The two COPE councillor, Bongani Mini (Ward 34) and B. Mafilika (Ward 35) who were accused of fraudulently behaviour by their ANC colleagues were found not guilty yesterday by the Cape Town Magistrate Court. The court found no substantial evidence against the accused. It also turned out the accusers gave conflicting reports in court to that which they gave at the City Council disciplinary committee last week.

The plaintiffs (accusers), Mr. Mkhutswana and Njamela, who are ANC councillor and Pr councillor respectively made the allegations in August 2009, whereupon the accused were arrested in a well orchestrated dramatic arrest that involved high serving police officers, in the early hours of the 16 August 2009. Subsequently Mr. Mini and Mr. Mafilika appeared in court the following day. They again appeared in court on the 16 October before appearing again yesterday (19 November 2009). Yesterday the case against them was thrown out of court for lack of substantive evidence.

COPE and the accused have always maintained that the accusations were untrue, and had political motivations behind them. It was disappointing when the disciplinary committee of the City Council found against the accused last week without giving reasons and evidence why. The committee promised to recommend to the full City Council for the dismissal from the council of the accused. The two accused were planning to appeal the decision which now they hope won’t be necessary since they have been found not guilty by an impartial court of law.

The behaviour of Mr. Mkhutswana and Njamela warrants a high disciplinary action from the City Council. Also the accused expect them to undertake, at the least, similar media orchestrations as they did when they accused them. They must explain to the public the motives for their error of judgement, and expose whomever is behind for misleading them into making such serious false accusations. Failure to do this will compel the accused to seek legal advice and sue for deformation of character.

COPE believes these dirty tricks and wanting win over, by crook or by hook, the Wards the ANC lost led to this unfortunate incidence. This brutality and lack for individual regard about other’s welfare is appalling. It has dented the image of two innocent individuals. The ANC likes to make us believe that it has morals and acts on ethics but time after time its behaviour reveals the opposite. The unfortunate thing is that it is sometimes able to get away with this kind of despicable behaviour and even manipulate other parties into its own nefarious agenda, as the Rassol-Ozinsky saga testifies.

COPE is against corruption and fraudulent behaviour even when done by its own members but cautions the public in general, and other parties in particular, to be aware of the dirty tricks campaign of the ANC to win back this province. We are certain this deplorable behaviour will thicken as the local elections approaches. The ANC has been exposed in the Western Cape, and now is desperate to win back public confidence. The sad part is that the more desperate it becomes the more it exposes itself for being a morally bankrupt and directionless.

COPE would like to call upon the ANC, and Mr. Mkhutswana and Njamela in particular, to apologise to our party and the individuals whose name they dragged on the mud unnecessarily. It’ll be the start of a decent thing to do.

I’ve, for some time, been concerned about the remarks made by some of COPE supporters, especially media, in particular social media like Facebook. Because of my official involvement within the structures of COPE I thought it would be unbecoming for me to comment though many a time I’ve been very tempted. I’ve since changed my mind. I don’t think my involvement in official structures of the party compromises me from commenting on social sites or other platforms of media.

I wish to emphasise that these are my personal views. I’ve not discussed the sensitive topic I’m about to tackle with anyone, certainly not the official structures of COPE.

What I’ve gathered is that the major concerns of the people, communicated mostly through Facebook site, is what they call ‘self-appointed’ leaders of COPE. Because these comments come mostly from Western Cape commentators I presume this means the problem is mostly in our province. I’m not saying other provinces and national are absolutely happy with their interim leadership, but they’re finding ways to work with them for the development of the party. This begs then begs the question, why are things different in the Western Cape? The answer I keep getting is that COPE in the Western Cape is dysfunctional? Or, to put the question another way, why are there COPE members in the Western Cape who are so disgruntled to an extent that they’d rather see the party die than work to build it?

I’ve asked this question to the individuals whom I regard as leaders of the Western Cape disgruntled group. The answer I usually get is that they’re waiting for right people to be in positions of leadership. My next question is usually how do you do that if not by an elective conference. But we cannot go to elective conferences until we’ve built enough structures to give us quorum for the conferences. It’d seem to me then we’ve hit a perfect stalemate, unless one of two things happen.

First some people, especially the leaders of the disgruntled groups, must be absorbed to the leadership structures of the organisation through the back door. Secondly, we can all work with the present interim structure until the elective conferences, whereby, through the processes overseen by independent auditors, we elect the leaders we want democratically.

I’m personally against the first option and I’ll tell you why. If you take leaders of any disgruntled group, put them on leadership structure you are setting a bad precedence. Anyone who is himself not happy with whatever new leadership will themselves convene a few people, perhaps this time not in Woodstock but somewhere at Zola, or Mithchell’s Plain. Then again you’ve to accommodate these too. Soon another group would crop up, perhaps at Parklands, and demand their share. Where does it end?

I’ve heard people talk about ‘self appointed’ leadership and mostly get confused about their meaning. Do they mean appointed or something else? How does one self appoint themselves into a position of political leadership? By its nature, an interim structure is appointed; reasons being the fact that there are no real party structures to facilitate a democratic process. But even the process of appointment has democratic elements in them—those who stay in the Western Cape would recall the sometimes ugly tussle that led to the election of the chairperson of the province that involved almost every member of COPE in the province.

I believe most people have a false understanding of what democracy means, and this in general is the fault of many COPE members. Take the election of our current president for instance. Personally he was not my first choice, but I respect the voice of the majority, which is what democracy is all about. But some COPE members, because they see themselves as being intellectually above him, or something, are still in denial about president Zuma. It is as if they’ll wake up one of these days and find out it was just a bad dream. Something similar is happening in the Western Cape.

There are those who think themselves better qualified to lead the province, just because they happen to have gone to school and learnt how to arrange their sentences to give a pleasing sound when they speak. Some think they are better qualified because they’ve been to the struggle longer. Others because they posses more what they see as a progressive spirit, which, when not confused with a haughty attitude of thinking one is better than others, means they are attuned to modern challenges. What they fail to take into consideration, and this is COPE’s fault in generally, is to read the mood on the ground. A person might not be intellectually suave and still be a capable leader because he has his ear on the ground.

It is always a challenge when thinkers (read intellectuals if you like) go into politics, even more so with ersatz intellectuals who, with bloated egos, tend to think they are know it all and can do everything better than anyone else. Marx called the misery of philosophy (intellectuals), sterility. I like to think he was talking more about those who refuse to be manure for the building of their society.

Some of us, by character, are not of the conquering world of politics, and therefore are less likely to be attracted by power. But in COPE we saw something, an opportunity to influence the recovery of spirit of freedom in our country. It is unfortunately that we sometimes get caught on political snares but I guess that is the nature of politics, and one cannot wrestle the devil without at least getting singed. This we’ve come to understand and accept if we’re to be manure of a new man that must arise out the political discourse that COPE. This new man, instead of submitting to the world, seeks to transform it.

Some of us were always here to build the Hope we, 16 November 2008, we named COPE (Congress of the People). We still endure because the dream still burn bright in our hearts. We recognise that COPE is the only platform where the dream has realistic chance of actualising. To us COPE was never just a splinter group from Polokwane but a historical formation that started as far back as the 16 June 1976 due to the spirit of unquenchable desire for freedom, liberty and true democracy. This attitude took historical root in this country in 76, and continues through the years, getting discouraged there and there, like in ANC prison camps. It was not by coincidence that the people incarcerated by Imbokodo (ANC security forces) who were mostly remnants of June 76’.

Perhaps I’m simplifying these things too much; but it would seem to me that the only way forward for COPE is to work with and through the present interim structures, at least until the elective conferences. Everyone has a right to mobilise, canvass, hell even caucus all they want, but we must not lose site of the fact that we are building an organisation here. If we don’t put all our hands together on deck, we shall perish as fools.

This is why I get concerned where people make calls like not mobilising until this or that has happened. I ask myself, what good would the organisation get from this? The ultimate good of the organisation is the yard stick I use to measure whatever is being said or done in the name of COPE. And when you attack an organisation you belong to is it not incumbent on you to first look in the man on the mirror, and ask yourself what have I done to better this organisation. Is my membership in good order? Have I recruited to build, or I’m just looking for short-cuts, reaping where other men have sowed.

Perhaps for me these things are a little easier because, like Milosz, I knew, always, that I would be a worker in the vineyard … To be manure comes with a tuft. Perhaps still I came late in the vineyard, since I’ve never been directly involved in politics except by necessity of having grown up in the black township. True we didn’t chose the vine-dressers we currently have now, but it dishonest and disingenuous to say all they’ve done is only been bad for the organisation.

A lot of sacrifices, mostly going unappreciated, go into leading a new organisation. Of cause other people choose to see only the failures and not the gains. We cannot help pessimists nor opportunist for that matter who think only they can do better than all involved. As for the rest of us, we must soldier on; the task before us is big. We must build our branches, launch our Voting Districts.

I hear from reliable sources that by Easters next year we’ll at least be going to the provincial elective conference. That to me is very encouraging. I hope it’ll revive many a drooping spirit. Of course even after those conferences they’ll be those still grumbling because they didn’t get their way. We’ll give them power only if on the ground we decide to follow their factions. No organisation is perfect; but, as we all know, the quality of a true cook is in working with ingredients one has before them. The same can be said of true leaders and followers.

The first anniversary of the formation of the Congress of the People (COPE) has provided an opportunity to take stock of its impact on the political scene of the country. Most of the comments made so far are critical, some even going as far as singing dirges for COPE. Then there’s the usual revisionists on stilts, often with cloying intellectual gad-flyism. Still, there are those that are constructive in their critique which should elicit more than clucking and hedging from COPE leadership.

To understand the impact COPE has had on the political landscape of our country we have to recall what made COPE’s emergence seem like a breath of fresh air, providing new hope for South Africans of all colour. COPE came at time when signs were becoming clear that we had failed in our project of national reconciliation. And there were disturbing tendencies of disregard for our constitution and democratic principles by the ruling party, like the unconstitutional recall of the president of the country.

During our last election we saw a situation where by most people voted mostly along racial lines, going back to pre 1994 laagers, which confirmed one of COPE’s founding concerns that the racial groups of our country were again becoming polarised.
In recent weeks we’ve seen further evidence that the situation has not changed from that which prevailed around the time COPE was formed. If anything, things are getting worse. The current administration threatens to change the constitution at a drop of a hat, in what they’ve learnt to term ‘material changes to the law’, to accommodate their erratic needs and power mongering designs.

Closer investigation almost always reveals hidden agendas of wanting to centralise power and create a monster style of governance that is micro-managed by Luthuli House. There are myriad examples: from wanting to merge security services, to abolishing provincial governance, to promoting a populist style of mine nationalisation intended to benefit the elites and cronies in the name of the people.

One of the founding principles of COPE is an improvement to our electoral system, to provide the means for intensifying our democracy. This, COPE said, should be done by allowing people to make a direct electoral choice for the State President, their Premiers, etc, as with their local ward councillors. As we saw recently in Lekwa Local Municipality, Standerton, the ruling party instead still regards government representatives as deployees of Luthuli House.

This is probably why they sent the likes of Malema, who holds no elected government position, to dissolve the local government structure mafia style. What is clear that the set precedent will henceforth be followed; whenever there’s something perceived to be wrong, “a band of select individuals ” will seat in Luthuli House and decide who to recall with little or no regard to the democratic principles. Decisions made by the unknown few, are foisted down on the population, regardless of the impact or consequence.

It has meanwhile emerged that within the Tripartite Alliance factions use the so called “service delivery” protests for their own power struggles. In fact most of the time they instigate them as means to advance their careers and to settle political scores. Even the so called local government audit is done on a factionalist and caucus basis. If you belong to a right faction and can caucus sufficiently within the party you are immune from being fired no matter how incompetent.

On the other hand your competence won’t save you if you belong to a wrong or no faction, as was the case within the Lekwa Municipality, where independent surveys showed it to be the fourth best performing municipality in that province. The ruling party’s local municipality audit has become a final witch-hunt to remove those associated with a wrong faction, and then used to dispense patronage to those of a right one. The process attaches next to no meaning to translating people’s service delivery expectations into tangible results.

COPE was formed as a concerted protest against this backdrop of incompetence, cronyism, impotent governance, ineffectual structures, venal politicians and local municipalities that have been bankrupted by mismanagement and corruption. Nothing much has changed: the ANC government still uses “cadre deployment” that lead to government incompetence. If anything they have become bold in aiming to achieve their goals by persuasion, cohesion or repression.

Much more evidence can be put forward to demonstrate the fact that the conditions that led to the formation of COPE have not disappeared, if anything they’ve become worse and more apparent. Why then do some people act as if COPE is on the verge of extinction? Only history can give a satisfactory answer to this question but we can tease a general overview.

COPE as a political party (as opposed to the social movement that went to the Sandton Convention) is still between worlds, standing on a historical process. A political historical process, agency and structure, is always a complex interplay between popular mobilization and civil resistance (those who want to protect and intensify the gains of our democracy). COPE has so far proven to be weak in grassroots political mobilisation. It enjoys the sympathy of civil resistance.

COPE has failed in linking political action with community activism, thus to provide a good antidote to overtly populists constructions of a decaying Liberation Movement, whose lack of principle is helping to rip the moral fabric out of our politics (imagine how many Malema clones there’ll be in 5 years time).

COPE’s lack of a clear identity and the slightly complex concept of progressive politics is at the heart of its failure to appeal at a grassroots level. The idea of progressive politics is an alien political method in African politics. To most African people it smacks of naïve idealism that is informed by technocratic politics, devoid of historical realities. This is probably why it has no appeal to the majority of South Africans who are unable to link it to their immediate experiences.

To be readily understood COPE then will have to talk more about communitarian issues and align itself strongly with social movements. These are the politics of the future, not party politics. COPE needs to find a way of connecting politics with the well-being of families, neighbourhoods, community, nation, and so on. Relevance in politics is achieved through a mixture of traditional forms of values with people’s progressive social spirit and democratic political principles.

Communitarianism, as an ideological mould, can be applied to a number of philosophical presumptions. Hence communitarian politics would be a brandable identity for COPE, with an added advantage of affording opportunity to make its message broad without being vague. The advantage with classic communitarism is traditional and philosophic underpinnings that are serious enough for those with ethical /religious/intellectual grounding, thus can take many forms of cultural and social visage. It is also attentive enough to those still attached to romantic traditions without being naive, shallow or populist. It sees virtue and equality as mutually compatible, that is when the playing field is democratic enough.

The reality of the matter is that most South African thinkers, black and white, are despondent with the current nature of our politics, what one of them termed the moral busting barbarianism. Our progressive communities too are dumfounded with how quickly our politics got derailed our embedded social values.

COPE has to capture this communitarian spirit, channel it properly with vibrant critique of government failures to forge a new path based in constitutional values, civic trust, patriotism, national inclusiveness, etc. The Tripartite Alliance has clearly taken the route of shallow politics, of misleading by perception (saying the right things while doing the opposite). In short, COPE needs to be the authentic voice of sustainable solutions—based on deeper values and political substance. It must be a beckon of what in Rousseau’s terms is called a Well-Ordered Society. Incidentally it was Rousseau who argued that citizens cannot be made to love a society (party) that has lost its way or become corrupt.

COPE’s political space, for many reasons, most of which are historical, is the only one set to grow where others regressing, and some reach their natural ceiling. This is why it is somewhat surprising to hear people sing dirges for COPE as if in the past year it has been punching above its weight. If anything, COPE has not lived up to its potential yet. Yes it has its share of problems but they are not insurmountable as the alarmist headline grabbers would have us believe. The public at large is slowly waking up to the concerns raised by COPE. The party just needs to be more vocal and clear about its message, more consistent in following its principles, and rid itself of leadership squabbles. It must offer a believable alternative and depth that is set to take the political maturity of the country to the next step. Then its fire will flare quicker than anyone is able to fathom.

The ANC plans to take over the Western Cape Province are almost laughable. The party, especially in this province is operating from the edge of chaos. It has been destroyed by greed, power mongering, factionalism, patronage, fraudulent political campaigning where individuals with money buy and establish fly-by-night branches before conferences, without following proper protocol.

The current ANC leadership is outdated, and out of sync with the social spirit of the people of the province. Real innovation and creativity is not encouraged within the Liberation Movement (LM), and replaced by plotting and conniving. When they go to elective conferences positions of power are caucused. As the result you rarely find any real contestations, something that works to the advantage of power mongers and velvet kings of the new order.

The union federations have, in effect permanent secretaries, and other parties, like the SACP, have, in effect, permanent chairmen, who can only be removed by their own volition, when they wish ‘to move on’. It has been clear for sometime that the federated unions and the communist party have been losing membership support. But the machinery of its leadership elections is crafted in such a manner that only those of their affiliation climb the greasy pole to become a voting delegation. The kings and their men manufacture successors of their own choosing for almost every position. Hence you find only pusillanimous characters close to the kings, sucking up to get into their good books. What matters is being on the side of the right faction. It is what qualifies you for political nomination. There’s no contestation of ideas, or real democracy. That is the soviet style of doing things.

For a long time the ANC has relied on ‘Good Sales’ talk, speaking the language of the listener, and ideological ambiguity. This strategy has never really paid serious dividends in the Western Cape where people have never been readily gullible. The Western Cape is the first province in our country to call up the bluff of the ANC, to expose the party’s politics of double and empty sales talk. The LM, whatever its past merits, has now become little more than a careerist ladder and a vehicle to fleece government resources.

Take for instance how the public sector is looted, where failure a mediocrity seem to be rewarded by huge pay out. The CEO of Eskom, Jacob Maroga, was awarded a R5 million salary increment despite Eskom posting R9-billion in loss. The Armscor 2008/2009 annual report reveals that CEO Sipho Thomo received a total increase in remuneration from R1.7 million to R3.27 million (89%); this despite a long list of black marks against his name from formal grievances to decreasing surpluses. The former SABC CEO Dali Mpofu after a protracted ordeal of being paid while on suspended leave was on his exit from the public broadcaster given a R12 million handout, despite leaving the broadcaster with a R800 million loss. The former Chief Executive Officer Khaya Ngqula has recently been paid over R13-million on settlement even though under his management the airline made a R72 million loss, and despite the fact that he’s under investigation for ‘mismanagement, conflict of interest and procurement irregularities’.

One wonders where this intolerance for inefficiency and corruption the Jacob Zuma administration keeps talking about. What is still clear is that if in the LM you are under the auspices of a governing faction you are immune from any kind of prosecution. The good sales talk continue on this and in the strategy of taking back the Western Cape Province. Their strategy betrays something of an obsessive concern with power mongering than addressing issues of the people on the ground. They say next to nothing about efficient service delivery, fighting corruption, nepotism, incompetence. Nothing about desisting from the practice of political deployment to positions of civil service, which is the root of poor service delivery? Instead the talk is about vague terms like political education and mobilization, or advancing the so called National Democratic Revolution—whatever that means.

The real political attitude of the ANC can be ascertained in Membhathisi Mdladlana’s comment that “We cannot meekly accept being governed by today’s democrats who are yesterday’s oppressors.” This from a party who’s in cahoots with the New National Party and think the Freedom Front Plus, as the ANYL president will try to convince you, are the only real white Africans. In case it is not clear by now; what’s clearly happening here is that the nationalists have recognize themselves—by crook and by hook—as the birds of the same feather (sublime or radical racism) and are now flocking together. The LM’s lack of real commitment to values of non-racialism, accountability and democracy have become apparent, which is what the Western Cape people have caught on.

What has also become apparent is that the LM can no longer be regarded as a solid and rational force to manage the change needed to take us forward towards modern politics that are in line with our social spirit. LM is in a state of general moral decay and riddled with factionalist politics. It is up to the rest of true democrats to defend and advance the progressive spirit of this country by standing together against the fading dream and failing spirit of freedom. True democrats cannot be blackmailed by scars of the past and symbolic gestures of gone by day. As part of maturing freedom they are starting to break off even from the grip of nostalgia and receding liberation politics. This is what is happening in the Western Cape and none are as blind as those who won’t see it.

The people of the Western Cape are moving on, and the tide will not turn, instead more and more people from other provinces will join in this liberation of their psyche when the ambiguities and internal problems of the LM become too conspicuous to everyone. It is already translating into a crisis of confidence and credibility. The whole country will soon wake up to the double and good sales talk that hides the regressive incapacity, corruption, nepotism, careerism, and lack of integrity in the LM. Perhaps then our politics will learn to operate from a better moral and intellectual stand.

A review of Moeletsi Mbeki’s recent book, Architects of Poverty.

Much of what Moeletsi Mbeki says in his book, Architects of Poverty, we already know. What is enjoyable is its collection and aggregation. Mbeki uses fresh descriptions to argue a cogent thesis that runs through the book like a thread of fine stitches. He’s undidactic and intelligent without being formulaic. Simply put Mbeki’s thesis can be captured as this:

1) Africa, after its colonial past, has been governed by political elites who ended up copying qualities of colonialists in the name of African nationalism.

2) African elites, who are mostly black, are a non productive group, and live by a symbiotic parasitic relationship to state’s resources through political connection (they see the state as essentially distributive rather than developmental).

3) They blackmail capitalist oligarchies to give their profits windfalls, otherwise known as BEE.

4) Political elites have little to no original innovation (business wise) and have no control over productive economy; their thinking is largely controlled by foreign forces in the form of global corporations, or capitalist oligarchs.

5) Models of solutions provided by institutions like World Bank or IMF have not been good for African development
The rule of political elite in Africa has so far led to initial development after independence, but that petered away after a few years, living behind deteriorating to collapsing infrastructure, massive brain drainage, and capital flight.

6) When threatened by the political forces of change the political elites suppress them, with violence if need be; and are not averse to using their political power to advance the tyranny of their big men rule to preserve the status quo of their power.

7) Or they make cosmetic changes, replacing one big man with the other that serves a different group of even greedier political elites.

Mbeki thinks “Is a new middle class emerging in Africa that can provide the leadership required to drive the continent’s industrial and agrarian revolutions in the face of foreign interventions that foster the continent’s traditional role in the world economy as a source of raw materials and cheap labour?” Is his hope on the new emerging African middle class justified?

Sometimes when I see how the black middle class, especially, has fallen for the consumerist culture at the expense of real innovation and development, I feel Mbeki’s hope is far fetched. But the good thing about middle class consumerism is that, by default, it demands innovation to keep up the demand and supply.

So the question is whether we have what it takes to become a real productive class. There’s a certain mental attitude we should adopt to fulfil this challenge; liberty driven thinking is at the centre of it. Liberty is a revolutionary doctrine that sometimes develops through vaunting out regressive tradition.

Another fresh quality in Mbeki’s narrative-a scarce resource in African analysts who are forever looking over their shoulders to see how their argument will be understood in black political circles-is the manner by which he’s not afraid to venture to wherever logic leads him, and makes no apologies for it:
“Many foreign businesses survived as best they could by corrupting the new elite or finding ways of ingratiating themselves with their new masters. In some Western countries companies got tax breaks if they were able to bribe African government officials.”

Mbeki says African elites foster the continent’s underdevelopment with their operations of diverting economic profits to ‘consumption and capital flight’ while assisting the axe of de-industrialisation by not investing in the manufacturing sector.

Mbeki is not a rigorously analytical scribe. This does not necessary belittle the merits of his book, after all obsessive analysis can sometimes stupefy. But cogent as his argument might be sometimes it feels rushed. The history of our country is certainly hushed and abridged, which is understandable for the book of such small length.

Mbeki helped at least one reader to understand the prevalence for socialist rhetoric in disguise of vacuous capitalist consumerism within the Liberation Movement (LM) itself:
“The social democracy of black elites was, however, not influenced by the doctrines of socialism. Rather, it was based on statist economic models which its creators saw as a way of breaking the power of the white owned corporations, thus creating the possibility of the black elite entering the business.” It is just another trick of the black elite.

The quality that most distinguishes Mbeki’s writing is its clarity. It sparkles like pellucid water, running shallow and wide. You can see every pebble on its bed. He has investigative journalist’s talent for distilling scattered information, especially that of economy-historical milieu, into pithy passages and engaging sound bites. From his tone you can realise he disdains snobbery and has an affirmed broad affection for grassroots democratic processes, something obviously worrisome to the dysfunctional collective elitist schemers who climb the greasy pole of our politics.

Although not meticulously systematic, Mbeki’s book proceeds with the lucidity that characterizes a journalistic need for clarity. His thinking is marked by a positive and objective looking self-consciousness. Take for instance how he speaks about aspects that directly involve his brother, the former president of the republic, Thabo Mbeki. There’s a dry emotive outpouring only an Mbeki is capable of; a loosening up of tension that is not mawkish, and is soon relieved to move beyond the personal instead of exploring it. He’s critical of him without condemning; complimentary without bias.

In the end what Moeletsi Mbeki favours is a capitalist economy that would generate economic growth and create a community of interests between the more and less prosperous. He wants to see more virtuous and well-educated South Africans, with a general respect for tradition and morality that underlay the economics and politics of a free society:
“A country develops when its able to harness the energies of its people and put them to productive use.” That’s my favourite quote of the book. He makes suggestions on how to embark on this journey, but emphasises that innovation and competence is what’ll see us through, not, for instance, regulation against foreign competition, or wasting resources on impotent projects.

Far too many people that should be artisans, technicians, professionals, engineers, scientists, managers, etc, end up falling through the cracks of our education system for one reason or other. Part of the problem is our apartheid inheritance; but we cannot keep blaming apartheid for everything forever. We need to pull ourselves by our own boots straps.

Expecting help from the outside is self-defeating; even when not looking after its own vested interests foreign help stunts internal innovative capacity. We must be our own heroes, and the most secure and quickest way to develop ourselves is education, education, and more education. We must intensify drives that’ll produce qualified people we need to eliminate the artificial shortage of skilled labour, etc.

All these things can never succeed until we do some serious soul searching and change of especially our entitlement attitude. There is, for instance, a wrongheaded notion that has recently taken root in the Liberation Movement – that to be educated is to be elitist. You hear people praising uneducated people as if this automatically brings them closer to the people. This lack of aspiration for excellence is one of the things that stunt our development. There’s nothing wrong with being educated, especially if those fruits of that education are ploughed back into one’s community.

Instead of fearing excellence and democracy we should rather be concerned with symptoms that point to the fact that we are a civilization in decline, dominated by consumerist greed, given over to public vulgarity, and rapidly descending into collective barbarism, especially during the exercise of our right to protest. We should be teaching our people to be citizens; which is free individuals that are part of something bigger than themselves, in this case happens to be a republic. Not only just citizens, but enlightened ones that’ll build a society that take form, character, from our collective experiences as the people of this country. Anything else is just hot air.

As I watched in the television the political drama the ANC populists staged at Johannesburg airport, when our athletes came from participating in IAAF championships, it became clear to me they were building a propaganda machine along the lines of Zanu-PF by indoctrinating the minds of the people. The trick is about scapegoating and deflecting attention away from the real issues we’re faced with, like service delivery protests by hyping up the Semenya’s incident; orchestrating people’s racial anxieties and fears, asking them to have hope in unspecific things and lies.

My friend and I discussed what was needed for our country to enter a more progressive and developmental mode. We came to conclusion that we need a highly intelligent, extremely eloquent leader with a clear idea of what is needed to be done make our economy more vibrant. He probably will have to be someone with no fear of intimidating passé politics, especially those of the Liberation Movement (LM). He / she must have nothing to prove, which means he/she must be someone already successful in career and well off moneywise.

Where would you get such a perfect candidate, asked my friend. He’ll have to come from obscurity. In modern politics every man’s past disqualifies him from high public office. After the current administration I can assure you people will no longer be in a mood for the devils they know.

“My question to you, are YOU starting to organize a movement such as the one you say we need? Personally I think the answer lies in a small aristocratic youth league that is not aligned with a political party (as you yourself say) – a real youth league that is concerned not about party image but about the people of our country.” Another friend asked through the internet. What is becoming obvious is that people, young people of progressive minds especially, have become fed up with our political leaders across the board. This includes that of our own party Cope.

We listened to the cloying vulgarisateur, Malema, and the rest of snobbish loghorrhoea of Winnie Mandela. We asked ourselves what had gone wrong? And ended up putting the blame on ourselves. We spent too much time not caring for political things, which allowed the worse to rise to the top on the public arena.

We talked about the corrosive impact on our country’s psyche, the growing disdain for excellence; whether in education, culture, or politics, was having. The demands for excellence are labelled elitist by the populist. Ignorance is glamorised as a sign that one is closer to the people, and has not forgotten their roots.

We came to a conclusion that we need an enlightened (I always feel nervous using this term, after all Lenin and Mao were avowed disciples of an Enlightenment ideology, and so is Mugabe) citizenry who understand their rights and can see in seed the dangers to their liberty. The citizenry that is able to sieve wheat from chaff in political rhetoric. Citizens that’ll be able to pull themselves out the current deadening psyche that’s the combination of millenarian hopes and age-old resentments otherwise know as sense of entitlement.

We also said we were in dire need of independent opinion makers who are not prepared to sell their souls to shenanigans of power or money. Those who’ll not give ideological sanction to bad behaviour of powerful and greedy men, making the field of journalism look like its open to the highest bidder by prostituting their pens.

When later that night I sat to read once again the words of another journalists who had chosen the seduction of power over sincerity I was reminded of Samgrass from Brideshead Revisited. [As most know, Samgrass was the don at the rich man’s table, the brilliant chatterer, who moved among dinner tables to impress ignorant men who had not read as much as they had.] Modern Samgrasses fret their talent as vulgarisateur chatterboxes; cloyingly boastful, even excusing the cruelty of powerful men with a stroke of a pen. Of course they are tedious and infelicitous. They betray the progressive spirit of the people. They are of much concern to me because if there’s one thing I’ve learnt in my few months in close contact is that a puppy that feeds on vixen milk sooner or later develops qualities of a wolve.

What is required is “To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity.” This is the call the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his recent encyclical, CARITAS IN VERITATE. Indeed let us be charitable to one another, and our government, but let us stand firm in the truth, even when it is out of season castles of clay, or with public opinion. Let’s stand firm for what we believe even against the tide.

A short lesson in history takes us to July 1905, when Lenin in his writing, Two Tactics of Social – Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, described the tasks that then faced the Bolshevik Party; “Undoubtedly, the revolution will teach us and will teach the masses of the people. But the question that now confronts a militant political party is: shall we be able to teach the revolution anything? Shall we be able to make use of the correctness of our Social-Democratic doctrine, of our bond with the only thoroughly revolutionary class, the proletariat, to put a proletarian imprint on the revolution, to carry the revolution to a real and decisive victory, not in word but in deed, and to paralyse the instability, half-heartedness and treachery of the democratic bourgeoisie?”

In a way the challenge today is directed more to the black middle class, the only people who have potential power to turn the tide of the decaying spirit in our country. Will they listen? The choice might seem difficulty, between nostalgia and liberation movement gone haywire; or principle. Liberty is the most revolutionary doctrine that sometimes must develop by vaunting bad tradition to preserve a good principle. This is the paradox of a traditional black person that is intensified by unconditional belief in our constitution and bill of rights.

The real revolution is never really expressed by populist language which always catches things by the tailcoats. The real revolution, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn saw, starts in the hearts and minds of men of goodwill, and run like a double edged sword through an irrepressible fight for human dignity. The real revolution is about freedom and liberty even against collective psyche if it be necessary.

As I watched the orchestration of anger at Johannesburg airport on TV I was reminded of something H.G. Wells once said about “the facile assumption that the people at a disadvantage will be stirred to anything more than chaotic and destructive expressions of resentment.” The real revolution has a tendency of confounding revolutionaries, and, as the saying go, it shall not be televised.

It is undeniable that there has been some significant improvement in our people’s lives since the ANC took over governing from the apartheid regime. Why then these present service delivery riots all over the country? The reasons are many, but the one most damning roots come from the ANC’s electioneering flip-flopper politics; that is saying anything and everything in order to win the election.

The ANC, with the invidious help from its alliance partners, has been encouraging and bloating people’s unrealistic expectations. These flip-flopper politics became worse and ludicrous when the ANC found itself with its back against the wall during the foundation of Cope. They started buying people with food parcels and bribing them with indigent grants. This was, in a way, an admittance of their failures in giving anything of substance to our people in recent years.

I agree with Paul Trewhela that in the past fifteen years the ANC government has dismally failed in providing the majority of South Africans with good education. It has bungled up the health service [there are now promising signs with the proposed public health insurance but even that will avail nothing if the structural and effective management problems in the system are not improved].

The ANC government has failed to promote equitable distribution of economic income to reach the greatest possible number of people. It’s housing delivery has been inadequate, and land distribution a disaster waiting to happen. It has failed to create enough jobs to meet our demands even when our economy was growing at a reasonable rate, which makes it sound more like mockery and another evidence of its flip-flopper politics, when it now, during the recession, promises to create 500 000 thousand more jobs before the end of the year.

Taking into consideration these entire things one is left with only one conclusion, which is that the ANC government has lived up to expectations in the last fifteen years. The reasons for this are clear to those who have no vested interests on the party. It would have been even tolerable had these failures been only the consequent of lack of resources. But the resources are reasonable adequate in our country; it is the non utilisation of them to the premium that is the problem. This is due to inadequate civil service and corruption in the public sector.

The private sector itself, sadly, has not sufficiently come into the bandwagon of assisting the government to meet the service delivery mandate. Naturally you don’t expect the private to put their money when they do not see any value. So the government needs to demonstrate that investment to its programmes adds value to the development of the country by being efficient with taxpayer’s money.

To compound government failures we now hear calls from the ANC alliance partners for the nationalisation of mines. This, of course, is a continuation of empty rhetoric and flip-flopper politics that got us into this mess in the beginning. With these calls they want to send a panic message to mining companies in order to agree to release more BEE deals for the fat cats to grow extra necks. Most bigwigs within the tri-party alliance are aware that statism failed in all its global experiments. That statism is not healthy for the economy and democracy, nor is it adequate to manage the high expectations of the poor.

The reality of the matter is that the ANC’s failures affect and will pull all of us to the abyss with it. As another statesman once said; “When the poor rise, they’ll rise against us all.” The ANC, as long as it is a ruling party, is an albatross in all of our necks, whether we support it or not. Its demise is our own doom also. So the best we can do under the circumstances is to try and transcend politicking into discovering how best to extricate ourselves from this mess. The first directive would be for our public representatives to speak the truth!

The ANC needs to acknowledge to the people where it has failed them; and start putting out real solutions to them, not spin-doctoring that waste time with fishing for non existing third forces. These are tricks of a failing regime. Some of us have been saying that this country was perhaps one step from a flaring revolution for sometime now. This not because we are prophets, but from reading signs in the streets, especially on the townships.

The Second Coming is upon us, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? The ANC needs to wake up and smell the bread. These are not times for grubby politics or continuing with the blame game. These are no times for political calculation, stagecraft, opportunism, careerism, and duplicity that negate political integrity. Speak the truth and genuinely act on your words!

I was encouraged to read from the weekly letter of the leader of DA, Helen Zille last week. From her tone when explaining the service delivery riots at Masiphumelele townships in Cape Town it would seem she’s slowly realising that the only way out of this mess is by speaking the truth, and by adopting an attitude of political integrity in matching our words to our actions. Indeed we need such supple and energetic leadership in these trying times. We need leaders, if necessary, that’ll set their faces as flint against the failing revolutionary methods of struggle where necessary. That’ll give more than words, mere words, and move beyond platitudes and trivialities, which give an impression of philosophical weakness and indecisiveness in our present leadership.

There’s rapture for fresh politics that is growing out of a deep hunger for political integrity in our country. I’m not sure if I’m only talking about the new generation, but there’s a general deep yearning for smart, articulate, principled liberal leadership. Unfortunately it looks like the best the Zuma years will do is to deepen the hunger. We’re not seeing encouraging signs from the present national government. There’s continuation of deployment of unqualified loyal comrades to crucial civil position and so forth.

We keep hearing about talks about the National Democratic Revolution, which, even if it was relevant in organising against the apartheid regime, has now become impotent. Times have moved on, but the politics of the tripartite alliance are still lost in yesteryear and are not able to keep up with our social spirit. It is left to our own lights to strive for new freedoms, like revolutionising our human ideals and political integrity. Let those who recognise this need come together to take this country forward.

Some of us have waken up to the dangers the present political path of the tripartite alliance is going to take us to. Let us not behave too much like politicians, that “… set of men who have interests aside from the interests of the people, and who, to say the most of them are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from being honest men … I say this with greater freedom because, being a politician myself, none can regard it as personal.” So said Abraham Lincoln, when, as a state legislator in 1837, he rose to object to a Democratic resolution on the Illinois State Bank. May we too see the light.

It must be nice to be Jacob Zuma and his administration. To be ideologically everywhere without being anywhere. When the circumstances suite you blame the previous administration for what your supporters carelessly call ‘neo-liberal’ agenda. And you ground yourself on leftist tactical doctrines of the so called National Democratic Revolution (NDR) in front of the workers and the poor.

When elected, to appease the markets, you declare that the previous policies, including the neo-liberal agenda, are a collective decisions of the organization (ANC), and so will not change. Then you take credit for sound fiscal policies of the past, while blaming all th

We said, you must not give people unrealistic expectations, especially during the time of recession. They said we will weather the storm and escape the worst of it; create at least 500 000 jobs by the end of the year. Reality is now hitting them on the face.

We said you cannot buy votes by food parcels, because you raise unrealistic expectations and dependency on people. They wanted the vote at whatever price, and maintained their habit of saying whatever they want to do with impunity. They said our people understand and are forgiving of our mistakes and lies. Now people are going to supermarkets, getting food parcels without paying for them, and sending the bill to JZ and the ministry of Social Development. Reality is hitting them in the face.

We said you cannot sustain long term governance on rhetoric, lies and bloated promises. They brought us Vavi to misrepresent the workers; Malema to bloat the hopes of the youth, and Ndzimande to lie to the poor with obsolete ideologies he himself does not even understand. Now our country looks like an apartheid state where order can only be maintained by a police force. We look like a country at war with itself. Reality is heating them on the face and all they can do to respond is to suspect a third force that is instigating the people.

We told them the impatience of people on the ground is reaching crisis levels. We said to speed up service delivery you need to employ qualified civil servants, correct and train the attitude of those already in civil service. They said they wanted to deploy cadres in civil service that’ll promote the so called National Democratic Revolution (NDR). Now as the beginnings of the real revolution is in the offing they are looking for someone, anyone, to blame. ‘Third force’; now where did we here that before? O! it was the apartheid regime during its moribund years.

We said there’s a political leadership crisis and dearth of vision in this country. They said the country is on course, except it was misled by the influence of neo-liberal economic policies; so they brought to the helm a leader who has no clue about anything except he wanted to be a president, and was prepared, like no other ANC leader before, to allow the leftist influence to overwhelm the ANC. They were betting to sing us out of the crisis with umshini wami; and delay the crisis by changing the names of programmes and government departments to speciously deal with it.

We said we need to change the political narrative of this country; find other progressive ways to keep up with the social spirit of the people on the ground. They said they were fine with ignorance and incompetence as ways to advance the NDR, so they filled crucial government post with only those that meet their criterion. We said this NDR thing cannot continue being subject to the caprices of the elite. They said yes things will change, and promise if necessary heads will roll. Instead only the supporters of Thabo Mbeki were got ridden of; key positions filled with supporters of the new king (JZ) as reward to their support.

The astute changed with times and circumstances; drank and danced to the king’s health on their knees, negotiating their tricky change of coats with finesse. Everyone had to identify for themselves what compromises or betrayals they were prepared to take; policies were no longer pointers for anything. Terminal confusion settled in all things, and the only alliance politicians respected was to their wallets. Meanness and deviousness acquired the Machiavellian streak. When we objected, they said we were bad losers, even those of us who were never part of the ANC.

We asked where are practical guides of what they mean to do to get us out the crisis. They said the Ministries in the Presidency will provide us soon; next they supplied us recycled ineffective programmes. When we demanded clear directives we were told we being unpatriotic and unreasonable. When will these people ever learn anything and be done with this comedy of errors?

Let us be generous and say everything Simon Grindrod says in his letter of resignation to the General Secretary of Cope is true. We are still left with a nudging question, cui bono? Who benefits by this recycling every criticism that was ever slung on Cope as he decide to resign from being active on its leadership structures? What motivates him? What is Grindrod after in this painting himself as a diligent Hercules who was prevented from cleaning the dirty stables of Cope by certain individuals, some of who he names, in its leadership?

It is clear from his letter that Grindrod has an axe to grind against the individuals in the leadership of Cope, and not the organization and its followers per se, whom, together with himself, he pities for being duped. “It is becoming my view that a great fraud has been perpetrated against the South African electorate and I will no longer be part of leading it. I now regard the rhetoric of ‘deepening democracy’ as totally baseless and regret being overwhelmed by the exciting potential this had for our country. I regret even more that I convinced others likewise … I have promoted and defended COPE on public platforms for many months. It is accordingly disappointing to experience firsthand the recent responses of fellow leaders on several issues of fundamental importance to the long term viability of the party.”

Grindrod has chosen not to leave Cope but “remain an ordinary paid up member of COPE to await the day when the party recaptures its original beliefs and principles.” He does not say how the party is suppose to capture this original spirit, but has decided to take himself out of the leadership equation for that arduous process, since he tried and failed. “Accordingly, as a matter of conscience, I resign from the national working committee (CWC) and national executive committee (CNC). I am no longer confident that leadership is either accountable or representative of the true needs and wishes of members.”

I ask the question again. Cui bono? Who benefits from all this process? Certainly not Cope, which is thrown into disarray by Grindrod’s actions for the second time. Despite the pretense that he’s doing this for the greater good of the party I’m pretty much sure Grindrod is aware the party would not benefit, not in a short term at least. Perhaps he sees himself as a prophet that will not be appreciated in his era but at a later date for saving Cope from itself.

Grindrod talks a lot about puppet masters pulling string behind the scenes of Cope, naming and insinuating the former president Thabo Mbeki on national level, and James Vumile Ngculu on provincial level. I think Grindrod forgets for a minute how Cope was formed (by breaking away from the ANC), and the last straw that led to that formation was putsch of former president Mbeki. Is it natural that the breakaway members of the ANC be at the helm of Cope? Yes. Is it desirable that it be so forever? No. And some of us, especially those who were never part of the Tripartite Alliance, with assistance of some who were there sometimes, are doing everything in their power to change it.

Sure most of us came to Cope for different reasons, others seeking positions of power and money, others with greater excitement, naïve and cocksure perhaps; thinking that it’d be a haven for free spirits and flamboyant way of doing politics. We are now waking up to a rude awakening that this is a political party that requires us to first establishment and build the strong democratic culture we want to see extended to the rest of the country in our own party. We are realizing that there are no instant easy answers, or quick download for good democratic principles and ready made structures. We must build them ourselves. Luckily we seem to be up to the challenge and commitment to the party.

There’s a time for talk and self-analysis. But self-analysis is no substitute for the practical actions we need to undertake in establishing democratic institution, which alone can guarantee the freedoms we’ve gained and seek to consolidate. At this particular moment the best to advance this cause is by creating a platform for a free and fair coalition of our characters and different aspirations, which the coming elective conference is suppose to accomplish. Hopefully there we’ll be able to democratically elect the representative leaders we want.

What is regrettable and prevalent within Cope, is the attitude of thinking only oneself is a proper leader; the inability to work with interim structures placed before us if they don’t include our own selves. Interim structures by definition are flawed since they are not democratically elected, for one. And until Cope has proper structures on the ground, in good standing order, it has no ability to democratically elect its leaders. This is why the only call that makes sense at this moment is that of building structures on the ground towards the elective conference.

As for the issue of former president Thabo Mbeki, every South African has a right to motivate themselves under any leader of their choice. Some of us get inspirations in his philosophy and writings (I am an African); others in the spirit of Mandela; others even in the pride of Black Consciousness as espoused by Steve Biko. Grindrod’s problem with this betrays the distasteful tendency of wishing to prescribe and twist freedom to only one’s own understanding. Democracy presupposes tolerance for other people’s likes even against our own grain sometimes.

Delving a little deeper to the motives why Grindrod has chosen the media path to make his point to Cope’s leadership one is left with suspicions that it was done only to point a finger at them at Cope’s leadership, and as a mode to revenge himself for what has happened since after elections. (This is not about deflecting criticism, after all as I’ve already indicated, there’s nothing new in what Grindrod is saying.)

It’s no secret that Grindrod was extremely disappointed when he couldn’t go to parliament, through a decision taken on the Cope provincial caucus, he was present in, to bring someone outside the Metro to balance the scales. Ideally this should have been foreseen from the beginning. The situation where seven provincial candidates coming from the Metro should not have been allowed, but since I don’t know the criterion used to draw that list, I shall not labour the point.

For Grindrod to make himself as holier than the rest of us; putting himself above it all as if he was against decisions, like putting Dr. Allan Boeask and Dr. Mvume Dandala, is hypocrisy of highest order. Those of us who remembers recall Grindrod was one of those who motivated us for these moves. Perhaps he was still in good terms with the leadership he now despises. Or could it be he now has found himself a new masters; after all the people who are supposed to have asked him to resign as the Deputy Mayor under the banner of the ID are now Cope’s dissident puppet masters, the only ones Grindrod conveneintly fails to name in his leeter. Perhaps the puppet is now dancing to another tune.

Cope is in a painful stage of pruning and purging the fleas, thanks to the likes of Grindrod. We now have to get rid of the debris collected due to the quick manner by which the party was formed. Pruning is never nice, but a pruned tree gives forth full harvest in its due season. COPE will stand the test of time, because it is founded on timeless values, beyond the anger against the violations of oue constitution. It’ll grow because it is committed to uplifting the people of this land by constituional values. It might take a little longer than most of us anticipated, but those who stay will see the sunrise; in fact the new dawn is already incandescent on the morning skies. This is why those who acknowledge our potential are so afraid of its realisation. Let us not allow ourselves to be distracted, even by those who pretend to be acting our behalf.

Let us go to the trenches, dirty our hands to build this organization. We have far too many enemies who stand to benefit by our failure. In every democratic political organisation, people come and go for different reasons. Sometimes they don’t find what they were looking for so they leave. That’s the nature of things politcal. No political party is immune from leadership squabbles; it is the manner by which it resolves these that determines the character of a party.

There’s no question about Grindrod’s has passion for freedom, but he also has purblind eye for conducting himself under material stress. He is, as the saying goes, too much of a manager of his own brand; utterly lacking in any sense of reticence, and given to too much rambling self-exposure. Perhaps at some stage he’ll have to learn the value of political equipoise and constancy, which, by the way, are the sources of authority and trust.

In all relations, once the trust is lost you are just delaying the inevitable, which is why personally I no longer see any value in Grindrod staying with Cope. I also despise his tendency (which is naturally the trick of half-hearted dishonest dissidence who want to look like reformers) of taking a spark of truth, exaggerate and twist it to serve his dubious purposes.

Grindrod’s ultimate aim, I suspect, is to discredit and tarnish the present leadership of Cope to an extent that it stands no chance of re-election during the coming elective conference. I could even accept that as the normal democratic process, mudslinging your opponent and all, if only I believed Grindrod’s commitments to the party. What has also come out clear in all this process is that Grindrod is a conniving opportunist. Not only is he positioning himself as a daring democrat, but dares Cope’s leadership to expel him so he may get additional stature of being a martyr. He’s not only just conniving but shrewd.

After reading the open letter of Fikile Mbalula to the former president Thabo Mbeki, and upon hearing that the former president was not prepared to justify it with a response, we thought we’d stoop to the level of Mr Mbalula by answering it, imagining ourselves as the former president.

Mr. Fikile Mbalula

I’m certain you are aware that the use of the word cde denotes similar views and attitude between people of related spirit. Since in your letter you make it clear that you and I don’t share anything similar, perhaps it’d be proper if you should desist from calling me cde. I doubt if you hold me Dear also,  so perhaps Mister would suffice between us, thus if you still regard me with minimum hour.

I’ve read your open letter, dated 2009/04/14 in a PDF file, which you’ve addressed to me. I had no way of verifying it until you appeared on TV news admitting to authoring the missal, saying I’m a liability to the ANC who allows himself to be used for tactics of undermining the organisation. It is regrettably you first chose to go public about issues you clearly wished to address to me. I’m not in a position to speak on behalf of the Congress of the People about why they choose to invoke my name in their freedom songs. The simple explanation would be to flatter myself into thinking that they regard me as the small part of bringing their democratic freedom, like other South African of the calibre of Steve Biko, Terror Lekota, and the rest. You chose to hold a different view, which you’re entitled to.

You insinuate that I was authoritarian as a leader without giving much support to your allegation. You say I “chose to run both the organisation and the country with cabal which sought to commandeer everyone along your thinking and vision, which at times ran contrary to what the ANC stood for.” Until you give me some substance you leave me no choice but to conclude that you’re one of those who’ve recycled this attitude from other sources of sensationalist nature and little analytic powers, who make fiction of history according to their prejudices and condescending conspiring tendencies of acknowledging no right thinking except it worships in their kraal. Since I’m currently in a process of writing my memoirs I shall not prostitute my muse beyond this point.

The best way to judge my legacy is definitely not through ANC politics where I’ve heard to fight one battle over another since I became its prominent member. Since you give me the invidious honour of having divided and turned the ANC against itself, the exercise is not desirable either. We might argue until cows come home, worse still, you know very little of what has gone on within the ANC since I’ve become a part of it. Your knowledge of its politics is probably limited to rosy part of post 1992 era when your likes came howling about one thing or the other without proper understanding of real roots. I’m not trying to boast, but am just writing ad ostentationem only, to show where I’ve been with some of the comrades you now call your respected leaders, whom I’ve carried on my back, as others have carried me before during our times of struggle.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been looking through South Africa’s major political party manifestoes to see if we can expect any radical changes or inspiring vision. I was a little disappointed. The African National Congress (ANC) does not promise much beyond what it has been saying in the past 10 years. We all know it has been going around in circles since, running from one unsuccessful programme to another. The DA is good at exposing ruling party’s failures with a semblance of fresh thinking. Unfortunately most of the time it betrays roots of elite anxieties and recycled newspaper sensationalism. Congress of the People (COPE) is usually criticised for being a cut and paste haste job with anti-ANC tendencies that’s caught up on personality dilemma. They say it does not know whether it wants to be a political party, a social club or a charismatic church.

Beyond these three major political parties you’ll be hard pressed to find anything better, just slight variations with emphasis on anti-corruption [Independent Democrats (ID)], emphasis on land [Pan Africanist Congress (PAC and its various factions)], minority rights [Freedom Front (FF)]. The African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and other organisation with emphasis on religious sentiment tend to be out of depth on political scene except when following the stance emphasised by COPE of better ethics and morals in politics. Emphasising on better values, morally and otherwise, can never be wrong. But to convince voters you need a clear vision and realistic program of implementation as an alternative. That is where almost all the South African political parties are failing us.

What our country needs most is fresh thinking for our relevant solutions. Indeed, there’s generally not enough radical thinking around the world in our era beyond manoeuvring propping of the system. One of the reasons for this is not enough comprehensive research, deeper reflection and diverse debate about localised issues. Perhaps it is because political parties know that we, as the voters, are not demanding enough; we’re, most of the time, satisfied with cheap political theatrics and other sensationalist guises.

For a time it looked like the formation of COPE meant the opening of a wider political space in our country, renewing hopes of true democracy, civil institutions and all. COPE’s founding message roused the urgent call to safeguard the heritage of our civil institutions, hence it resonated well with the public, until its own teething problems damped the enthusiasm energy back into impotent anger, fear and confusion. But no doubt about it, COPE introduced something fresh in our political scene, especially around the time of the Sandton National Convention (02 November 2008). After that it seemed to lose its momentum. Perhaps it was caught off guard by its own success.

It might be expecting too much for COPE to come up with well groomed policies less than four months of its existence. Still, during its manifesto launch at Port Elizabeth, COPE promised it’ll bring to the South African public a more detailed map of its vision by June. Now is the time to give a clear indications of its direction if it wishes to take advantage of the coming elections. We need clear directives especially concerning economic policies. This, coupled with the present glaring blunders of the ANC, might just buy COPE another serious lifeline and boost its momentum.

Read the rest of this entry »

As we wait the news of the NPA dropping all charges against the ANC president, Jacob Zuma, we stand in amazement of the quick fading credibility once again of one of our institutes of civic liberty. I’m sure the leaders of the ANC will stand at Fitzegerald square, gloating at the mastery of their good plan coming together. I’m sure the South African public will be told the information contained on the so called Mbeki tapes are of sensitive national security, thus barring them from public scrutiny. And so the cookie crumbles, as the Americans would say.

Many things have recently happened in our country that leave any thinking individual that South Africa’s political scene has entered a low, mean, dishonest era; and is poised between decaying democracy and nascent Maoism. Whether we termed our quest for liberty in revolutionary lingo, or western Herodotean concepts of eleutheria, isonomia (freedom-under-law); the basic truth is once we were all after similar things, like freedom, good governance and self-determination for the honour and character of our republic. Now we’re learning the hard way the culture of deception that inevitably comes to envelope self-selecting leadership groups organized around crises. Something is definitely rotten in our political state.

Samuel Huntington once pointed out that ‘People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against’. Today we find ourselves having more and more in common with states that trump the rule of law for what is misrepresented as the greater good of the country. We’re keeping invidious company with glorified oppressive states like Russia, China, Algeria at a growing strain with those that champion liberty and democratic transparency. The sad part is that, by the look of majority opinion, we are complicit in our own deception, and downright eager to be misled. Man of courageous principle, like Bishop Tutu, are called by sinister names because they dare expose the underside of the rousing beast within us. What is clear is that the iron of our principles is rotting by collective, group and individual vested interests.

It reminds me of something the historian William H. McNeill once said, commenting on why modern armed forces still use Maurice’s techniques, nearly five centuries later. “When a group of men move their arm and leg muscles in unison for prolonged periods of time, a primitive and very powerful social bond wells up among them. This probably results from the fact that movement of the big muscles in unison rouses echoes of the most primitive level of sociality known to humankind.” This is the kind of democracy we’ve landed on under the tutelage of the ANC government. You either march to the tune of the ruling party or be called worse things than just counterrevolutionary. This may satisfy the primitive crave to be part of something greater than oneself as the slogans go; “My ANC! My Vision!” But behind the forced utopic exuberance is a reality of the proverbial snake satisfying its hunger by devouring itself, tail up.

As a liberation movement the ANC has always been susceptible to the blandishments of collective myopia and illusions of divine purpose. But it was, for the greater parts of history, lucky enough to have sterling leadership that was able to gently stir it out of these pitfalls. It had leaders that were able to tame its beast of collective aggressiveness, and the seduction of mindless identification with destructive tendencies of mob psychology. That’s why South Africa was able to avoid the fates of Rwanda’s Hutus and Tutsis, Bosnian Serbs and Muslims, Nazis and Jews, Irish Catholics and Protestants, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Israelis and Palestinians, etc. But what beast was woken at Polokwane in the ANC’s 52^nd National Conference. Better still, did those who roused it understand what they were doing?

Read the rest of this entry »

Last Saturday I was disturbed from my chores by two ANC election foot soldiers, a lady and a guy, both in their late thirties or early forties. They demanded, in a stern voice, to know if I stayed in the house. When I answered in the positive the lady asked. “According to our papers there are two people who are registered to vote in this house.” I was amazed. How could they know that? Only the IEC should have that information. “How would you know that?” I asked, perplexed. “That does not matter,” chipped in the guy. “Are you Mphuthumi Ntabeni?” I was flabbergasted.

After that we went into little detail about the issues the ANC is putting on the table to convince us to vote for it to power again, chief of which was the cutting of water to people’s home by the City of Cape Town. I agreed with them that cutting people’s water is unconstitutional, and contrary to the promise of bringing basic lives with dignity to people. But my following questions caught them off guard. I asked why were they acting as if they were an opposition party. After all the ANC has been governing this province for sometime now, under whom the City of Cape Town cut people’s water.

If the ANC Provincial government was effective and efficient, I told them when they made to object, it could have found ways and means to stop the City of Cape Town, under the DA as they emphatically pointed out. Surely had the provincial government decided, say, to take the City of Cape Town to court, they would have won the case and saved a lot of people from unnecessary dire straits. I put it to them. “This thing points to the inefficiencies of the ANC government.” I told them. “Though your organisation has good intentions and policies most of the time, it is unable to implement and monitor them, because it puts unqualified deployed people to positions of civil duty. As a voter I no longer trust it.”

In the end they agreed with me and left with a promise that things are now going to be different. I wish I could believe that but I don’t. “I’ve heard your promises before, and frankly am a little cloyed with them.” Nothing is as impossible to surmount as inability. The truth of the matter, with the good it has done, the ANC government has reached its limits of delivery. That’s why it has been going in circles since 2006 when it reached the limits of its abilities. It’s time to pass the baton.

They gave me two pamphlets, one from the ANC and another from the SACP. The ANC one was titled ‘Stop Cutting off people’s water’. It talked about how the DA “Over three years since they have been in power in the City of Cape [sic] the DA has shown they provide services to the rich, not to the poor townships. Zille DA says supporters pay the taxes for government to support the poor. This is not true – everybody pays VAT taxes and it is the sweat of workers that contributes to company profits.”

In a bullet form the pamphlet put three Stop points, which included cutting basic services, evicting people “from Government-owned rental housing if they are unable to pay due to financial problems.” And:

• Stop neglecting to maintain sewerage systems and roads, and leaving rubbish to pile up in the streets in poor areas.

I share their indignation on the last issue. It’s still fresh on my mind how Madame Zille critically called on Jacob Zuma to come and look how people in the Vaal were made to live with sewerage bubbling on their streets. My thinking was, does she need to go to the Vaal for that? I can show her several places in the townships of Cape Town under her administration with similar problems. The hypocrisy of it all gets my goat.

Read the rest of this entry »

Most of us have given up the idea of objective journalism as a pipe dream. We are all, to some extent, bias to something; that’s the price we pay for the history of our existence. But we still demand from good journalism a fair portrayal of facts to avoid being manipulated into unsound reasoning. We farther expect journalistic arguments to see beyond emotions and habits. In my humble opinion, Dr. Xolela Mangcu, fails to meet these standards in most of his arguments.

Dr. Mangcu’s piece last week at Business Day, ‘Give Zuma a chance after the intolerance of the Mbeki regime’ is typical of spin-doctoring himself and ‘me, me,’ argumentative style. He takes up his favourite past time, Mbeki bashing and ties it with his cynical attitude towards what he calls “the thing called the Congress of the People”. What baffles me is that he keeps mentioning how oppressed he and his cabal were under Mbeki regime, yet if I remember well they freely used vitriol (democratically entitled) to criticize the former president all the time. The worst that ever happened to them was to get different opinions from what he calls the bloodhounds of Thabo Mbeki. Was that the sign of an oppressive regime?

Read the rest of this entry »

This is a long part of my daughter’s story that I hope COPE will learn from its morale:

My daughter is 9 and doing Grade 5 at St Mary’s School, Gardens, Cape Town. Recently she was chosen to participate in the regional inter-school athletics. She duly practised for about two weeks. Last Monday she came down with flu, which as usual triggered in her (acute) bronchial complications. On Tuesday I took her to the doctor, nothing serious, just precaution-she has to have antibiotics so that it does not degenerate into an asthmatic cycle. Tuesday night her flu peaked and the following day she felt on the road to recovery.

On Wednesday she insisted to me that she wanted to take part on the athletic interschool competition. I didn’t consider it possible and had already told her teachers she won’t be participating. On Thursday, the day of the competition I realised that my prohibiting from participating was making her more miserable than being sick, so we struck a deal. I told her if at noon she was feeling much better she can call me and I would come take her to the athletics, which were starting at 14h00. Needless to say, she called.

It was one of those days we had been having in Cape Town, 38 degrees Celsius. Those who know the accompanying humidity of Cape Town would understand how that is not a child’s game.  But I decided to keep my end of the bargain by taking her against my better judgment. On the car I could still hear her breathing was laboured. To give her system better chance of responding at the stadium I decided to skip the midday dose of her medication that I knew made her drowsy. As I sat under the stadium shade at Bellville stadium, looking at Phanye with rest of the children from the schools of the region I had enough time to regret my decision. The sun was shooting hosts. I knew it would reverse her condition.

When her first activity came, 100 m, close to 17h00 hours. Her teachers kept complaining about  how, because Phanye is very tall-she actually wears 12 to 13 year old clothes though she 9-the officials, from other schools were putting her on track to compete with 12 year olds. My concerns were on the other issue.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Monica Graaff & Mphuthumi Ntabeni

Until recently the message of environmentalism had an invidious tendency of emphasizing the pessimistic side of things to an extent of bordering on a loathing of humanity. As the result most people tended to avoid it, fearing being bombarded by what has been derogatory referred to as the ‘tree huggers’, the environmental fundamentalist whose narrowness ranges from dismay to despair. But protecting the environment and building sustainable development is not something that can just be wished away. We all have to undertake to preserve, protect and enhance our environment, including our built environment.

We need to disavow the ingrained belief that we can “invent” ourselves out of the current environmental crisis with technology. Technology can never replace the life-supporting system of our environment. To be responsive to the challenges of our era we need first to be responsible. We urgently need a new ways and a deeper critic of our own life styles and civilisation in pursuing and inculcating a vision of creating sustainable societies.

A sustainable society is the one that integrates social, environmental, and economic concerns of health and justice, and can both sustain itself by living up to responsibilities to future generations, as well as sustain and nourish its members in all needs over time. But it is becoming clear that our world, at its present course, can never measure up to the challenges of sustainability. The world is in ever growing environmentalist crisis.

Environmental crisis includes everything from mass extinction of species, resource depletion, global warming to poverty widening, the widening social gap, unfair trade, urban issues, and loss of social capital, in our case due to the apartheid legacy. So environmentalism is much more than just physical environment. It includes issues of direct human impact such as pollution and public health, and goes to issues of community well-being, participatory democracy, justice and equality. Environmentalism also raises deeper questions of what it means to be human, and what real progress should entail, to what sort of society we are striving for. The growing collective conclusion is that we are in a crisis when it comes to environmentalism.

Read the rest of this entry »

For a while I was confused why the leader of the Democratic Alliance, Helen Zille, would stoop so low as to exchange verbal punches with Julius Malema. Now I know. She was not stooping; they’re on the same level. Last Friday in her weekly letter she gave COPE a taste of her dirty tricks by sharing a ridiculous rumour about COPE formation being “mooted by ANC strategists who realised that the election of Jacob Zuma as President of the ANC would alienate a key section of the ANC’s support base. The disaffected would include supporters of Thabo Mbeki and people who could not countenance supporting a presidential candidate with a cloud of corruption hanging over him.”

She goes on about COPE’s supposedly planned coalition with the ANC after elections, effectively  making “a vote for COPE would turn out to be a vote for Zuma.” Madame Zille assures us that she does not believe this rumour; of course she would not be a white-washed grave if she did. Her tactic is to inflict damage on COPE and stand aside in stupefying, specious, disgust; the usual thing for the liberal mentality of her kin. She says; “I do not buy this conspiracy theory. Politicians, despite what some people might think, are not that Machiavellian. And the ANC does not have the capacity to execute such a strategy.  But I do believe there is a possibility that COPE may form a coalition with the ANC, even without it having been the product of an ANC grand plan. Reverend Dandala’s statement about going into coalition lends credence to that belief, as does his general attitude towards the ANC.”

Condescending tone aside, Madam Zille knows exactly what the white liberal vote fears most, the presidency of Jacob Zuma. The coming into picture of COPE complicates matters for DA, which is why Zille decided to highlight innuendoes against COPE, thus effectively planting a seed of doubt in the wavering mind of those white votes that are still neither fish nor fowl. She points out in relish what COPE in harsh white circles is mockingly referred to “Coke Lite” as compared to ANC, which is called “Coke Zero”. That’s the lethal poison of white liberal mind of Zille’s horde. It kills softly while pretending to be on your side.

I’m sure you’ve heard the clearer version of this in hushed tone in some office party where your colleagues are mostly this type of white liberal thinking; ‘Of course I don’t agree with this, but do you know what they are saying …’ Then it goes on to say some stereotyping thing about blacks. I almost pity the likes of Lindiwe Mazibuko (DA media person) that have to deal with this sort of thing almost everyday of their lives. I know how mentally exhausting it is to be in the overwhelming company of hidden prejudices of the white liberal juggernaut. I was one of the few black students who first attended liberal campuses in the eighties. But that is not the point.

Read the rest of this entry »

The pooled tank of the Zuma Project that began in crime, continued by foolishness, and will surely end in misery for us all, must be patting themselves at the back, admiring their deviousness as they watch their plan come together. First the Scorpions were done away with. Second the hated president unconstitutionally gotten rid of [Our Constitution insist that only the Parliament or Constitutional court have authority to dismiss a seating president]. Thirdly the laws for them to control the public broadcaster through Parliament are on the way. And now ‘Cosatu in KwaZulu-Natal has given ANC president Jacob Zuma “house rules and conditions” he will have to immediately abide by when he becomes the country’s president.’

Canaan Mdletshe reports: ‘Speaking at a National Health Workers Union rally in Pietermaritzburg yesterday to drum up support for the ANC ahead of elections, Cosatu provincial secretary Zet Luzipho said “Cosatu had supported Zuma through thick and thin – from the day he was relieved of his duties as the deputy president by the then president, Thabo Mbeki”. He said they had “never set any conditions” for Zuma before, but this time around, there would be. Now Zuma had to abide by these rules when he becomes president after the elections.

“Zuma must make sure that when he appoints the new head of the National Prosecuting Authority, he appoints a responsible person who will not prosecute him. He cannot appoint a person and have to stand before him on August 25 (when Zuma faces corruption charges)”. He said the same condition should apply to the new head of police “because (Jackie) Selebi was going”. ” The current head of police in the country is going. So Zuma must also appoint a responsible person in that position as well,”‘ said Luzipho. Talk about a man who wears his brain on his belly.

Those who commit crimes of corruption are now soon going to be their own punishers and our prosecutors. All this for the mad guilt of one person! Msholozi must be smiling alone to himself. And Shaik, the money man, is just in time for the Khangaman’s inauguration. Dear Lord, the school of giddiness and academy of vice is taking full control! How have things come to this? How have we been condemned into barbarism and purchase of corruption.

Read the rest of this entry »

Karl Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto gave a prophetic scenario of what is likely to happen as the knot of financial markets tighten from one depression into another. The ability to define these depressions with sophisticated terms, like, ‘the spread of the credit-fuelled financial splurge’ does nothing to our ability of preventing them. The simple factor is in the way Marx put it as far back as in 1867: “Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to the bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to Communism. “

This is what has been passing as economic growth in the financial markets of the West for a while now. The attitude I loath most towards financial crises is the cavalier empty joviality about allowing ‘excess to run its course since the slump is the cure for previous distortions’. This unwillingness, even laziness in tackling structural abnormalities, is what fosters the sweeping of problems under the carpet. It leads to this foolish Keynesian notion that ‘The patient does not need rest. He needs exercise.’ This is usually followed by state expenditure to cure the so called slump.

In reality market economies have long relied on state support, often delivered through the backdoor, but the Great Depression began a substantial shift from a predominantly regulatory state to a revenue state. The accompanying public’s demands for economic security means that government would need then invest large amounts of money in the economy to assure stability and perpetual full-employment growth.

Read the rest of this entry »

As the Congress of the People announced its Premier candidate at Paarl yesterday I knew the opinion knives will soon be out for it. Those who feel COPE is just ANC-lite or anti-ANC, think it a platform for political career resurrection with little more than taxonomical adjustment and same old prescriptions and cadences.

Indeed COPE has been taking in a lot of detritus dumped overboard by other political parties, giving some fresh opportunities to reboot. It is therefore understandable when people question its bona fides. After all one of COPE’s rallying points is ethical behaviour. Why, for instance, must it welcome as a hero and Premier candidate for the most contested province in the republic, Western Cape, Allan Boesak, unless it was burnt on shooting itself on the foot?

Granted, Boesak was given a presidential pardon that eradicated his criminal record. But if COPE sells itself as the guardian of moral principles, and rallies on politics that are built on solid principles, why must it want to compromise itself with a convict.  More than other political party, COPE will be judged harshly when it shows holes on its moral fabric, because it chose to take a high moral ground.

On the other hand most people tend to forget that COPE also promotes the combination of reforming spirit with its ideals of constitutionalism, defence of democracy and so forth. COPE is about new agenda that is built on the liberation heritage of our country. It has come, not to destroy the beautiful history of struggling for freedom in this country, but to fulfil it. It says, the policies are good, for that matter, some of us have been highly instrumental in developing them. What is wrong is with the implementation, the pilots not the plane.

Read the rest of this entry »

There are newspaper columnist who the more you try to follow the trend of their thinking you become less wiser. They lack principled thinking. Justice Malala from The Times is one of them. I for one am rather getting cloyed with his bawdily irreverent ranting, but that is just a matter of taste.

In the recent past few week I’ve been trying to understand Malala’s later-day found respect for the former president of our republic Thabo Mbeki, after spending the greater part of his columnist career castigating him. I thought that perhaps now we are about to jump from the skillet of TM to the fire of JZ he finally realized the, albeit compromised, worth of our former president. Fact is, it more of Malala’s contrarian character than any change of thought.

One of the things Malala has been hemming and hawing about is South Africa’s need for better quality leadership, less corruption, yada, yada. COPE, in the right reverend Mvume Dandala, comes with a leader that fits the slate, who does not even have the political baggage of Thabo Mbeki’s administration, Malala finds fault in what he calls his lack of political profile. ‘I am sorry, but all I can hear is the “pfffttt” of the gas running out of Cope. Firstly, the man has absolutely no profile among the masses of South Africa.’

Is he serious? I’ve heard this concern, from white people-which might be understandable since they know very little about, say Black Conscious politics-but hearing it from a black person who prides himself of knowing the history of this country is a little disappointing to say the least.

Then Malala says COPE made a mistake by making the announcement with lack of pomp and ceremony. ‘Even a wet-behind-the-ears political strategist could have advised Cope that unveiling a new leader – particularly one familiar only to parts of the middle classes and to the Methodist Church faithful, and not to the rest of the country – should have been done with proper fanfare. It should have been a co-ordinated, well thought-out process . . . The party’s actions over the past two weeks have been shambolic and amateurish to say the least.’

Read the rest of this entry »

As the fast spreading rot within the Gotham parish becomes more glaring in Carl Neihaus-Paul Matshatile saga COPE’s message of clean governance and accountability becomes urgent. Accountability means very little in the Gotham parish, hence they’re all of a sudden preaching the value of repentance for a weeping fraudster, and political solutions for their besotted leader. It’d be laughable if it were not so tragic. They are definitely overshooting themselves here, and believing them would be like drinking the wine of error from a drunken teacher.

Why, you ask yourself, would a political party work so hard in ruining itself? I’ll enlighten you. This is about the so called ‘Zuma Project.’ In that project the words of Hannibal in Ennius are more appropriate: Hostem qui feriet erit mihi Carthaginensis. [Whomever strikes down an enemy shall be in my eyes a Carthaginian.] And so the mercenaries stand under the banner of the kangaman. Anyone and everyone who is for him is a Carthaginians (with my apologies to the ancient fine men of North Africa), so long as they are ready to strike at the enemy. It now puts paid to Neihaus’ all of a sudden enthusiasm for JZ; you know what they say about feathers of the same bird flocking together.

The Zumarites are an absurd, ridiculous group that empties even the little honour left in our politics. I’d gladly give them permission to be fools if what they do was not in tremendous public’s expense. Fraud and rapine is the order of the day with the Gotham parish; like a malignant tumour at the body politic of our country they are growing fatal.

The only thing they have going for them is that they are a reflection of the collective character of those who elected them to power. If these are the majority, as we shall soon find out on the 22 April 2009 (Election date), then we’re in deeper trouble than we imagine. Until then I call them the boils of our maturing democracy with hesitant irony.

Coming as the proverbial balm of Gilead against this riot of excess in the Gotham parish is COPE’s 10 pillars of stand point:

A – Accountability
Ministers, MPs, Councillors must answer to the people

B – Behaviour
Humble servants with integrity.

C – Character
Moral, loyal, faithful & trustworthy leaders.

D – Democracy
Allowing diverse viewpoints to prevail.

E – Ethics
Honesty & congruency of actions with words.

F – Focus
Efficient capable professionalism.

G – Growth
Individual, country, economy & convergence of cultures.

H – Humanity
Ubuntu & tolerance of different identities.

I – Integrity
Upright & reliable.

J – Justice
Natural and legal justice

Read the rest of this entry »

At the discussions of COPE 2009 Volunteer workshop held at Khayelitsha last Saturday frustration about the party’s visibility through things like t-shirts and sign posts was uppermost. Most activists also lamented the lack of political consultation about crucial decisions. There was also mounting anger against the reported unending internal strife within the interim provincial leadership.

Most people gave an impression that the agreed conduct for party election processes were not being adhered to by the extreme tussles and backbiting canvassing tactics of party list nominees. They felt the teething stage of the new party no longer suffice as an explanation.

However it must be noted that the party agenda and code of conduct gives clear direction of what processes should be followed. It is individuals who organise themselves into factions behind certain leaders that is the problem.

The issue of visibility is entailed on the availability of material resources. Every COPE member is expected to be an activist, that is to own up to the financial challenges of the party. Until COPE members make it their second nature to fund their organisation with constant donations they’ll never take full ownership of it and its activities.

Even the issue of strife and tussle for party election list depends on party members. Factions can exist only where they’ve a following. It is incumbent upon ordinary members of the party to shun factions and follow the due processes of party conduct. COPE members must familiarise themselves with the character of their organisation and employ hostile attitude to deviations from it.

Perhaps it is high time we revisit the mood and speeches of Sandton Convention on that momentous November day last year. Dr. Faruok Cassim helped in simplifying and recalling the rock we were hewn from when in Khayelitsha he discussed the document of 10 Pillars of COPE’s character. Let us familiarise ourselves with it so as to be sure we are not lured by too ambitious people who are only after their own interest at the detriment of the party character.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was fascinated by the scriptive evaluation of the political metamorphosis by the Democratic Alliance (DA) media officer, Lindiwe Mazibuko, in Saturday Argus [07 February 2009]. She gives an account of her nerve-racking, ‘guilt ridden’ journey from being a staunch supporter of the African National Congress (ANC) to Hellen Zille enamored official of the DA. You sympathize with her arduous intellectual and moral effort (who said it was an easy thing for a black person to join a predominantly white liberal party). In the end Ms Mazibuko gives an impression of having found a way to reconcile her identity with the political composite of liberal politics through study.

Frankly I’m not surprised that a character like Ms Mazibuko would be desponded with the politics of the ANC, where bold ignorance of the like of Malema, and lack of efficiency have usurped proper reasoning. But am more interested on the trick she claims to have pulled, that of a black person joining white liberal politics without jettisoning their heritage, cultural, political, and otherwise. Unfortunately, Ms Mazibuko does not elaborate on this issue.

There’s no denying the fact that politics, like culture, is the product of collective negotiation and exchange between the past, present and future. By past I mean experience of collective value that go beyond patterns of political heroism and superannuated nostalgia. The present also has to mean much more than attitudinizing against the failures of the Liberation Movement and moral deficiency and its present leadership.

There’s much value to be sieved from both nationalistic and liberal politics, the integration of which forms progressive politics suited for the status quo of South African state. This, to me, is the real identity of COPE, and why COPE is better suited to consolidation and advancement the hard won gains of our freedom. The integration of our political trends of politics have given birth to something beautiful for this country, something of a new narrative to tackle (post) modern challenges. This is COPE. COPE is placed in such opportune position of our history and political geography that it does not neglect any of our collective political and cultural heritage as South Africans, white, black and in between.
Read the rest of this entry »

There has been a lot of COPE say this or that about Affirmative action, so we’ve decided the first issues of Copetown to be dedicated to this topic; which is why we invite those who are interested to attend a talk by J.J. Tabane in Cape Town on the 04 feb 2009 (find details on the coming events).

Give the word to Madam Zille and Jimmy Manyi, examples of different extremes in criticizing Cope on the topic. Their criticism suggests that COPE in its endeavour of taking the mean between nationalist and liberal politics must be doing something right. For more clarity, COPE’s Draft Policy Document has this to say on the BEE issue: ‘While in the recent past there has arisen a small group of empowered blacks or the so-called black elite, and there are signs that generally the middle-class is on the rise . . . there remains high levels of inequalities in South Africa. Race politics cannot be ignored; they still loom large. However, with class inequalities gaining prominence, race is gradually losing weight as a factor of inequality. What this means is that social tensions are not only limited to inter-race tensions; intra-race tensions along class lines are also slowly emerging. . .’

There’s another reality that is gradually emerging in South Africa – that of ‘poor whites problem’. COPE policy draft document says; ‘This also should not be overlooked on the account of the state’s Constitution imperatives however emotive this issue can be. This should be treated as part of the wider problem of rising class inequalities and poverty in society rather a special case . . . [All] this requires us to revisit some of the elements of economic policy, notably the BEE and give more meaningful effect to its broad-based component as well as to examine its social costs with respect of racial harmony.’ To an extent that it is suggested by Farouk Cassim, that we should henceforth call this Grassroots Economic Empowerment (GEE) instead of BEE to clarify our stand of wishing to include all disadvantage people for empowerment.
Read the rest of this entry »