Decoding the MAX DU PREEZ dilemma of enlarged relevance !

– Zuma must have very big & deep pockets, all ANC voters are fitting –
Paul Vallely contends, “Freedom of speech is not of course absolute. Free speech is not a right to say whatever you like, about whatever or whomever you like, whenever you like “. I thought of the simple words of Vallely when I read the latest instalment of a Max Du Preez witblits- diatribe.
It is important to attempt unpacking the psyche of a Du Preez. Du Preez is a mosaic of many things; firstly, he believes he has earned the right to be the meridian of so-called objective opinion in which he can castigate everyone moreso the ANC at whim by engaging in cheap lecturing that truly attests a depressed superior identity.
The question is from where Du Preez draws this conviction. Well it is a combination of factors none not inter-dependent of each other. Lord Aton taught us long ago on the subject of power… that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…
This for some is only relevant to political power and particularly on the African continent. I want to argue this holds for all sectors of our society where power relations exist regardless of degree or sphere. Max Du Preez was made a powerful and larger than life factor in journalism and opinion making and he is binging on that power bottle.
His believe emanates from a combination of his claim as a surviving crop of guru journalists, with the correct struggle credentials and an old hand at what constitutes good journalism. Du Preez is given too much credit for being this voice of reason and mind of objectivity yet he is and remains a benefactor and product of ‘white privilege’ and suffers of his own overdose of self-importance extrapolated from that very white privilege cushy seat. The same he projects on the ANC leadership of Zuma.
At another level, Du Preez suffers of a messiah complex, in which he sees himself as the saviour of South African claimed rational thinking.
To Max we say you are not exempted from firstly testing your claims, neither are you automatically absolved from the layered reality of our chequered past in which you were an identity because others were not. A reality that gave you a sense of significance and self- importance, seeing to your rise in journalism in apartheid and your meteoric respect, not absent of the natural claim of white-skills black-no-skills prism.
Your opinion for many of us constitutes a reflection of who you are, in trapped state of your apartheid definition of identity claim. You have equally contributed to the putrid state of journalism and must stop acting you a redeemer of liberalism, Afrikaner freedom consciousness – corrector and African demeaning lecturing roles.
You would be excused for suffering of the male form of menopause in which your opinions are often informed by the figurative hot flushes from the dust of a previous so-called struggle journalist credentials. Take your tablets because it is necessary for the chemical imbalance.
You are like opposition parties Jacob Zuma obsessed in which the entire ANC is reduced to pawns in Zuma’s proverbial gigantic pocket. Your wild claims cheaply string together to lend credence to your fundamental belief in attempt of being rational attest the true victim you have become, or maybe always have been.
Any journalist worth his salt knows that all claims regardless to how sensible they may portend warrants assessment and testing. Every constitutional democrat knows you do not conclude in judgement of guilt sentencing until the person in question is afforded the right to be engaged in which you equally share his perspective affording your audience the benefit of both opinions.
Democracy is under threat if we have reached the place to simply believe something because Max Du Preez says it as gospel and therefore need no adjudication and scrutinizing. We are in a precarious state of what we know the so-called fourth estate should be.
At best, your opinion is an attempt to give credence to a belief of some who sees themselves the self-appointed representatives if not sheriffs for a public when we all know this public is hardly homogenous or uniform but consist of publics to varying degrees of description. The same in which a certain class always assume themselves the custodians of democracy and constitutionality for SA, less by poll-mandate but by sense of grave importance of mellifluous education and esteem.

Your arrogance to insult the ANC as ignorant and under the control of one man is only plausible from a white privilege mind. These insults are saying more of you than the ANC.  Your perpetual insult of the democratic franchise of the voters because you can, will not go away as mist at the dawn of the sun, but it is concretising the true legacy of who you are.
Your intoxicated sense of self- importance takes precedence to assume this self- appointed role of two sides of a flipped coin, for Afrikaners and Africans in which you are the referee. It runs free from restraint and control until it spews from a vituperative pen us not often sure of the chemical balance or imbalance.

Perhaps you one of those who cannot accept that a 10 year campaign of vilification, harassment and accusations against an ANC deputy president and now a second term serving president for SA despite all resources employed failed when you know for anyone else it would have seen them crushed.
Perhaps it is time to accept the media is not as powerful as it claims at least for the voting masses, because it has spared no resource and had campaigned non-stop with all sorts of internal and external monies to direct the ANC in choice of leadership.
It is here that the victimhood and trapped state of your apartheid identity exacts the worst, because white privilege long ago internalised the need to exactly know what is good for those who are deemed black in identity of sub-humanity.
White privilege has always known how to inflict a pain, do the diagnoses and prescribe the medicine for others healing and determine how long they can mourn about the pain.
You are not exempted from the fact that you opine not in freedom of this victimhood but carceral webbed with no chance of escape.
I have long contended the most dangerous ‘comrades’ are those of white privilege, because when they were needed they were able to contribute to the liberation struggle, yet theirs was an investment with a return in mind. They helped the liberation struggle as afforded by the privileges their ‘white’ identity permitted them. In this epoch, they have earned the right to direct those who ones were helped by them. In this season, there are many of them who prove wise to direct the ANC from outside on what is what is wrong and right, as well who must lead it.
Perhaps you are seeing the phantom of Nkandla dying because once again the cohort of opposition and untransformed media has failed to persuade the masses as the May 2014 elections again confirmed in line with all other democratic elections. When will you and your type accept the masses consciously refuse to be swayed by the provocative and insulting headlines?
The epicentre of your opinion piece repeats a lie that Judge Hilary Squires said that Deputy President Jacob Zuma had a corrupt relationship with Shabir Shaick. The Judge is on record to have refuted this media designed lie, a fact and truth you know. Yet you add this to your opinion piece because it makes sense.
The question becomes why would a seasoned journalist stoop to this level, because he can and because he is Max Du Preez, when he says it is truth.  Lies will not become the truth only because a Max says it is the truth

Your article lists a number of things, which you in emotional sense of public blackmail attempt make stand when you have no evidence for any of the claims. You state categorically that Anwar Dramat is suspended for Nkandla files; you are oblivious to argue what the Zimbabwean case is he has to answer. You are silent on your knowledge of that if any or to what extend you have entertained it.
What is amazing is that when people are appointed in senior positions they at pains to reject their appointments as political because it does not augur well for their claim of merit appointment yet when they are suspended or fired it is always reduced to a political campaign against them.
The question you as a journalist and opinion maker should deal with remains is there a case that Anwar Dramat has to answer or not – what constitutes the details of that case for which he had offered to resign. If Dramat’s appointment was political, why would his suspension not be political? I have not found Dramat guilty because the case against him is on a Zimbabwean matter and until we have heard the full facts and had, it tested how you arrive at all these conclusions. You use Dramat’s attorney’s statement as gospel, when you know every attorney or labour lawyer in a case like this will firstly advance the argument for political interference as premise. How did you test the veracity of the claim that you pass it of as gospel?
You invoke Zwelinzima Vavi in one of his ‘statements’ necessarily refusing to contextualise this statement against the reality of hostile politics unfolding in COSATU. For you this is again a statement of gospel truth. Du Preez deliberately refuses to contextualise but grabs whatever he can to bolster his confirmed last message for 2014 as he seeks to go out with a bang and in prophetic sense plead – it will take long to fix what Zuma messed up -.

So scathing is Max that he violates all forms of caution in denigrating Moyane of SARS whom you categorically sees a lackey and indebted to Zuma. Mr. Du Preez where is your evidence for these claims?
Is this not a flagrant abuse of freedom of speech, then again we must not forget this is Max Du Preez the journo of journalist, the voice of perception, the one who can claim association with Klaaste and Qoboza etc., Max the one who ‘took on Botha’ Max the historic figure of the liberation struggle, Max Du Preez the ‘bedonderde boer’ for some Afrikaners who pokes his finger in their noses, as he want to direct them and also Max who lectures the ANC from an aloof pedestal of white privilege and a claim I helped the liberation cause.
Then again, newspapers sell and freelance writers must be paid so we write and fail to uphold the universal moral meridian we keep others accountable.
I put it to you again that you have contributed to the pathetic state of our journalism when you from the same stream want to cry about how you miss Aggrey Klaaste and Percy Qoboza, you sir have a hand in the gutter journalism we have of today and regardless how you want to invoke a Klaaste and Qoboza. They say you are as good as your last article, so we look at your last article for 2014 and we say gutter journalism on show.
Obey the basic rules as you advance you opinion and desist the salacious temptation to opine as we say in Afrikaans …. in weerwil van n gesonde en nugter refleksie…
Take your proverbial tablets the ANC leads the country and no insult of the ANC will alter the reality of the past 20 years of a conscious trust by the masses.
So rendering the ANC a bunch of scared non-thinkers, who is under a HITLER – dictator rule, ruled by its legitimate and democratically elected president who hands out favours like a Father Christmas to everyone, is cheap and perhaps the product of lazy and tired armchair analysis. Neither will you be allowed to conveniently now glorify the likes of Mandela, Mbeki and Motlanthe, all of whom in their seasons you had much to say no different to this epoch.
You too shall learn to respect the masses in their choice of entrusting this country in the hands of a duly elected ANC leadership. You sound more and more like the Afrikaans version of a Richard Calland or the Indian version of a scorned and bitter Ranjeni Munusamy.
May I humbly remind you that as a claimed democrat it is incumbent upon you to please respect the fundamentals of democracy in cardinal embrace?
Do not engage in slander and attempt justifying it in freedom of speech using a toxic combo of who you are in history of journalism. Research your facts before penning your menopausal diatribe, because you Max Du Preez need I say again are not exempted from the identity apartheid defined you neither are you exempted from corroborating any claim you make against others. Nor shall we allow you to parade as the self-ordained quasi-guru and lecturer to the ANC when you equally want claim to be keeping Afrikaners feet at the fire.
We must understand you as Max Du Preez in what I deemed to call an enlarge sense of relevance where you claim this unique space using your age to rebuke younger journalists. Using your language /culture and Afrikaner identity to rebuke Afrikaners and endear him to others.

Using your struggle credentials to justify your right to be correct, whilst you in truth a white privilege product trapped in that identity and want to insult ANC voted into power by African masses and essentially made up of Africans in leadership who do not know what they doing.

In fact, the longer I look at you I see the signs of a typical bully that has been allowed too much space.

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine – A Social Commentator

Advertisements

Prof. Shadrack Gutto, please objectivity is not a dreaded disease!

– Analysis must always attempt objectivity as a basic –

 

Listening to Prof. Shadrack Gutto you cannot but conclude we have someone who cannot be objective about the ANC, at least the ANC defined from 2007 onwards. Gutto, argues the ANC 2014, Manifesto will not save it. This argument is premised on his assertion that there is nothing new in the manifesto. An aspect like corruption is there forever he retorts.

My understanding is previous Manifestos’ in democracy should be in sink and address the same fundamental issues.

After all the transformation of a society uniquely as ours is not an event but a process conscious of the dynamism of humans and organisations influenced by events, occurrences and circumstances exemplified in past, present and prospective future.

Why Gutto and others like Prof. Susan Booysen (who often relies on tabloid research and drape it up with academic claim) can conclude this journey an event that should have been concluded by now since its 20 years in the making says how little these grasp the nature of a developmental society with its historic and new challenges.

Gutto last wrote something objective and positive on the ANC in 2007, we shall have to assume he became like some trapped in the paradigm of a Polokwane Elections result and an Mbeki recall.

It is accepted that all analysts I mean all analysts (even the one that pens this note) have a bias towards some ideology, party, person and group or value system. Yet what is not acceptable is the fact that objectivity is so often in post – apartheid context sacrificed for unwarranted campaign exemplified in ‘intellectual’ opinion.

To Gutto we say the manifestos of the ANC as ruling party remains the same in overarching dimension because the issues necessitating the cause for transformation remains the same.

We are a nation in becoming and you cannot use the 20 years as a convenient lashing stick as too long a period of time, whilst when you in ostrich head-in-sand type consciously refuses to accept the gigantic strides this ANC has made as a collective of leadership seldom defined in one epoch as more prevalent than the other.

 

 

We know some of you have this view that when you ran the government, even advised our leaders in whatever form or capacity  it was necessarily clean, clearly focused, problem- free and a picture perfect scenario because ” intelligence” warped defined was the guarantor for this your claim. We know you like some in the public intellectual farm have no regard for the Post – Polokwane ANC leaderships, less on fact but more on conjecture if not bitterness. Thus, you theorise and eulogise this tired song of how great you were.

 

Some of us beg to differ for we were sojourners in this journey whilst we respect the fact that you and others may have contributed, we also know you are the reasons for our delay in some areas.

 

Our collective historic conscious does not afford you such latitude to assume we see you the same we you see yourself.

 

– You cannot negate the fact that South Africa is a different place from the past apartheid context.

 

– You cannot deny that dignity is being restored when no country ever in the history of democracy has built 3.3million homes in 20 years. You can argue that 380000 of those houses had a defect but, but you cannot argue that 18million people live better.

 

– When as a society the ruling party has remained conscious of the poor in providing grants in excess of 15million people. We can argue whether we should be a welfare state or not but SA’s poor cannot and dare not argue there is no delivery.

 

– You cannot challenge the reality of a transforming primary health care system, which serves mother and new-born infants as an established reality in 20 years of governance. We may argue the overall internal challenges in such but you cannot argue it is not happening.

 

– You cannot argue that whilst education was evident in 1993 as that which reflects almost 12 separate race defined systems the work of the ANC has reduced this in this era to an essentially one but really two national system with its concomitant challenges in delivery.

 

Again, we can agree the dropout rate is high and a concern, yet we cannot arrive at an understanding of a high dropout rate if we have nothing that we can measure it.

 

– You cannot argue that this ANC led Government has not drastically changed the context of business as an evolving reality in SA to the advantage of previously disadvantaged groups. Notwithstanding many issues attached to this we must concede BEE or BBEEE is a platform that exists and is entrenched by now. As a system, it has helped many. Today the access to opportunity to take charge of one’s own destiny exists for all.

 

– On the issue of Mineral Rights the ANC as government has taken the custodianship of such as far back as 2002. We may argue a Marikana occurrence in the context of labour disaster and force it into a political tragedy yet we must ask how did we get to a Marikana? We must ask did this ANC Led Government provide the platform of bargaining structures of which justice and fairness constitute cardinal axis.

– On the issue of Landownership, perhaps the thorniest of all matters in SA, the question that must be asked is what former administrations did on the subject because this era is building on the same and have not deviated. If the ANC failed the people on land ownership and land tenure, it did not start at Polokwane it started with Mandela and was thriving under Mbeki. Yet we know all three administrations have made efforts, good bad and indifferent.

– On the E-Toll saga, E-Tolls (which I dislike and hate too) was not a post Polokwane policy the administrations of Mandela and Mbeki gave birth to it. The Zuma administration is implementing it. Hence, if this sentiment is twisted as an attack on the current administration it is because some refuse to observant, conscious, and truthful in their analysis. What therefore is inconsistent about this issue for it is used today by some as a key point to render the ANC not listening to the people.

 

I guess I cite these as a means to show an objective assessment of the ANC as led from its manifestos is resulting in these worthwhile achievements.

 

Again, we not saying this is good enough and the finishing line, we have many mountains to climb but an objective analyst on the eve of the fifth guaranteed peaceful National democratic elections will desist advancing an opinion laced in historic snapshot persona worship, or megalomania. True academics are necessarily humble people for they have learnt in specialising a discipline how little they really know.

 

On the subject of election – polls, SA has never been a society in election context that has taken pre- elections polls serious. Our context defies these pre-election polls and reduces them to opinions of those who already had determined their preferred outcomes. Those who feed a specific narrative necessarily in question of that which is African.

 

Therefore arguing the manifesto will not save the ANC – it is all the same stuff, rings hollow in thought application. It is bereft of objectivity, naked of sensible engagement and archaic in semblance of defence of a system that made you Shadrack Gutto in SA probably a personality.

 

 

Now we know there are those who desire the ANC losing an election, there are also those who pray for it to get 50% yet our wishes and dreams or prayers cannot leave us inebriated that we refuse to be objective, when we claim to be public intellectuals.

 

Equally, I hope your “analysis“ of an ANC manifesto that won’t save it has nothing to do with your opinion on an ANC president the same you despise when you worshipped a previous one.

 

Respectfully submitted.

Bishop Clyde N. Ramalaine

Ordinary citizen of Mzansi