Watse ANC Inploffing?? William Gumede sit die pot behoorlik mis !

Watse ANC Inploffing ?? – William Gumede sit die pot heeltemal mis!!

 

William Gumede in die Rapport van Desember 23, 2012 onder opgesprekke, soos oorvertaaal in my moedersmelk Afrikaans in sy samevatting van die afgelope ANC Konferense te Mangaung, sien die herverkiesing van President Zuma as potensieel die begin van die keldering van die ANC deur wat hy beskryf as moontlike in-ploffing.

Gumede ter stawing van sy siening maak n paar interresante gevolgtrekkinge: Sy vertrekpunt vir hierdie onvoldoende gevolgtrekking is wat hy noem “Boonop blyk dit die gemiddelde afgevaardigde word nie deur die moed van sy oortuiging gelei nie maar eerder deur beloftes van begunstiging- iets wat weerhou sou word van diegene wat dit waag om hul kruisie nie vir Zuma te trek nie.”

Hierdie aantuiging is uit die staanspoor van alle waarheid ontbloot, en noodwendig n analise in leemte van bewys. Die feit is die ANC het nogaltyd verkiesings gehad, waarin leiers verkies was op die demokratiese proses van nominasies en benoemdes onderle deur n diepe en oortuigende demokrasie as organisasie onderbou.

Dit wil se, streke en provinsies verteenwoordigend in grondvloer takke staan heel voor in mag van leierskap-verkiesings. Dit is juis die takke wat besluit natuurlik het enigeen in die ANC die reg of stemgeregtigde takke te werf vir hul visioen (iets wat Kgalema Motlanthe nie gedoen het nie, maar aanvaar het dit sal hom deur dra). Hierdie ANC grondvloer takke vaardig Konferensie gangers af wie n mandaat nie in hul eie kapasiteit het nie maar juis in die tak waarvolgens hulle moet stem. Dit kan dan juis nie waar wees dat ANC Konferensie afgevaardigdes op hulle eie besluit vir wie om te stem nie wanneer hul die hart en gemoed van die tak moet uitdra nie.

Gumede blykbaar verkies as analis om nie die proses te erken nie, tweedens hy verkies om aan geheuverlies te lei in die opsig. Om dan juis te glo almal of te wel die 4000 en meer afgevaardigdes is almal gekoop met n belofte van begunstiging, is juis n arbitrere en leke ongegronde afleiding wat n sogenaamde kenner soos Gumede glad nie mag aflei nie. Dit is uiters lae aantuiging en betwis alle verkiesings in die ANC se geskiedenis van 100 jaar.

Tweedens, Gumede beweer dat juis hierdie beloftes van begunstiging die Zuma leierskap met betrekking die ANC Alliansie n balanstoertjie voor spel om COSATU en die SAKP gelukkig te hou. Dit is duidelik dat Gumede weereens blindelingse gevolgtrekkinge maak wat hy juis nie kan staaf nie. Eerstens hy verkies om beide die 2010 NGC en Mangaung Politieke verslae te misken asook die Organisasie verslag van die Sekretaris Generaal nie te lees nie. Beide hierdie verslae is duidelik en rondborstig rondom n betreuring van die rol wat COSATU in sekere opsigte aangeneem het as n tipe van opposisie. Die verslae gaan verder en is duidelik dat die ANC hom nie laat intimideer deur enige Alliansie vennoot wie populer wil wees ten koste van die ANC.

Die SAKP is vergenoegd in hul rol in die Alliansie, n rol wat noodwendig uit n geskiedenis-verstaan duidelik minder fokus op getalle maar beleidsinvloed. Die SAKPhet gedurende die Zuma termyn altyd gefokus op beleids aspekte wyl dit Die ANC leierskap heelhartig ondersteun het.

Weereens skroom ek nie om Gumede se analise as n ‘badkamer analiese’ af te maak nie want dit is naak in stawing. Leeg in geskiedenis vertolking en beswaarlik wetenskaplik in onderbou.

Gumede glo derdens dat diegene wie nie in by die 53ste ANC Konferensie was naamlik verteenwoordigend van die drie provinsies, Limpopo, Noordwes en die Wes- Kaap n posisie behou om die rug op die ANC te keer betekende potensieel ander party te vorm soos COPE.

Wel die probleem met die afleiding is dat dit hy hierdie paar lede in n waansin van grootmeerdersheid posisie plaas sonder enige regmatige grond. Vir Gumede se kennis wil ek vra vanwaar die sterk oortuiging dat so n klein groepie die barometer van politieke toekoms in die ANC voorspel? Lede sluit by ANC vrywillig aan en kan enige oomblik die lidmaatskap opse. Ook deurgaans was daar nogaltyd lede wie nie die organisasie se leiding aanvaar nie, maar sulke lede het nogaltyd die opsie van vertrek gehad. Dit is net absurd om te wil aanvoer dat hierdie omgekrapte lede die barometer van n ANC inploffing kan wees.

As die ANC by Polokwane die begin van n COPE kon oorleef toe sommige oortuig was Mbeki (40%)  moes aanbly wat sal enige analis of opinie houer nou oortuig dat die 75% en meer bewys van onomwonde vertroue in leierskap juis betwis moet word? Dit blyk vir my ‘snaphot’analise te wees, waarin Polokwane as maksmimum simbool voorgehou word.

Gumede se afleiding oor hoe groot die skade van so n groep kan wees is uiters doem-profeties of in tipies GW Bush “fear rhetoric” (angs-retoriek) gegrond waarin vrees die onderleg is van n bepaalde oortuiging. Lede wie nie die ANC se 53ste Konferensie erken nie kan probeer om hulle griewe te addreseer op verskillende vlakke maar sal nooit die 100 jare oue party se verkiesing kan tot niet verklaar nie.

Gumede in sy laaste aantuiging glo “Omdat (volgens HOM) die ANC se nasionale Konferensie nie meer n betroubare barometer van gewone ANC lede se gevoelens is nie, is algemene verkiesings die enigste plek Waar mense dit kry”

Hierdie mondvol naakte konklusies is betreurenswaardig juis omdat dit blyk asof William Gumede alreeds die ANC die stryd aan wil se deur mense te mobiliseer met n blatante leuen bloot dat hy kan se hy het dit voorspel.

Die afgevaardigdes by die laaste ANC Konferensie verteenwoordig die voetsool lede, op ANC Tak vlak – geen organisasie meer as die ANC het so n sool-vlak rekord nie en om dit te ontken is n bewys van propaganda analise. Gumede moet tog vir ons almal in vertroue neem en se wat is die bewys dat die ANC Konferensie nie meer die barometer is van gewone ANC lede se gevoelens nie, asook wanneer presies dit so geword het. Hy beklemtoon hierdie onwaarheid van meervoudige ANC, wat nerens straks bewys kan word nie.

Ter slotte, ek dink baie analiste en opinie houers het hulle vir n lank tyd laat lei deur n ongegronde oortuiging dat Mangaung so n bloedbad sou wees waarin die huidige leierskap vernederend ontse sou word want die sentiment van media onder andere het dit alreeds so bepaal.

Toe Mangaung die teenoorgestelde bewys sit hulle almal met eier op hulle gesigte nou vergryp hulle alweer in die betwisting en oneweredigde, ongegronde afleidings van hulle persoonlike gemoed as dit wat by die ANC lede spook bloot om vrees oral te betuig.

Mangaung het bewys die ANC is n uiters demokratiese organisasie en party. Mangaung het bewys die ANC respekteer die Konstitusionele Hof en sy uistprake. Mangaung het bewys dat ANC lede en afgevaardigdes hul nie laat mislei deur analiste, doemprofete, n belustigde media of enige ander invloed maar die wil van ANC Takke betrokke by hul gemeenskappe en noodwendig eerbaar verteenwoordig as die groep wie nou eintlik die eintlike laaste se het.

Die afgelope 53ste ANC Konferensie laat die ANC veel sterker in oortuiging, gemoed en persoonlike eerlikheid. Die Konferensie het opspraakwekkende besluite geneem en enige waardige analis, sal hierdie aspekte wil noukeurig onder loep neem.

Enige analis sy sout werd sou wou deel met dit in plaas van die oordrewe buitemuurse akitiwiteite waarmee Gumede soos gewoonlik homself mee besig.

Asseblief William lig bietjie jou gedagtegang en deel met die belangrike insiggewende aspekte van nasionalisering, organisatoriese ongedisplineerde gedrag van lede wat by hierdie konferensie die nekslag toegedien is.

Meer nog skryf onomwonde oor die nuwe kodes van etiek vir leierskap, praat van die nasionale plan die eerste keer in ons land se geskiedenis is daar n plan nie vir n bepaalde ras groep nie maar vir al 51 miljoen Suid Afrikaners.

Daar is so baie om te analiseer, en jy verkies om inploffings te sien waar ons almal selfs sommige stoere ANC vyande hoop sien. A nee a!!

Biskop Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

Analis, skrywer digter.

 

 

Advertisements

The Road from Mangaung: ANC a much stronger organisation!

ANC: Emerges a solidified UNIT from its 53rd Conference

–          The Road from Mangaung –

Mangaung 2012, the much speculated and claimed ‘Promised of Revenge’ came and is now history. The ANC’s 53rd Elective Conference has drawn to a close with the reporting of the commissions that congregated to engage what is generally called policy formulation as it emanates from the June 2012 Policy Conference.

Much was made wrongly and perhaps even rightly of what was anticipated the real outcome of a Mangaung, yet in the end the ANC went about its business as usual.

It is perhaps time to reflect if the ANC emerges from this Conference stronger or weaker; my view is it emerges on this claimed Mayan prediction date of the end of the World a much stronger and more solidified entity, organisation and party.

Naturally, there will be those who would argue that as the leader of the Opposition Helen Zille, retired politician FW De Klerk and economic analyst Moeletsi Mbeki remonstrates against my claim.

The truth is the conference was always going to inculcate two distinctive things, one the election of the leadership of the ANC, which by design becomes the political leadership of the South Africa and the review through robust engagement ultimately the adoption of proposed policy platforms that is to set the tone for the future.

It is my analysis that the ANC comes from Mangaung a stronger entity hence I shall attempt to highlight a few reasons why the ANC is a much stronger organisation today than maybe a fortnight ago if the media reports and commentary is use as the yardstick. These constitute my few reasons and do not focus on a comprehensive analysis of all aspect Conference dealt with.

1.        Election of the TOP 6 confirms a democratic organisation and process

The ANC branches present as delegates for this conference voted a leadership into power informed by the overarching and undergirding theme of democracy.

When outgoing deputy president Kgalema Motlanthe in an unusually afforded ‘speech’ says the ANC is the epitome of democracy, it must be accepted that this is a truth very few can contest. All nominations were made and those nominated agreed to stand informed by the will of the branches, the victors emerged as a collective from the votes though slates informed the voting patterns.

Perhaps the ANC must accept that slates ( list of preferred candidates) is now entrenched ANC election culture and should not fight it but find a way to manage it. The TOP 6, from president to Deputy Secretary General, were elected with excessive margins thus confirming the conviction of the branches and who they wanted to lead the ANC and South Africa. An average of 75% signalled the margin by which those in the top 6 were elected which means it was no close contest, but a run-away victory, and a serious expression of confidence. Yet we have to salute the ones who lost, because elections can be divisive if one refuses to make democracy count.

The ANC is stronger for unlike 2007 Polokwane when the presidential race was a 60- 40 % split; Mangaung 2012 gave us 75-25% endorsement in victory margin. Therefore lending itself to a victory as the will of the people.

The ANC leadership elected as the Executive for all positions confirms it a much stronger and unified leadership that comes endorsed overwhelmingly.

2.      A Confirmed respect for Constitutional Court and its Rulings

It is history now that a few Free State based disgruntled members opted to take the ANC; they joined out of their free will, to court to challenge the constituting of the current Free State PEC and the attending delegates.

The Constitutional Court heard them and ruled that the PEC was not properly constituted therefore invalidating the members of the PEC to attend and vote as delegates. The ANC accepted the Constitutional Court ruling and proved sensitive to await the justification of the Constitutional Court for this ruling. The organisation proved prudent to prepare itself for any best and worst case scenario as it relates to the elections and therefore prepared two sets of ballots to include and exclude the Free State and North West delegates.

Mangaung confirmed the ANC as disciplined organisation that respects the law, and the highest court in our country willing to accept its rulings as in the best interest of greater society. An ANC that respects the organs it gave birth to in freedom’s pursuit is a stronger ANC.

 

3.      An  Organisation in on-going Renewal,

Organisational renewal remains critical aspect of the way forward, it is clear the ANC under its 12th President is charting a way on this renewal, a finding of original landmarks, which will guide the ANC into its future. Organisational Renewal, underscores the need to do introspection, hearing NEC member Tony Yengeni admitting that corruption is plaguing the organisation and the resolve to combat it, helps us understand that renewal is no longer a discussion but non-negotiable. No person or organisation can heal itself unless it is willing to admit the rot.

Mangaung helps us see clearer how the ANC wants to be seen, experienced, and embraced by all. An organisation of principles, values and a deep sense of respect for the work of its predecessors with an exacted mandate by the people of South Africa. Renewal also means to find the connection with the grassroots constituencies in a tangible and real meaning. It equally means developing a cadre that remains a volunteer if one may borrow former President Mbeki’s construct of what should inform a cadre.

Organisationa renewal is no longer a dream and idea but a living construct that Mangaung has endorsed as a non-negotiable.

4.      Economic Policy  entrenched

  • Parity of Articulation of Policy

The ANC constituting a broad church of membership accommodates a  variety of conflicting interpretations of what constitute the macro economic outlook, yet it has adopted some time ago the New Growth Plan.

The challenge for it remains the consistent clarity and parity of articulation of its economic policy, which for many has a sense of androgynous identity less in letter but in praxis, and articulation. It will be imperative to find common lines of this economic policy and to articulate it consistently devoid of ideological paradigms that may cloud its implementation.

  • Must lead  the Alliance partners

The Tripartite Alliance partners may not agree with the economic line and has a right and privilege to engage and lobby for their positions, but the ANC Post Mangaung will necessarily need to communicate, advance, and demonstrate its central policy themes unashamedly. As a means of communicating it macro and micro economic policy and plans, it will need to unpack the economic fundamentals, the challenges, and its response to such in a global world where many countries are in yoyo state on what will work. The ANC cannot afford to prove ambivalent in its articulation of this policy and must lead its Alliance partners in salience of understanding this as the dominant policy.

  • Nationalisation, is not ANC Policy

The much castigated, feared and scarecrow that has been draping the canvas of many  minds, since forner President Mandela first mentioned it and it resurfaced in 2010 when the Youth League tabled this at the NGC is finally dealt with. The ANC is clear that nationalisation is not ANC policy and has never been and might never be. Business and investors sees this as the red traffic light for economic development.

These are very a relieved this morning because NEC Member and Minister of Public Enterprises Malusi Gigaba articulated the ANC resolution from his conference in clarion sense. Yet this is not new, all senior members of the ANC has over time consistently articulated this stance, though the ANCYL and some tripartite alliance partners murmured the need for a form of nationalisation consistently, we can confirm today nationalisation is not ANC Policy and not the future for Mzansi if the ANC still leads it.

5.      Organisational Discipline non-negiotiable

If Mangaung underscored anything in principle application, it is a non-tolerance of ill-discipline by ANC members. The presidential political report was clear on the subject matter and confirmed the 2010- NGC in which leadership pointed to this subject matter. In fact, it can now be accepted that Jacob Zuma sees the restoration of discipline in the ANC as a significant aspect of his personal legacy. Both the political and SG reports afforded time and space to this matter, as demonstration of the importance and the search for source of this ill-discipline. What is taken from Mangaung is that no member will ever behave or show disrespect for this movement in ill-discipline and get away with.

6.      An adopted Ethical code for Membership

Coupled with ill- discipline is the critical subject of and ethical code for the conduct of members, all members regardless of office or position. Mangaung as reported by the Gauteng based David Makhura, adopted the formation of a committee, which will assess members financial involvement in government business, to ensure that the proverbial leaking tap is sealed. Until now, members were able to get away with shady deals and corrupt practices, yet Mangaung is committing the ANC to engage its members with a new ethic of what it means to govern. The presidential political report, led in declaring the ANC needs a cadre that understands and appreciates the ANC Governs one who respects this governance in all aspects.

The establishment of this committee or panel when it is combined with other factors of cadre development and political education will with time deliver a new type of cadre. One who moves from the premise of humility to serve and respect for the ANC its structures, South Africa and its people?

  • Financial Offenders will be expelled

The ANC plagued by accusations of financial offenders, in Mangaung responded and concluded that members found guilty of racketeering, money laundering, fraud and other irregular financial transgressions in a court of law faces an automatic expulsion. This is indeed a giant leap in reigning in the endemic corrupt new subculture of greed and crass materialism. Mangaung leads the ANC member to know he/she will be expelled if they engage in unsavoury financial transactions. This as part of the ethical code of membership bodes well for the development of a new breed of responsible cadres.

7.       Re-Assessment of qualifying criteria to serve in the NEC, 10year membership

Mangaung took cognisance of the fact that the ANC is invaded by a cadre in some circles that has joined with no other intent but economic benefit.

It accepted that this cadre has redefined the values of this 100 year Old movement in an encroaching derogatory manner. Mangaung wants to purge the ANC of this economic self-centred cadre and to this extent, accessing the ANC structures should not be an easy leap, but a period of 10 years is affixed to qualify someone for election into the NEC. This bodes well because it will afford the character ad ethic of service a pristine place in this embrace.

This adoption stands in the same vein as the proposed amendment earlier adopted that asks of branch members to have served for a period in membership before election.

8.      Role of its Leagues in particular  – ANCYL

ANCYL remains a league like all other leagues in the ANC, and is not an organisation on its own; neither can claim a right above other leagues in arrogance of mind. Mangaung as some of us observed as early as last year for ones dealt with this ANCYL claim of Kingmaker status. Never before has the ANCYL in election been a normal constituency as we saw and experienced in Mangaung. Mangaung therefore restored ANCYL to its rightful place; it underscored the claim of Kingmaker as a fallacy.

Having reigned in ANCYL, the future for ANCYL will be to focus on youth matters and that which is in the ambit of their respective consideration as it relates to development. I will go as far as to say the grip that expelled leaders had over ANCYL in personality politics is gone and we can expect an ANCYL that will toe the line of the mother body, when its leadership will eventually be elected or confirmed.

Conference resolved that a panel would engage the subject matter of ANCYL to assist its future role and base.

9.     An Endorsed National Plan

Mangaung endorsed the proposed national 30-50year plan for South Africa. If we have a vision informed by due research and engagement, we can accept that it is the first time in South Africa’s history as a Republic that a National Plan and Vision is in existence. Under apartheid, we had planning for the privileged race. Now under this ANC leadership we can claim we have a plan for all 51million South Africans.

10.  Unlocking Opportunity for Youth Employment

                           -Youth Subsidy way Forward-

The ANC at Manguang proved more decisive in leadership on the subject of Youth Wage Subsidy, knowing unemployment rated 25% of our population and with a higher percentage towards Youth unemployment. Organised labour in COSATU is advocating against this agreed plan for fear of what it may do to current employed workers, yet that fear is untested and at Mangaung the ANC confirmed it will move ahead with the original agreed Government R5billion investment. Let us not forget the DA in the Western Cape was at pains to take COSATU on this subject matter, claiming the ANC is held hostage by a Tripartite alliance member. The truth is Mangaung delivered the decisiveness of intent. The detail must still find meaning in implementation.

11.  Factionalism’s Death Knoll

Factionalism the cancer that has been hitch-hiking a free ride in the ANC, in my assessment was dealt a death knoll. Regardless to the those who look for all means to define the ANC as constituted in pluralism of ANC’s, these can no longer dispute that there is one ANC. Mangaung proved again this and bellowed a clear unambiguous sound against pockets of factionalism that may still try to exist in this singular organisation.

It is clear that the Mangaung says to all ANC Members if you choose to prove factional you may not belong in the ANC of today and tomorrow. No longer will members be bought by those who have deep pockets to create anarchy and havoc in this 100 year old organisation.

Off course,  the practical application of this remains a test, yet the resolve at Mangaung is clear and will make it difficult for this practice to go on as freely as before.

In conclusion if you ask if Mangaung solved all the problems in magic wand sene, and we all will have  great Father Christmas gifts on Tuesday  morning awaiting us  under the ‘Tree’, in which unemployment is gone, economic redress fixed, our education crises resolved and the land question dealt with, the answer is a resounding no.

Yet I shall dare to claim the ANC is much stronger than a year ago, in focus, in intent, in resolve and more honest about itself. This honesty of organisational context bodes well for the greater South African citizenry because a stronger ANC can deliver more to its constituency and serve the Country better.  

So contrary to the DA’s Helen Zille’s claim of the death of the ANC, apartheids last President FW De Klerk’s cry against the democratically elected leadership, or Moeletsi Mbeki’s rhetoric of ‘Ramaphosa was there on the NEC and nothing happened’  –  These refuse to see or either do not know the ANC. The ANC is in renewal and a stronger force, that can prove this in the 2014 ballot if this strength is actualised in a renewed verve of service delivery, leadership and accountability.

Bishop Clyde N.S.Ramalaine

Independent Analyst & Commentator

December21, 2012

Why the letter from a section of Clergy Leadership is challenging!

Why the letter from a sector of Clergy is challenging!

A section of Christian clergy leadership found it fit to pen a letter in which it decries the state of what they refer to as our National shifted moral compass. Since that communique, we all have been engaging at a multiplicity of levels on the subject matter with the intent of making sense of this letter. The claim of a shifted moral compass is not a wrong, neither is the reality that the Church has such a right to air its mind on such.

Our constitution is clear on the right of freedom of expression by all; hence, one may not question or muzzle the section of clergy leadership who deemed it correct to speak out as their letter attests. Throughout the known and unknown history of church it became accepted that the Church must serve as the moral conscience of our society.

Yet the letter or speak out has a few challenges. The communique assumes a right to speak on behalf of the Church of SA. This is a grave misconception as the structures and formations undersigning this communique is representative of a section of the Christian Faith in a society defined as of multi-faith persuasion and a secular state by definition.

 

Our respected leaders simply are not mandated to engage on behalf of the masses constituting the Christian Faith. In such communique, my learned colleagues directed their anger or warning to a person, namely the president of South Africa, who happens to be the president of the Ruling ANC party.

 

The first error this communique makes is to consolidate our collective morality in a person, a political president, a party, and a sole political leadership. This in my assessment is a jaundiced perhaps convenient interpretation of morality in which a nation’s morals are uniquely shaped by only a political leadership. The question is why would the clergy prove so soluble to misinterpret this critical necessary issue in a paradigm of political leadership definition?

 

The second challenge with this section of clergy leadership is that the communique lacks what I choose to call humility, humility not in submission of political authority for that is not the issue here. Humility of Christian dictum to appreciate the conjoined role of the church in the upkeep and or denigration of the very moral compass under question. A humility that dictates a sense of proverbial ‘hand in bosom of admission’ to admit that if we have a crises of moral degradation we the collective clergy have an undeniable role in it, in either a presence or an absence, but we are not exonerated. When we face a challenge of moral erosion, it cannot be uniquely the church’s role to bark out warnings but to firstly in humility soul-search what it means to be church in an epoch of such degradation. It has to be the church’s role to ask in objectivity as context  –  how did we as a collective get here?

 

My third challenge is the clergy sending out a warning to the president begs a question: Were these leaders or the clergy in this communique ever denied an open engagement with the political authorities of South Africa? If the ANC leadership for whatever reason denied the clergy or any part of the clergy an audience to frankly engage on critical matters of joint concern, perhaps then the section of clergy is warranted to prove public their stance.

 

Yet if these were afforded opportunity (which we know they have ) why was it necessary to enter a discourse in this sense of warning from an almost an assumed aloofness in judgement without any sense of co-equal conviction exemplified in leadership?

 

My fourth challenge with this communique in its current form, is that is has the ingredients of polarisation to further cloud political party roles and leadership when it attempts to compare and adjudicate politicians in opposition definition. This may be interpreted along two lines, one the clergy assumes a role of adjudicator by what powers they have yet to tell us. Two, the clergy with this communique sends out a confusing signal of clouding the political arena, by entering the political domain defined in party definition.

 

A further  challenge with the communique resonates in this that the four leaders represented amongst others, the SACC (Bishop Joe Seoka), the Anglican Church of South Africa (Bishop Thabo Mokgoba), TEASA (Rev. Moss Nthla), and Kairos SA (Rev. E. Arrison) these are all legitimate structures and expressions of church definition in South Africa yet these do not constitute the conclusive church of SA. This may be considered a moot point yet it is not, because church definition an expression in 2012 in SA is a much wider definition than the group of leaders that penned the communique. In particular, KAIROS is a Para-church Organisation with a specific focus and cannot be seen in the same light as any of the other three. The communique therefore cannot claim to speak on behalf of the church as it leads in preamble sense, for it would be an arrogated claim and assumption given the evolving context of church definition that seeks to define itself outside the constricted historical SACC definition.

Another challenge in this communique resonates on the issue of veiled threat. The communique went further and threatens a mobilisation for lack of better word ‘overthrow’ this legitimately democratically constituted government. This is a glaring and necessarily political threat that assumes the church as led by these leaders can be politically mobilised to bring about change. I think this is precarious if the thought of this threat is taken to its logical conclusion. Is the church declaring its intent to enter the political arena as a party? At another level we are on dangerous grounds if the church- membership however defined can be abused to honour the political ambitions of a few who for whatever reason proves upset, and unhappy with the current political leadership. It in sense pits the church as a political structure.

 

This communique stands in a new culture of clergy expecting respect whilst they show disrespect for other sectors of leadership. This communique further lends itself in support of the lop-sided and biased discourse of good leadership debate, a discourse allowed to continue unabated in which political leadership remains the only measureable quantitative and qualitative meridian of what is good leadership. Nay saying the reality that good leadership extends beyond the scope and confines of political leadership, whilst including it.

 

It is rather convenient and disingenuous to locate good leadership as only measurable or answerable in political leadership. Is it not time we as clergy ask ourselves have we shown good leadership in our local assemblies, in our structures in the general structures of the church. If we are accused for the same things (power-mongering, arrogance, maladministration of church finance and bad stewardship) the same we level against others and still assume an adjudicator role, we either have missed our appreciation of what it means to be Christian or we are oblivious to the reality of our personal role in this moral compass shifting.

This new culture of some clergy representing the Christian church to prove disrespectful to other forms of societal leadership is worth bemoaning. It troubles me to cite this example here but perhaps it is time we admit wrong even if it is committed by our very heroes. I shall cite the Archbishop Desmond Tutu former Anglican Archbishop, Nobel Peace Recipient and decorated liberation struggle icon as one such example who has yet to show any regard and respect for the ruling political leadership democratically elected. Archbishop Tutu on the strength of his personal role deem it his right to prove scathing and almost in vilification of our democracy when he finds periodically reason to denigrate this leadership. I need not remind us all of his variety of comments in anger and personal rage, I need not remind us he was rebuked by Former President Mbeki for confusing political and Religious matters in seeking to dictate to the ANC. Since the advent of President Zuma, the retired Archbishop has proven disrespectful towards the President, and sought means to insult the President of the ANC and South Africa in his personal capacity.

Not once did President Zuma, ever attack Archbishop Tutu, or proved disrespectful towards the Arch even when we all knew the Arch was overstepping. This past week Archbishop Tutu again asked Minister Trevor Manual what he was doing in this Zuma – Cabinet. It is my unsolicited submission these comments by Archbishop Tutu do not help our democracy, but it brings the church and other stuctures of our society into a polarised context.

 

South Africans are often too indebted to our heroes that we afford them space to run roughshod in personal rage. It is disconcerting and rather arrogant of the Archbishop to prove this disrespectful when the same is not meted out to him given his stature and role in historical sense. It appears a previous role in anti-apartheid activism affords one an inalienable right to bark, attack, insult, abuse and denigrate others who no different to one equally contributed and is still contributing to making SA what it is desired to be.

 

The last challenge with the communique vacillates on an assumption that the Church is separate from the society we live in. A society in which members of church are expressed in youth, workers, unemployed, professionals, classes of economic definition, women, the sick the needy etc. These same people vote in elections and mandate leaders not in an incapacitated state but a democratic franchise sense. Can the church please show respect for the citizen’s rights to vote and decide on their own political future.

 

In the end, I pray that this communique has little to do with a feeling of snubbed or chided candour, in which the SACC who in my view remains the proverbial womb of our freedom, now feel excluded. It is my view that if we celebrate the SACC and its role in history of struggle we must equally ask what role it played in the last twenty years. When we make that assessment we may find that some of our challenges today, emanates from this reality that the SACC like many other structures proved silent for twenty years of post -apartheid making and therefore must share the burden of our current moral compass shifting like all other church structures and formations.

 

In conclusion, I distance myself as a member of the South African clergy from the communique for it proves aloof, biased, and lacking in Christian humility affording this section of church leadership a place and space above others to dictate the moral code and definition of adjudicator status rather than an active member among other members stance.

 

Whilst it is the prerogative of my fellow clergy to air the prism of their contemplation , I bemoan the imbalance in such and therefore critique this warning as not free from attempting to interfere at Mangaung. The church leadership role cannot in silo-sense be that of judging and warning and exoneration of itself, but ought to ask what our common role in building South Africa is. It is my submission that more than our utterances and accusations is what the architect of our faith Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour desires of us as collective clergy.

 

The challenges before us as South Africans remain manifold, leadership at all fronts remains required and it is our responsibility to accept the challenge for perhaps our non-involvement proves to be our true involvement. We cannot conveniently bask in glory of celebrating the good and simultaneously outsource in apportioning the bad to others conveniently.

 

If South Africa is in a shifted moral compass crises, we as clergy are equally answerable less in warning but a humility of consciousness to admit our role. Respectfully submitted, may we find each other not in attack but common missio-dei.

Bishop Clyde N .Ramalaine Bishop, Author and Political Analyst

In his personal capacity.

To Nobel or not!

– An ambivalent protest, without  introspective reasoning –

What is the real  fuss with the most recent Nobel Peace Prize nomination of the European Union as this year’s worthy recipient.

Comment is running wild expressing disgust for the choice of recipient. A litany of reasons some purely emotional others rational are advanced as to why the choice of recipient is rejected by some.

For the record this is not the first time that we had seen this uproar, we are all reminded of the award to Barack H. Obama hardly a year into his term as the USA 44th President. I guess one could go further back in history and find more rejections by some sectors of public.

I am not going to deal with the merits or non-merits of who should be nominated, mine is simply to ask why the Nobel Peace Prize holds such venerable position in our global world? In addition, if does hold such space whose fault is it?

For our challenge cannot be directing it what and who it should honour if we had not afforded it such pristine place in our psychology of peace embrace.

This year even a former recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu has added his voice in disdain rejection of the EU as a worthy recipient. That adds another dimension to this skew debate, for do laureates have a right to critique an institution that made them. Perhaps that is a debate for another day.

Back to my point, are we not seeking to dictate to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee when it suits us when we equally prove silent when we agree with them?

Can we accept that the same principles that guided former recipients choice, consistently guides the current processes even if these do not favour our choice.

When we celebrate the lives of Chief Albert Luthuli, Nelson R Mandela, and Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu, we are quick to see them worthy recipients of this award, therefore accepting the award as pristine, almost sacrosanct and in a class of its own.

Yet when others we do not appreciate are nominated no different to our heroes, scrutinized no different to our heroes and ultimately shortlisted and chosen we cry foul. I guess the error is with us, because we erred in the following:

1. We embraced this award as necessarily a worthy award.
2. We accepted the significance of it and granted it a space and place of due honour
3. We celebrated it for decades without ever asking in whose interest for what agenda and what purpose recipients are chosen.
4. We have not always discerned the interest that dictates the existence of this organisation.

We must concede that for all its previous awards or recipients, a counter argument of veracity of peace championship could have been raised by another group of constituencies who found them opposite to the very recipients we celebrate.

When Obama was honoured, there were those who said – for what? He is still to make his mark
Yet Mandela and De Klerk were collective recipients, in a season when both could have been reliably questioned as peace champions, depending where you found yourself on the side of the fence.

Certainly, I as an anti-apartheid activist cannot celebrate De Klerk as a worthy contender for this award, and almost 20 years later, that view has not changed. I shall venture to say equally on the part of many Afrikaners, Right-wing groups around the globe; Mandela is not the symbol of peace but trouble.

I guess I am arguing, the veracity even necessity of this Nobel Peace Prize practice, when the world remains divided along clear lines, and the seat of decision making for worthy recipients exemplified in Nobel Peace Prize context is not existing in space outside of the world, global economic and political domains, in fact it finds meaning in that very conflated and less biased context, in which it remains questionable.

Perhaps it is time we accept that the Nobel Peace prize in a sense mirrors our rating agencies that have their own agendas and intentions.

Perhaps we must ask ourselves why the Nobel Peace Prize is such a pristine award, if we can question its recipients, its nominations, and its practices.

If the Prize holds this gigantic moral code, we must ask who affords it such. Equally have we been that naive to assume that a European or any for that matter institution can be unbiased, and if we did assume that,  what does it say of our psychology?

In conclusion it is either we accept the Nobel Peace Prize it’s systems, nominations processes, shortlisting of potential candidates and ultimately it’s choice of recipients or we utterly reject it today an yesterday as a bias Eurocentric interest based entity, therefore rejecting even our heroes as due recipients of it.

My challenge to Archbishop Tutu in this season,  if you reject the current Nobel Peace Prize award which is your right, also consider handing back the award you received, as a means of making your choice clear and prove less ambivalent for perhaps it’s time the award is returned. It would say more

After all, you had a name before the award. For the rest of us, who cannot give back any award, whinging and moaning in protest, we simply cannot have our cake and eat it, it is either we accept the flawed, dualistic and complex organisation in its fundamental outlook or we reject it in history, present and future as biased and not sensitive for the globe we defined.

Our protest says more of our lack of introspect than any wrong on the part of the Nobel Committee for they are doing what they always have done, with the same consistent interest as their paradigm, can we really blame them when we must blame ourselves? Commentators are at pains to flag that the present award brings the Nobel Peace Prize into a joke, yet they fail to accept it may always have been a joke.

Respectfully submitted

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine