Versoening n eensydige lot van Afrikane – waarin Afrikaners net wil baat vind!

Versoening n eensydige lot en onderskryf net deur Afrikane:
– Afrikane betaal vir dit wat Afrkaners as hulle geboortereg wil eien –

Die De Klerk stigting se woordvoerder Dave Steward het by navraag gese dit was nie goeie jaar vir versoening nie. Hy noem onder andere die Malema vrees besweringe, die hof uitspraak van n Regter Lamont rondom die nou verbane vryheidslied ‘dubhula I bhunu’ as kardinale aspekte ter stawing van sy konklusie.

Ek wil met Steward saam stem dat dit nie goeie jaar vir versoening was nie maar vanuit n totaal teenoorgestelde hoek.

Daar kan nou nie meer geargumenteer word dat versoening in Suid Afrika die skuldlas en onderskrywing van die swart masses is nie. Versoening in n groeiende groep denkende Suid Afrikaners skei duidelike geskoeide lyne verwesenlik op essensiele ras onderbou en basis. As Steward vandag te kenne gee dat versoening nie n goeie jaar beleef het dan moet dit eerder gevra word, versoening in die gesigsveld van wie ? Versoening soos deur wie vertolk ? Meer nog versoening met wat as barometer ?

Dit is my oortuiging dat as Nelson Mandela Suid Afrikaners ‘verenig’ het soos baie klaarblyklik vir eie selfsugtige en baatsugtige maniere ons wil laat glo, dan moes n Malema dwaasheid te al ons bewus maak van die slagate van die romantisering van die versoening.

Dit sou benadruk deur te wys hoe Suid Afrikaners n uiters gepolariseerde nasie is wie n eenheid het wat vir Afrikaners baat, hetsy op land eienaarskap of die bree ekonomie.

Kenners is dit lank eens dat die Afrikaners deurgaans met spek en eiers in die spreukwoordelike ontbyt wil wegkom. Afrikaners het gemaksugtig geword met versoening wat n Mandela volgens hulle held vir hulle klaarblyklik bewerkstellig het. Afrikaners wil nie praat oor die kwelpunte van grond, n wanbalans van ekonomie eienaarskap, legitieme eis van vergoeding, n transformasie van die regstelsel en die opskorting van eienaarskap van land as eindom sonder vergoeding. Afrikaners wil nie deel met die nalatingskap van apartheid soos ervaar as n pyn vir Afrikane.

Afrikaners wil die konstitusie as heilig behou laat bly in my boeke vir onheilige redes. Afrikaners wil niks verantwoordelikheid neem vir die geskiedenis van apartheid met n lewenslange nagevolg van absolute akute wanbalans ervaar in ekonomiese welvaart, ekwivalente menswaardigheid.

Daarteenoor moet Afrikane telkemale die spreukwoordelike tjek onderteken vir die versoening waarin Afrikaners net wil baat vind.

Dit was beslis nie n goeie jaar vir versoening as n mens die Bees Roux saak vergelyk met die Robert McBride saak se uitslag. Roux het man nee n polisie beampte bedood met sy kaalhande. Hy sou uiteiundelik wegkom met n boete van R750,000.00 as deel van n bedingde restorerende regspakket. Daarteenoor is dit maklik om te se, McBride is tronkstraf toegedien nie vir dronkbestuur maar wel as die Magoo Bomber, die veraltyd beeld vir Afrikaners.

Die Waterkloof 2 Moordenaars van n hawelose onbeholpe man en die aanranders van nog n slagoffer word deur n Hanti Otto joernalis van die Burger geprys in tuiskoms. Scott Crossley het ook baie lig afgekom nadat hy Afrikane lewe vir Leeu-kos, gevoer het. Die werklikheid sal daartoe wys dat n wit lewe kwansuis meer werd is as die van swart lewe, want in Suid Afrika kan jy n swart lewe aan bakkie sleep op n grondpad en wegstap met n ligte vonnis, in suid afrika kan jy swart lewe met wit olieverf bykom vir diefstal, en ten soyte van die onbekende skade berokken kan n R500 boet betaal. In suid afrika kan jy swart lew vir n dier beskou en daarop skiet en n einde maak aan so n lewe en in n hof se, ek het my misgis. Ja in Suid Afrika kan jy swart lewens in n wasgoed masjien plaas en hulle bedood en wegstap met n wanbalans in vonnis oplegging, maar in Suid Afrika mag n wit lewe nie bedood word nie, want dit is heilig.

Versoening is n klug as dit by uitstek die werk en verantwoordelikheid van een groep is. Afrikane is moeg om vir die goedkoop versoening te betaal terwyl Afrikaners elke wetsontwerp wil bevraagteken, elke wet wil toets aan die hand van n konstitutisie wat juis lank nie meer moet voorrang geniet as aanbiddingswaardig nie. Dieselfde konstitiesie wie Afrikaners vir onheilige redes aanbiddingswaardig vind.

Versoening is goedkoop as dit n apartheid ekonomie en land verdeling onverhoed benadruk. Versoening kan nie Afrikaners n eie unieke reg besorg waarin hulle skielik na apartheid presies weet hoe n demokrasie werk en die regering wil aanse hoe om die land in hulle Afrikaners belang te regeer.

Ek is op rekord waarin ek se Aartsbiskop Tutu se reenboognasie is by uitstek Tutu se reenboog en niks meer nie. Ons het nog nooit die deskripsie as massas aanvaar of verdedig nie. Want die reenboognasie is een waarin swart as kleur gehawendloos bly in ekonomies verduideliking en praktyk. Ja versoening het die Afrikaners tot vandag nog niks gekos. Daarom kan die De Klerk Stigting waarskuwings rig asof die woelinge van die afgelope jare van 1994 geen aanduiding is van die moegheid van Afrikane om die water te skep en Afrikaners drink die emmers leeg.

Versoening sal al hoe meer minder werklik wees want ons weier om verder vir die maaltyd te betaal sodat andere aan n tafel met ariese oortuiging van superioritiet kom aansit. Die regstelsel se onderbou dateer in praktyk uit apartheid en die konstitusie bevraagteken nie die slakke pas van transformasie van die ongetransformeerdes wie ons wil aanse hoe Suid Afrika moet lyk.

Versoening was nog nooit goedkoop nie en moet nie goedkoop gemaak word deur Afrikaner belange as super belange nie. As versoening n slegte jaar beleef het volgens die F W. De Klerk stigting dan wil ons as Afrikane onomwonde se vir alle Afrikaners a-nee-a betaal n slag vir die maaltyd.

Biskop Clyde N. Ramalaine

Advertisements

Is the recent praxis of a two term SA presidency a goner?

Will we ever again have in SA another two-term president? – I think not so-

The ANC in Gauteng is on record for having intimated that the long on and off debate of two centers of power be allowed for in ANC and National President context. I hold no brief for the Gauteng ANC and sees this as a knee-jerked and expeditiously politically attempt at influencing the much made of 2012 elective conference.

 

I am rather concerned with what sits behind the issue that the two-term presidency in RSA presidency is a thing of the past. Anyone that has ever held power will attest that the cudgels of power leaves one intoxicated to think that season must never cease. Often those who come to power fail to appreciate that before them others were.

 

Yet understanding political power is to understand the economic nature and context of such. Our recent democracy confirms the fact that Nelson Mandela was the only president who for whatever reason was willing to serve one term.

There are off cause those who argue that he never ran the country but held a “chairmanship” of office in which his deputy Thabo Mbeki was given free reign to set the tone for his day in the sunshine and the helm of power defined in SA presidency.

 

Mbeki in the Mandela era made his famous “I am an African” speech. He did this due to the pragmatism of a Mandela who was much more comfortable to be the “reconciliation champion of the 20th Century”. Mandela was satisfied to have been the first democratic president known for his now well-publicized and recorded legacy of reconciling SA.

 

We still await with bated breath the claimed mumbled to be published “memoirs” of a Jakes Gerwel who it is said will lift the lid of the future of the ANC under a Mbeki as shared by Mandela.

 

Mbeki who served two terms beside what some claim as half if not all of the Mandela era, when he came to the end of such proved reluctant to move on, though he could not serve unless by Constitutional amendment.

Off course we are dealing here only with the SA presidency and not the ANC presidency. A whole different set of rules applies for ANC presidency, in the ANC context one may serve consecutively for multiple terms.

It is therefore that same dictum that rightfully enabled an Mbeki  in 2007 to claim as he did, “I stood because there was a nomination”. The precedent is in SA under a multiparty democracy the ruling party president automatically becomes the SA president. Hence if Mbeki wanted to serve again as ANC president the need to split or create two centres of power would have to be the order of the day.

 

To now hear the Gauteng ANC leadership asks for the two centre of power notion to be revived is to find meaning in the known saying “history repeats itself the first time in a farce the second time in tragedy”. For we have been down this road before.

 

No matter how powerful and dynamic even prolific an ANC presidency was in exile or since inception nothing compares to it when it is combined to the power of SA presidency. In recent days many have called on for what I term expedient reasons the legacy of a Tambo, Nokwe and other well decorated ANC leaders yet I argue you simply cannot compare those leaderships with that of a ruling party which began in Mandela.

 

ANC presidents prior to our democracy led a movement who had no statutory power in a liberation struggle where the enemy was apartheid. These leaderships were free from the accompanying accoutrements of money or wealth as a tool and means to rule. Therefore a separation must be made between ANC leadership prior to democracy and those who are in democracy context. To argue for a distinction of leadership is not to argue values as a standard, but to argue praxis in a complete different set of circumstances.

 

We can best compare those who served in democracy to each other hence we shall for long while compare a Mandela to an Mbeki, a Mbeki to a Zuma and so we will continue as time goes on. For none of the serving presidents derive any meaning devoid of comparison to each other not in necessarily chronological but rather interactive manner.

 

I am afraid Xolela Mangcu the comparison of a Mbeki and Zuma is far from over and we can expect many doctoral thesis’ on these two in domestic and foreign policy context, in organisational and country context, in style and approach in successes and failures.

 

This call for the separation of power in organizational and country context is what begs the question why? What really sits behind the call for such and therefore warrants the mistrust in sitting presidents first experienced in an Mbeki presidency and now again under a Zuma swiftly becoming almost normal as our collective future. It would appear that no future president of ANC making would have a comfortable if at all possibility of a second term.

 

At the risk of speculating I shall argue the possible reason for such claim, emanates from nothing but the perceived proximity of direct “economic power” that such SA presidency affords its incumbent. Perhaps not for the president himself but for those whom he associates himself with, from hence the notion for him.

 

In SA with us being recently freed and the history of black poverty combined with an avarice of some, the office of the SA presidency is a lucrative place and position to dictate, design and develop economic opportunities for cronies, associates, even family.

 

Let us not forget that the breed of new black billionaires, at least the majority of them who 15 years ago had others pay for their children school fees were created by noting but “political connections”.

 

If entrepreneurship has a definition it must be cognizant of a ‘product’ called political connections for, as a commodity it’s stock value is extremely high. I dare say, and some detest me for saying it, that most of the current black elite are not natural entrepreneurs or business people but have made their billions out of that connectedness, having served in offices be such political / cabinet and SOE boards where the opportunities of business and it’s inviting wealth are very possible if not tantalizing aided by a BEE policy articulation that necessitated “white capital ” to find partners to justify it’s cohesive existence. Why then not find the right kind of black partner given as the politically connected one? For these bring the proverbial “ham” home and due to proximity holds the hope a presidential encounter.

 

This started under the Mandela administration and matured under the Mbeki era in full bloom for his two terms allowed for this. The Mbeki era in some ways were also considered a time of family manifested in cabinet context it was not strange to find husband and wife teams serving cabinet ministers. Many of the now claimed black billionaires owe there existence or right to claim such status to a Mbeki, perhaps that explains the reluctance when he had to move on by recall as we no historically know. It was said then that SA was run from the London Club of inner circle friends.

 

We cannot really speak of the brief Motlanthe 7month seat-warming era. Suffice to say, we await a Motlanthe presidency be it as mooted post 2014 or later to confirm the notion or challenge such.

 

In the Zuma era again the issue of family benefitting from a sitting presidency was reported on with many claims of nepotism and selling out of SA to a cohort of Chinese and Indian- Gupta making. Let us not forget the Aurora controversies and the many implied claims of enrichment leveled by some against this presidency no different to an Mbeki presidency where some were guaranteed access to opportunities of wealth creation.

 

The newspapers were filled with the claims of systemic corruption. These claims found unison chorus in some organized labour personalities. Quickly the issue was changed as led by the combo of SACP and COSATU leaders who coined the term “tenderpreneurship” with an ethos of “crass materialism”. The knives were drawn and the proverbial guns loaded as some began to drum up support for the idea that the ANC is invaded by a group of people who is hell-bent on crass materialism who parade as kamikaze saviors of the poor but really are the enemies of democracy and the national democratic revolution therefore charlatans that need to be exposed.

 

These found willing partners in all sectors but particular those who made their money under an Mbeki two and a half term era. These equally began to pontificate the meridian of wealth creation using them as the maximum symbol. Yet these either suffer of selective amnesia or is simply stubborn to admit their closeness to a presidency and their connectedness to power exemplified in an ANC president who also served as Country president delivered their wealth since political connectedness is a lucrative commodity that trades well.

 

George Ainstworthland the known business guru says “for any business to thrive it needs a certain prevailing ideology, for as long as the ideology lives the business will thrive yet as soon as the ideology exemplified in people change the business takes a dip”.

 

The truth is this business observation is real in SA for those who amass their billions under Mbeki with his departure found the environment ultra hostile and very business unusual. Many of these were part of the formation of COPE who had nothing to do with protecting a constitution that was never under threat but their hero under whom they made their proverbial bacon.

We are now a year away from the much-publicised Mangaung Elective conference in which the noises are beginning to be made by those who feel hard done by this Zuma presidency that did not deliver their bacon for them too. These now have asked that the Deputy President be made president of RSA. The truth is this call has nothing to do with the ANC presidency in and of itself for such office guarantees nobody anything.

 

It is only when such office is given the face of a RSA president that such presidency becomes exceptionally lucrative. Which leads me to conclude the election of ANC presidents in post apartheid context means nothing outside such is combined with the RSA presidency.

 

I find this the reason why there will never be a two term president for such automatically means that one who reaches that will serve a two term period of SA presidency provided the current situation prevails. This practically means an opportunity to empower his /her own economically.

 

So at the heart of the elections for ANC presidency is the hidden yet glaring assumption of economic carrot-stick dangling by him who sits on the throne? Hence the dictum of “kingmaker” status afforded to a combo of ANCYL and Women’s League in electing the ANC president.

 

This observation leads one to ask when and how did the power of economic empowerment as a tool by the ANC presidency who is also a RSA president become real and was cast in a mold as our now accepted norm. I am afraid all roads lead back to Mbeki, for it is under him and in his two terms that the product value of such was first realized and found meaning. This is no cheap defamatory wild claim but a quest to know the relationship between political power and economic power where the margins of error are tight and the constituencies forever soluble and the tides fluctuate.

 

Economic power or a perception of such as a possibility for those who have less been empowered and those who have had to join the line at the back when they were previously front rowers constitutes the primary reason why we will never again have a two term ANC and RSA president. Hence the call of some for two centers of power as the way forward.

 

This is not a new call for it was the same call that gave rise to a Polokwane 2007. Lest we forget the Mbeki address at GIBS where he in the dying days of his presidency he toyed with the idea that the people of SA must decide who should lead them. Barney Pityana and Desmond Tutu echoed this chorus when they in 2008 called for constitutional amendments that would facilitate SA to be led by whomever it deems fit and not a party president.

 

Yet I shall ask what should be the ethos for electing an ANC president in my books the history of the ANC dictate it must be leadership for the people in servant hood it never can and must be for what it can bring some constituencies in monetary terms. For if the latter holds, we will never see another president serving two terms for there will always be a constituency who feel aggrieved rightfully or wrongfully to mobilise for the substitution of a sitting SA president when money or the access of such is the barometer for judging presidents.

 

Respectfully submitted

 

Clyde N.S Ramalaine

Apartheid – the Second coming !


– Our dignity as restored by a vote is under threat, by an encroaching judiciary –

In his prologue  “Politics is in my blood” Kader Asmal asks a poignant question “can there be a more important human condition than dignity” he goes on and asserts without it we are bitter, downtrodden, unheard, humiliated, embarrassed and disempowered. With dignity, we are peaceful, collegial, kind, compassionate and even at times cohesive”. This assimilation of what dignity does and what the absence of such presents constitutes a crucial if not cardinal issue if we are celebrating our democracy today.

In a constitutional democracy where there are 3 arms of functioning namely the executive, legislature and the judiciary one can and must expect tension to be the order of the day when each acts by virtue of structure as a checks and balance of the other. This constitutes the axis of the dictum “separation of powers”.

In recent days we have heard and seen as warned by some of us much earlier that the lines between the executive and the judiciary are blurring. There are those who argue that our constitutional democracy stands alone in it’s own shadow and must be the ultimate final law that governs the expression of governance. Yet such constitutional democracy as underpinned by a judiciary must find expression meaning and purpose in tandem with the functional executive arm of government that is condensed in a parliamentary democracy in which the majority rules by way of vote.

The tendencies that are emerging is the judiciary becoming pliable in the hands of some who lack a parliamentary democracy voice and makes shortcuts to the proverbial Mt. Everest of governance by way of what I choose to call “court cased – democracy expressed in a worship of constitutionalism”.

I am on record for arguing that our constitution is not sacrosanct, and therefore is subject to be revisited as and when the need demands. It therefore must be tested from time to time and remains in that sense a work in progress. To think that 11 people who have their own convictions, political persuasions, ideologies, preferences and proclivities have the final power to rule laws that were adopted in parliamentary democracy, almost in a unilateral sense is seething to say the least. We have seen with the appointment of the Chief Justice how personality politics can on the part of the very Constitutional Court rear its head by articulations from members of the very court.

The president of the RSA in July at the Access to Justice conference is on record for saying “political disputes resulting from the exercise of powers that have been constitutionally conferred on the ruling party through a popular vote must not be subverted simply because those who disagree with the ruling party politically, and who cannot win the popular vote during elections, feel other arms of the state are avenues to help the co-govern the country. This interferes with the independence of the judiciary. Political battles must be fought on political platforms”.

The president repeated this challenge and he contends that the courts interfere with the power of government to make policy and those who disagree with the ruling party use the courts to co- govern the country.

Every analyst and public intellectual even jurist that have commented argues from the painted corner of fear, in which they want us to believe that this observation on the part of the president constitutes signs of disrespect for the “worshipped” judiciary. I am of the opinion that those who argue thus errs for their premise is informed by firstly seeing the executive as an enemy of democracy and equally the absolving of the judiciary from a conjoined role of proving less succinct and open to blur the lines too. It is simply disingenuous to argue that the judiciary at all levels are above reproach, totally unencumbered and less open for the very blurring of lines of authority.

We must not act as if we do not have judges and people in our judiciary that have proven less transformative. The transformation of the judiciary remains a contentious debate and a grave concern that cannot be wish-washed in the name of constitutionalism.  It is mendacious to all of a sudden propagate our sitting judges on all benches have a pure intent for such transformation, it is sophistic to conclude that our judiciary ‘knows exactly’ what this country needs in democratic embrace the same as opposition parties would have us believe they are the legitimate custodians of our democracy when the people in the popular vote simply did not trust them with such mandate.

Kate O’Regan former justice in the Constitutional Court in the Sunday independent of last Sunday argues for that the separation of powers is necessary to provide checks and balances. She says “government conduct must have a legal foundation in the constitution or legislation” yet I want to add the judiciary conduct must have legal foundation in the same constitution that is to be interpreted sanguine with the aspect of equality as a non negotiable.

We understand that the bill of rights contains rights that are not absolute, which should not always take precedence over other concerns.

Yet when we argue as Asmal states “the notion of dignity resides at the very heart of our Constitutional settlement and is fundamental to our bill of rights. It is implicit in the right to equality”, the case then stands that if Apartheid stripped us from the very dignity it is voting in democratically setting that restores such dignity. This means we must at all times prove prudent, act defensive and be cautious that the power of the vote as an ultimate sign of such restoration of the quest for dignity is not obfuscated nor infringed or again disenfranchised in the name of constitutional efficacy.

This if not monitored may create a “tendency” in which some informed by resource, access and a conviction borne out of a “friendliness” or a make believe of “cohort oppositionalism informed by pervasive sentiment” would seek to approach the courts and use the judiciary to settle politically loaded battles.  One senses that in South Africa today opposition parties and ideology based and driven NGO’s have found in their own eyes a friend in our judiciary. This found “friendliness” is what pubic intellectuals like Pierre de Vos uses as prove of a “progressive constitutional court” when it rules under a Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke in favour of Afri-Forum against affirmative action.

 

This tendency as articulated by a De Vos, is what sits behind my contention that apartheid may have it’s second coming when the sacrosanct vote of people as exemplified in parliamentary context be diminished by a conviction that the courts may arbitrate and turn down the very adopted policy frameworks or laws that lawmakers rightfully engage.

 

The question that needs answering is from where the comfort and confidence is derived that dictates every law can be derailed by constitutional approach.Therefore creating a co-governance model devoid of ballot recognition. Another issue it is no rocket science that if a Terry Crawford Browne as a millionaire can court case informed by his economic capacity laws or decisions that ultimately the means of having determines the power to engage the Constitutional Court the same a poor person who do not have the means may find much more difficult to attain. This means since we know now on average that whites own the economy and remain the highest per capita earners that they naturally have a been privileged by material means to ‘fight’ a case to the highest court as oppose to anyone else who are black in South Africa today.

The separation of powers is essential the lines between the arms are crucial in which encroachment must not be tolerated. There is a publically communicated view that such caution is the responsibility of government purely, yet I shall ask that the same conviction be served upon the judiciary to prove prudent not to be usurped as a means to arbitrate in “friendliness” to those who lost in a popular vote.

It is essential to always know the restoration of dignity is made manifest in the vote and that cannot be compared with anything else. Hence apartheid for all its evil intents exemplified, as the murderer of a people’s dignity cannot be allowed to live again, least at the hand of a judiciary who encroaches.

Respectfully submitted.

Bishop Clyde Ramalaine