Nando's pisses me off

Zackie Achmat lowering the flags outside Parliament  

Amidst all the secrecy bill excitement and despair (mainly despair), an "enterprising" group of ad execs sat down and thought, "Now how can our brand, Nando's, gain some traction" off of this?".

I may be a lefty-liberal with a deep and enduring love of socialism, but my strong pragmatic streak leaves me actually being a supporter of capitalism. So that, in and of itself, would not bother me.

Sitting at my (current) day-job, Memeburn, I saw the outcome of that meeting of brand execs, Nandos' latest viral ad campaign. As we do, at Memeburn, I started writing a news article about it's release, generally about 300 words top. When I saw I'd reached  500 words and the terms "cheaps, crass and opportunistic" had been used to describe it, I realised there may be a slight issue.

Here's the article, me "flaming" Nando's, as a Twitter friend put it.

"Nando's unleashes anti-secrecy bill #BlackTuesday campaign"

Image taken by yours truly at the Right2Know protest outside parliament, the day the bill took its first step to becoming law after being approved by parliament.

ANC and COSATU: The Greatest Dangers To Worker’s Rights

Come the announcement that the government and COSATU have entered into wage negotiations, South Africans knows we have entered into another one of our political circus seasons. COSATU leaders take a moment from their daily work of partaking in the various squabbles and factional battles of the ANC. Government and trade unions engage in their debate of who, if anyone should be barred from engaging from striking, on the basis that they are an ‘essential service.’ The comfortable middle-class, (ironically and hilariously often identified as ‘leftist’) dust off and trot out their usual complaints; complaints that, ‘the country is being held to ransom,’ that ‘striking is nothing more than blackmail,’ that in the face of South Africa’s soaring unemployment ‘these workers should be grateful they have a job and get back to work.’ Nevertheless, the one fear, that all share, is the 2007 Public Sector Strike, which was marked by damage to private and public property, intimidation and violence will be repeated. Regrettably this week saw that fear come to be a reality with such reports. As with the 2007 strike, as fully expected, the media has focused on these reports and COSATU has denounced the media for focusing on ‘sporadic but regrettable occurrences.’ Whether these occurrences are widespread or sporadic is of no consequence. The very fact that they occur cannot be tolerated, and that is very much what COSATU and by in large government as well seems to do with their strongly worded denouncements followed by, well, followed by nothing.

The simple fact is this; the moment a striker commits violence, intimidates or in any way illegally impinges on the rights of another, they cease to be protected by the rights, which protect workers on industrial action and no longer are striking workers, but rather, are criminals. Furthermore, the actions of these criminals are ignominious for two primary reasons. Beyond their basic criminality, they present perhaps the greatest danger to the crucial right of workers to engage in industrial action. More so than any call The Right may make against these rights.

With each successive wave of violence and intimidation at the hands of these so-called strikers, the public understandably gets even more disillusioned with unions and the strikes they embark upon. What the government (which has regularly reiterated their support for protecting this right) and COSATU have to realise is that their empty rhetoric of denunciation is just as, if not more so, harmful to the right to strike than the actions themselves. People have a right to expect health-care when going to a hospital that their kids will be safe when at school, that if they choose not to participate in a strike, they will be free of intimidation.

However, having spoken to some striking workers, I have come to realise that these actions are not the acts of marauding hooligans, as the media often seems to depict them. There are reasons behind it. Firstly, the statements the government puts out which characterise their position as intractable does nothing more than add oil to an understandably angry fire. The initial tone of these messages, dismissive of the actions and that the government can handle the crises (though this has clearly been shown to be not true) further engenders anger. Even if the government had forgotten, recent events particularly service delivery protests and the ‘xenophobic violence’ reminds one of the South African populace’s propensity to violence. All a result of what political theorists refer to as, Political Socialisation.

Despite all these various reasons explaining the violence of so-called strikers, the fact of the matter is, they are excuses. Near all criminals can provide a compelling reason as to why they committed the acts that they did but our legal system does not accept excuses. A broken law is a broken law, and whomever broke it must be swiftly dealt with. In another blogpost earlier this year, I mentioned how in Junior School we were taught on the correlation between rights and responsibilities. For many, in defending the rights of strikers, they have drawn on this thinking, characterising the violence and intimidation, as an ‘abuse’ of that right and it is easy to see where this idea stems from.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree. To in any way equate the violence to the strikes, muddies the water on the right of workers to embark on industrial action. I’ll reiterate this point, the violence and intimidation are in no way equitable to the majority of striking workers, who are making use of their right peacefully. The aims behind the two acts may be the same, but one is a legal and constitutionally protected action, the other a nothing more than a mere criminal act. One only hopes that sooner, rather than later, the ANC government and COSATU will realise that by issuing an endless ream of empty statements, they are not protecting the cardinally important right to strike, but rather being its greatest danger.

In Defence of My Representatives

So yesterday finally saw what many in South Africa had been talking about for a while now being debated in parliament, our confidence in Jacob Zuma to be President. My choice to use ‘our confidence’ is no mistake. Quite often in pulling our hair out, shouting at politicians on television (okay, maybe that’s just me) & lamenting over the state of politics in South Africa we tend to forget that many of these people we decry, are elected by us, are our voices, are our representatives. Anyone with the scantest knowledge of South African politics can understand why we choose to forget this fact. At the best of times, they’re merely boring, but at the worst, which is sadly quite often, they’re an unmitigated embarrassment; nevertheless our representatives they are.

This debate, a vote of no confidence, was tabled by COPE backed by the DA and supported by supported by 25% of the house, Lindiwe Sisulu kindly informed us (whilst trampling over the principles of the parliament she professed needed to be protected from ‘frivolity.’) In tabling the motion, Mvume Dandala, the parliamentary leader of COPE said, “The President of our country has let us down. He has let Africa and the world down…” Now as for letting Africa & the world down, I don’t know, but with regards to us, I know many would have to agree with that, we have been let down.

I look at my father, a 100%, proudly card-carrying member of the ANC; even he, when I needle him on Zuma, has taken to answering me with nothing more than a despairing sigh.

Alternatively, I think on how I have viewed the man myself. Views which have moved from ardent supporter (yes, you read right, ardent supporter), to disappointment as the scandals began piling up, to sad resignation at his election in Polokwane and finally to sheer anger as he happily danced and sang his way out of court without ever answering to charges of corruption.

Somehow, despite all that, upon his election as our President I was able to believe with tentative hope that perhaps, just perhaps, Zuma would prove to be the President that South Africa needed. And my hope was bolstered; the early signs seem to signify that Zuma, the most unlikely of sources, would be what we needed. All the early signs pointed that way, a largely admirable cabinet was assembled, an inauguration which to me echoed that of Mandela’s was held with an inaugural speech that seemed to have tones of both conciliation with his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, whilst also signaling a change away from the politics of the Mbeki-era.

Despite all this, here we are, roundly being mocked around the world, at times unfairly as was seen in that odious Daily Mail piece (so vile that even our 10th, 11th & 12th provinces, Putney, Wimbeldon & Australia must have balked at it). But increasingly even the most ardent supporters find themselves struggling to defend us against pieces such as this New York Times article, which a Facebook friend said (maybe slightly unfairly to journalists) commenting on a link to it, “You know your country has problems when journalists don’t have to exaggerate.” With all this, can one blame me for feeling nothing but utter despair at what a laughing stock we have become because of this man?

So when I heard that COPE was tabling a motion of no-confidence in our dear President (a first in South Africa’s democratic dispensation) I immediately was heartened. I struggle to find another word to describe it besides ‘heartened’ as this action by COPE did just that. It brought something that had sadly come to be missing in their party, a little bit of hope.

It cannot be denied, COPE is a house beset by numerous issues and has made innumerable blunders; blunders more to be expected from the ANC, and truly needs to look to these issues if they are to not follow the path of every other ANC splintering. However, despite this COPE is in my view, first truly viable attempt at a multiracial political party. You’ll be hard pressed to find many South Africans who would deny that the politics of race and identity if not curbed quickly will be the death of our democracy (well unless you should poke your head into the ANCYL’s office after a few bottles of Veuve & Johnny Walker have loosened their tongues, I’m sure they don’t mind).

When I say COPE’s move yesterday heartened me what I mean is that, for a moment, I saw a glimpse of what I had hoped COPE would, and still believe could, be when I placed my X by their name last year. A party that would stand against ANC excess, corruption & impropriety without the racial undertones that any such attempts that the DA had (and still has) when doing the very same thing.

Something that I have seen said as a critique of the vote is, to paraphrase, “the ANC has ultimately been strengthened by it, they’ve rallied together.” I will be the first to state that the splitting up of the ANC from the broad church it is into each of its varying factions would be the one of the best thing for our democracy and yes the no-confidence vote brought an increasingly divided ANC some severely needed cohesion. But I would say, that this cohesion, will at the very best be fleeting. History has always shown attack from the outside by anyone (COPE in this instance), in no way diminishes the problems within the attacked group or nation. (How long did the Allies last after Germany was defeated? See what I mean…) Essentially, the issues within the ANC that have caused this divisiveness are still there, and will surface again soon enough.

Ultimately though, my primary point against that argument would have to be, would we be have been happy had we in a week or two been happy to find out through some leak, that a proposal within COPE’s parliamentary caucus on whether Jacob Zuma is fit to lead us had been shelved for the case of political expediency? Somehow, I think not.

Ultimately, was the vote of no confidence yesterday, political grandstanding and headline grabbing? Is COPE a party that has major issues that need urgent addressing? The answers to these particular, and many more critiques & questions would undoubtedly have to be yes. However, should COPE & yesterday’s vote be viewed in a negative light or termed, “the misplaced audacity of COPE?”

This is where I would have to disagree in the strongest of terms. For the simple reasons that for a while yesterday, something very rare happened, our parliament became just that, OUR parliament, and I for one, was proud to stand and call the COPE members, MY representatives.



NOTE: Yes, I voted for COPE, but I am not a member, nor will I ever be. To see a different point of view read the blogpost that caused me to write this post.