using its President as the door.

 
The 40th aspect of the Eye of the Needle binds ANC cadres to the following: “An individual with qualities of leadership does not seek to gain popularity by undermining those in positions of responsibility. Where such a member has a view on how to improve things or correct mistakes, she should state those views in constitutional structures and seek to win others to her own thinking. She should assist the movement as a whole to improve its work, and not stand aside to claim perfection out of inactivity.”

 

 

We are involuntarily compelled to ask from the cadres who chose to go with the opposition in the vote including those who chose to abstain, as to their individual and collective wisdom in consciously undermining those in positions of responsibility (the Secretary General) and their actions not to be interpreted as an attempt to be popular.

 

We must ask of them as to why they have not raised their views in the respective and designated constitutional structures. We equally have to ask from those who had the presence of mind to raise their views but were defeated in the ANC designated structures why they could not accept the defeat and continue to serve?

 

We warrant asking from those the ANC deployed how their individual and lobbied stance have helped the cause of the ANC when they absolve themselves in a sense of claimed perfection?

 
The ANC throughout its history, including during exile, afforded opportunity for even its soldiers to act in democracy, meaning there was a designated chance, time, and place for cadres to critique and self-critique leadership. The fundamental premise for this is the conviction that all critique must be constructive and it necessarily starts by first owning up to one’s conjoined role. We must ask where the 26+ fits into this self-critique and where they have owned up to their role? We must know how constructive their critique is when they absolve themselves and demonise others?

 

The 51st and 52nd aspects of the Eye of the Needle, warn against the role of media for ANC leaders: “Media focus on government and the ANC as a ruling party also means that individuals appointed into various positions are able to acquire a public profile in the course of their work. As such, over time, they become the visible members who would get nominated for leadership positions. This is a natural expression of confidence and helps to widen the base from which leaders are elected.

 

However, where such practice becomes the main and only criterion, hard-working individuals who do not enjoy such profile get overlooked. Artificial criteria such as acceptability to the media, eloquence specifically in English, and warped notions of “sophistication” are then imposed on the movement’s approach.”
We are thus compelled to inquire from the ANC deployed cadres to parliament that considered themselves distinct from the ANC and only mandated by the South African public in claim of the exacted oath as to why they allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by a media presence that works for a different agenda? The various captured incidents of media events that ANC cadres share with opposition tendencies as a means to enhance their personal political and public profiles warrants an explanation.

 

It is therefore imperative for the ANC to know from its deployed members as to why the ANC must trust them to continue to serve at the pleasure of the ANC when they can agree with the opposition and adhere to the proverbial general(s) of another army in a war situation. The fact that the ballot was secret does not naturally absolve those who voted with their crafted oppositional consciences, to answer the ANC and its leadership that deployed them. Equally it does not exempt the ANC to consider engaging its deployed, especially those who were vocal and taunted the ANC that they would vote with the conscience.

 
The ANC cadre is a cadre that has an ANC conscience, he / she is a cadre that places the ANC first and will not attempt to put the ANC in harm’s way because self interest, imagined or real, as the centre.
We ask again what type of cadre does the ANC have that can go to Parliament on an ANC mandate and decide to vote against the ANC in concert with the opposition under the guise of a ‘vote of conscience’. We must ask again who and what determined this ‘conscience vote’, does it mean the members never voted with their consciences before?

 
The ANC therefore must help us identify with it as to how it will respond to those who have placed their personal interest and popularity in defying the ANC discipline and line in this regard.
It is abundantly clear the organisational discipline President Zuma so eloquently reminded the Youth League about in 2008, in 2017 is not upheld by those who regard themselves as senior parliamentarians, as confirmed with their individual and group choices of defiance of the “fundamental principle of collective decision making and a respect for a culture of democratic centralism”.