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.

The War On Libya & The Responsibility To Protect

The moment you realise that you’re agreeing with those who’ve angered you to a point where spittle forms at the corners of your mouth as you’ve disparaged them as ‘crazy,’ and ‘imbeciles,’ is disquieting to say the least.

As the war drums started ringing their ominous tattoo in the corridors of the United Nations last week, it was with a great sense of confusion I watched as everyone I always agree with commentators, friends & Twitterati alike, cheered for a No-Fly Zone to be instituted over Libya. To put it plainly, as the Left started sounding like the Neo-Con war-mongering right. And when those I most vehemently disagree with started to express the opinion I held, that military intervention in Libya is a bad idea, well then I was truly disturbed.

Of course, it didn’t take much scratching beneath the surface to see that any agreement I had with the likes of the ANCYL was nothing but superficial, I do not believe that the “imposition of a No-Fly-Zone in Libya is meant to impose the West's takeover of Libya, because of its Oil endowments.”

In fact, to say – which I must admit I did a lot of on Twitter thanks to the brutality of 140characters – that I am against the military incursion in Libya, is misrepresentation of my opinion. Anyone who cast my lot with those who felt that foreign intervention in any form was wrong could hardly be blamed after the number of times I tweeted opinions similar to that.

In fact, for those holding that opinion, there is centuries of precedent. Since the advent of the nation-state, a states sovereignty being supreme has been a central notion in international relations, with the United Nations even entrenching that notion in their charter.

Of course all are entitled to their opinions, and as such I’d say, if not outright immoral, that position is at least amoral.

Again, that’s not a new idea. In 1948, two years later, recognising this, the United Nations espoused the first condition under which a state’s sovereignty could be impinged upon with it’s Genocide Convention.

Of course, what Gaddafi has done and continues to do despite his second declaration of a ceasefire in Libya is not genocide. Despite this, the vicious & brutal repression of a people seeking freedom from under the thumb of a dictator with a suspect handle of his mental faculties is near on just as odious. However, I still have my objections, or to be more precise, concerns.

My concerns with the Libya intervention are entirely on a point of principle; namely that military interventions on the grounds of humanitarian intervention though a principle fully and properly developed, is not applied equally.

In 2000, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was founded and in 2001 released a report with the paradigm-shifting notion that the issue of humanitarian intervention should not be framed as a question of a ‘right to intervene,’ but rather as a ‘responsibility to protect.’

The UN took notice of ICISS’s report with an outcomes document which stated nations had a responsibility to protect their nations from “genocide, war crimes, ethic cleansing and wars against humanity” and by failing to do so made it the responsibility of the international community to do so. This report was ratified by all member states of the UN. However, the point where the problem became apparent was that this ratification was not legally binding.

In yesterday’s debate on Libya before the House of Commons, David Cameron called the decision of the international community to intervene in Libya a “breakthrough” and set a “precedent” in that it was the first time the UN had intervened in a nation based on the responsibility to protect.

If only this were true.

When asked if the international community is not intervening in Yemen, why should they in Libya, Cameron replied that “just because you cannot take action everywhere that does not mean you should not act where you can,” going so far as to quote Sadie Smith when she characterised that as the “why should I tidy my bedroom when the world’s such a mess theory of foreign policy.”

Cameron is right, failure to act in Yemen – and it is a failure – does not preclude action in Libya. However, his reply ignored the elephant in the room. It’s not so much a question of if they can intervene in Yemen – or Cote d’Ivoire and Bahrain for that matter – but a matter of do they want to? For as long as the ICISS’s report is not legally binding, guiding the United Nations where and when they have a responsibility to protect, the ‘why,’ question will continue to dog this and any other action the United Nations decides to take based on a responsibility to protect.

I may not agree that “war is a continuation of diplomacy,” but I am not anti-war. At times war has it’s place and is needed, and as Niall Ferguson wrote, “Make no mistake. Whatever the wording of the United Nations Security Council resolution, the United States (and the other allies) is at war with the Libyan government.” Though I agree that this is a necessary and just war, I am amongst the many who have been trying to answer the ‘why’ question, not at all believing that it’s out of an altruistic wish to protect the citizens of Libya.

If we believe that Human Rights are universal to all people, regardless of borders, we cannot deny that the international community has a responsibility to protect in certain instances and this is one. I wish I could fully support the action in Libya, to be frank, Gaddafi is an evil madman and I desperately want to. However, the only way all questions regarding what the ‘true motives’ behind this and other humanitarian interventions will be ended is if the application of a responsibility to protect is uniform, and that will only happen once the ICISS recommendations are made legally binding.

__________

For an in depth look at Humanitarian Intervention, ICISS and it’s report I recommend this Council of Foreign Relations paper: “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention.”

The images for this post are of the USS Stout, launching a Tomahawk Missile from the Mediterranean on the 19^th of March and Obama receiving a secure briefing on the situation in Libya in Rio De Janeiro on the 20^th.

They're taken from AFRICOM’s flickr photostream which I'd also reccomend.

Tunisia: The Crystal Ball for South Africa?

An article arguing what a government is doing is wrong, and stating what it should be doing is in no way groundbreaking. However, this one, by the other Mbeki, Moeletsi, brought the wrath of the ANC down upon him. To paraphrase a favourite line, he touched the ANC on its studio when he wrote, “I can predict when SA’s "Tunisia Day" will arrive.”

However, even that idea, that South Africa will one day face a Tunisia or Egypt style uprising, is only a glib update of that classic rejoinder: "South Africa will be Zimbabwe." To quote the ANCYL on Mbeki & his article in their reaction, I’d merely dismissed such comparisons as a “prophecy of doom,” “very pessimistic,” & “consistently negative.” Whilst those descriptions I used to ascribe to those who made these arguments, with Moeletsi I can’t.

Be it, the state largely being able to foster a fair level of economic growth but unemployment remaining an endemic problem, or there being ‘youth bulges’ in all three cases, there are far too many parallels between the situations in Tunisia, Egypt & South Africa to dismiss the comparisons. However, the one similarity South Africans would most probably recognise more than any of the others, is how both in Tunisia & Egypt you had a symbiotic and at times corrupt relationship between business and government which also excluded the population at large.

It goes without saying that the ANC was not happy with Mbeki’s article, and the Youth League even less so.

Whilst Sipho Hlongwane , in his column on this topic, found the ANCYL’s reply to be besides the point, I can’t agree, if anything I found it to be an amplification of the ANC’s statement. Amazingly (after the usual bluster and ad hominem attacks) the ANCYL was able to create fair defence to Mbeki’s argument which was:

The Tunisia-like protests will not happen in South Africa, because the ANC government has made profound progress in placing institutions, structures and virtues of democracy, which allow the people of South Africa to freely and fairly choose public representatives after every five years. Besides entrenched democracy in South Africa, the ANC government is at the forefront of the attack in the battle against poverty, unemployment and starvation.

One cannot deny “the ANC government has made profound progress in placing institutions, structures and virtues of democracy,” & that it, “is at the forefront of the attack in the battle against poverty, unemployment and starvation.”

However, there is one point, which I’d say, were it true, would be the most important fact against any argument that there’re correlations between South Africa, Tunisia: “entrenched democracy in South Africa”.

Though the ANCYL's argument in reply to Mbeki was fair, it wasn’t correct, as that point, "entrenched democracy in South Africa" was incorrect.

If one takes that when the ANCYL say “entrenched democracy,” they mean democracy is accepted within our nation, you’re looking at the concept of a “consolidated democracy;” a concept used essentially to gauge the quality of a democracy.

I used to believe that South Africa was well on the road to being a consolidated democracy. Amongst fulfilling the other factors, I thought for SA, democracy was “the only game in town,” a necessary factor of a consolidated democracy. I believed we were only missing the final factor, "a peaceful transfer of power from one party to another after electoral defeat," however I don’t think that any longer.

In South Africa, a basic tenet of a consolidated democracy, that democracy be the "only game in town," is not satisfied.

When looking at the violent nature of the ongoing service delivery protests or strikes public sector or otherwise, how can we believe that people feel and accept that their grievances are best articulated through democratic channels.

As such, if the ANC and the ANCYL, or Hlongwane for that matter, feel that our being a democracy inoculates us from Tunisa-style revolts then there is a problem. Being a democracy – which we are – is not enough to spare us a Tunisia situation at some point in South Africa’s future.

When looking for a point when South Africans would – and it will happen – decide they’re no longer happy with the ANC, I’d always thought of a date far off into the future. Mbeki makes a case for 2020, but the question of when it happens is irrelevant; what we have to ask is "when it happens will it be through the ballot or violently?".

Nevertheless, to use Moeletsi Mbeki’s 2020 argument, should the day come “that the ANC government will have to cut back on social grants, which it uses to placate the black poor,”; I can’t agree with Sipho’s reply that “our burning man revolution will be at the ballot box,” for Sipho is incorrect in finding proof from the peaceful transition from ANC to DA government in the Western Cape that South Africa has proven itself to be able to handle transfers of power.

In the 2020 scenario, it’d be the nation as a whole where a transfer of power would have to occur & what we have seen in places like Khutsong or Thembisa, is that South Africans cannot be depended upon to express their dissatisfaction on the ballot.

More so, as history has shown, movements are catching. If the self-immolation of one man, Mohamed Bouazizi, can spark the fire that topples a regime, how can we then deny that an instance of violent protest, in the simmering anger of the 2020 scenario, it wouldn’t spread across the country, as happened in 2009?

If America, 235 years old, to this day still strives for a “More Perfect Union,” how can we, only 16yrs old or 26 years old in 2020, feel that we are safe?

The quest of entrenching democracy & democratic ideals within us as a nation is clearly not done. We all – government, opposition parties, civil society, the population as a whole – still have a lot to do in this regard or one day we won’t be watching a popular uprising in some distant land on Al-Jazeera, we’ll be witnessing it in the streets & public squares of our own country.

The Golden Age Of Mandela: Is It Over

“Madiba is like the biblical Moses, who took the children of Israel from the land of bondage, to the Promised Land, the land of milk & honey.” This quote from ANC spokesperson, Jackson Mthembu heralded the beginning Nelson Mandela’s birthday celebrations which can sometimes seem to stretch a good couple of months. It would seem there is an argument to be made that Jackson Mthembu missed his calling as that piece of prose is almost second to none. Only almost, as I would not discount the ANCYL’s Nyiko Floyd Shivambu, (he of the infamous Helen Zille’s sleeping around comments) being able to one up even those dizzying height of hyperbole.

I may joke, but as of late, I have noticed that there is a shift in South Africa to no longer look at Mandela in the golden hue in which he is presented. This is a debate and a critique that I welcome. The majority of comments I have read & heard on this debate have been fair & evenhanded; highlighting that South Africa’s freedom was not won by Mandela single-handedly. As Winnie Mandela is alleged to have said to the London Evening Standard, “There were many, others, hundreds who languished in prison and died. Many unsung and unknown heroes of the struggle, and their were others in the leadership too…” Other critiques have centred on his legacy purely as a politician, questioning his policy decisions, RDP, HIV/AIDS Macro-Economic policy etc. These discussions are both fair and necessary.

However, there is also a disquieting minority which whether intentional or not, strike as flippantly dismissive of Mandela’s legacy, merely scoffing, showing an attitude of, ‘Mandela, yeah whatever.’ With flights of fancy such as that of Jackson Mthembu it is east to be derisive. However, that does not change that it is also lazy and to be frank; stupid. The basis of these comments seems to be that there is no substance to the image of Mandela that we have. This notion leave me both angry and confused.

From the moment he was dubbed the ‘black pimpernel,’ Mandela became a figure shrouded in a sense of mystery. Upon his release, the mystery to a degree ended, another era in the image of Mandela came to be, the era of Mandela, ‘the living legend.’ One cannot deny that the image the world has of Mandela has transcended who he is, however, that does not mean there is no substance to the image we have of him. His name is now uttered with those of Ghandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. Mandela during his incarceration was used by the ANC as a call around which all South Africans and people around the world against the Apartheid regime could rally. Used is perhaps too strong of a term as Mandela himself was quite willing for this, to happen.

Mandela is quoted as saying: “That was one of the things that worried me – to be raised to the position of a semi-god – because then you are no longer a human being. I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but, nevertheless, sometimes fails to live up to expectations.” Despite these misgivings, Mandela allowed himself to become what South Africa needed. Someone that no other politician or figure in South Africa could play. Mandela is a figure around which South Africans of all races and creeds could look up to and admire. Mandela was more than a hero for black South Africans; he was a hero for ALL South Africans. Mandela has allowed us to transcend the multitudes of ways we choose to separate ourselves from each other, has shown us a way forward to forgiving each other of our past wrongs or as one tweet put it, “Zuma may have fathered half the nation, but #NelsonMandelaRocks because he’s the one who raised us.

Barack Obama On Iraq: The Next George Bush?

Part of then presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama’s, platform was a steadfast promise to bring the troops home and pull out of Iraq. Though I was a supporter, I believed that the US had no choice but to remain in Iraq for a far longer term than what Senator Obama was selling to voters. But I was in on the secret. In all my infinite wisdom and jaded world weariness, I knew what Senator Obama’s true plan was. I knew that the Iraq war would never truly end. Yes, the war would ‘end,’ but with a long-term presence of American troops left in Iraq to ‘advise, assist & support Iraqi troops.’

In much the same way, Sarah Palin made the call on President Obama’s ‘hopey changey stuff,’ I made the call on Senator Obama’s electoral strategy on Iraq; rather than a bait & switch, it was a bait and hook. Show them what they want and give it to them, but with a till then unseen hook

Again, like Sarah Palin; I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Seven years, five months & twelve days after George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office and announced the start of America’s invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama sat in that very same office to announce the end of US combat operations in Iraq and reiterate the US’ agreement with Iraq to have a full troop pull-out by 2011. Perhaps remembering the ignominy that followed George Bush’s turn as a fighter pilot when he announced an end to ‘major combat operations,’ and stated the Iraq mission accomplished, the tone of Barack Obama’s address was far more sombre and presidential and far less John Wayne in the mould of Tom Cruise. Though Obama was being forthright in his campaign, however one has to wonder was this decision to pull-out is a decision many years too early, whether it is a decision that will one day come back to haunt Obama and but most importantly America.

The fact is, whilst there may be a largely irrelevant debate over whether this truly marks an ‘end’ to the US’ war in Iraq, or will that milestone only be truly reached in 2011 when all US troops have pulled out of Iraq, legally, and for all intents and purpose this US’ involvement in this war was finished, as promised, by Barack Obama when he made that address. As it ought to be, come 2012, Iraq will most probably not be an issue for Obama. However, undoubtedly part of Obama’s legacy, something that any US president holds dear and will fiercely defend, is this decision to end the Iraq War. Question is, though right now to America, this is one of the best things Obama has done, 5yrs, 10yrs down the line, will this be looked back on as one of the worst?

Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support a troop pull-out, unlike Obama, polling also shows that Americans, neither believe that Iraqi security forces or the Iraqi government will be able to maintain the peace or successfully handle the political situation respectively. Having always had American troops to be the proverbial ‘security blanket,’ we can’t be certain just how the Iraqi troops will fare in handling Iraqi security. However, when it comes to the politics, the signs don’t bode well. Despite successfully holding elections earlier this year, Iraq, six months later, is still yet to form a government. Even more worrying is that much of the infighting between Iraqi politicians in forming their government is the very thing Barack Obama stated in his Oval Office address the Iraqi people have rejected; sectarianism, perhaps the greatest danger to Iraq’s future, which thus in turn presents a danger to America’s future as well.

Should the opinion of Americans be vindicated and the very tenuous peace, or rather, what passes for peace in Iraq fails to hold, what then? There of course, is the possibility that what America already sees as the ‘maligning influence,’ of Iran in Iraq may increase. In comparison to the worst case, and not at all far-fetched scenario, that outcome, would most probably be seen as a victorious. What most analysts fear, and some believe may occur, is that Iraq could become a failed state, particularly a failed state on the order of Somalia and Pakistan; a state where Al-Qa’ida has been able to gain a foothold and from there launch its operations. Even though the focus is on ‘home-grown terrorists,’ as George Santayana wrote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Yes, Al-Qa’ida in Pakistan is focused on Pakistan & Al-Qa’ida is Somalia is focused on Somalia, but on the 10^th of September 2001, general thought on Al-Q’aida in Afghanistan was that it to, was just focused on Afghanistan. The next day we all saw the danger they can pose regardless where they’re based.

The history books are littered with cases of the leaders who took decisive actions against the advice and warnings of many only to be proven to have miscalculated greatly, quite fitting, the most recent example is of course George W. Bush, who seven years, five months & eleven days ago to Obama’s address, decisively invaded Iraq. The arguments against a pullout in Iraq are far less widespread and in the face of the losses the US has faced in Iraq this is understandably so, nevertheless the arguments do exist. Despite the belief of those who support those arguments there is no way of knowing what will happen in an Iraq without the US, and we will have to wait and see if Barack Obama will come to rue sitting in the Oval Office to make an announcement on Iraq in as much as George Bush surely must.

The Unity of The World Cup Is Gone & We’re The Better For It

Though I somewhat remember them, I was too young to truly appreciate how momentous our first democratic elections were in 1994, or how South Africa united behind the Springboks during the 1995 Rugby World Cup. For me, never had I seen South Africans be as one as they were during the Football World-Cup. At twelve noon on the 9th of June, South Africa ground to a halt and the world was introduced to the now ubiquitous sound of the 2010 Football World Cup, the vuvuzela. Though World Cup euphoria had been gripping the nation for a while prior to that moment, for me, it was only in that moment that I realised just how big of a deal the World Cup was going to be. The World Cup of course was all about the football, however, but for South Africans, the most memorable aspect of it was the sense of unity we felt. As Jackie Janse Van Rensburg, commented on a previous blog post, “to me, it was never about the game per se, I love the vibe, the unity, the pride, the positivity we have been experiencing.”

The evening of Bafana-Bafana’s encounter against Uruguay, a tweet disapproving of a comment made by CNN anchor, Hala Gorani, on air, made it’s way onto my timeline on Twitter, it said,

“Hala Gorani (#CNN) just reported that the sense of unity in SA ‘won’t last.’ WTH?!”

Despite my initial response to the World Cup, by then, as everyone else was, I was fully ‘feeling it,’ and commented on that tweet with a single word, “disappointed.” I was more than a little surprised to get a response from Hala Gorani who elucidated on her statement saying,

“Wrong. I said the World Cup excitement that unifies a country (as it did in France) naturally dissipates after the event is over.”

Basking in the glow of a World Cup successfully going off without a hitch; surrounded by the honking of vuvuzela’s; high on pre-match euphoria at that moment, forgetting all my pre-World Cup scepticism I admit, I immediately discarded the comment as nothing more than Western pessimism. Looking at what has been going on recently in South Africa, I could not have been more unfair and wrong, Hala Gorani was right, that spirit has dissipated.

When I first started writing this blog, I fully intended to lament this as a sad regression. Nevertheless, three weeks after starting it, I could not finish it. I wish I could chalk this up to ‘writers block,’ but I cannot, the reason I could not write it, was that I did not think this was a bad thing. In all the excitement over the World Cup, the enjoyment of the spirit of for the first time ever seeing what South African’s can accomplish when united as one nation, I forgot something that I’d always believed in; nationalism is anything but positive. Like many governments, the Apartheid regime used ‘nationalism,’ as a justification for many of its crimes, therefore that in democratic South Africa we have always shied away from that moniker is hardly surprising.

Patriotism, national pride, a spirit of ubuntu, call it what you will, it is nationalism. The very thing that those in power throughout history and the world over have used to corral their people from the most ridiculous of actions, to the most heinous of crimes. This is not at all an original thought on my part; wherever nationalism raised its ugly head, there have been those far more erudite than myself who have made this argument. Albert Einstein for example said, “Nationalism is an infantile disease… it is the measles of mankind,” or even more succinctly, William Blum who wrote, “If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses.”

Many would say that the national pride that we experienced in South Africa is different, that we spearheaded it, not following any directive. To have pride in yourself, or something that you can ascribe to being part of is natural to people, that’s why we’re proud of ourselves, our families, of our cultural groupings, that’s why we move to being proud of ourselves as a nation, even with no real push from governments. However, that in itself is the very insidious nature of nationalism. It does not necessarily have to start as something that those in charge have created, but they invariably turn back and draw on it for their own purposes.

This may seem far-fetched but it is happening. As it became clear that a strike was inevitable, the government not only began to portray workers as ill-informed on their offer, and thus irresponsible in their threat to strike, but also as unpatriotic, or for instance, in the arrest of Mzilikazi wa Afrika, the calls from the ANCYL for him to be charged with high treason. Before we all comfortably sit back and say, but nobody took either of those instances seriously, angered at Mzilikazi wa Afrika’s ‘counter-revolutionary’ articles, consider the crowd, who forced him to have to exit from the rear of the courthouse when released on bail. They may be easily dismissed; after all, they are just rabid ANC supporters with no true understanding of our constitutional values but then how many people, how many of us, when the strike started immediately commented on how this was destroying the great national spirit we had built up during the World Cup? The two examples may seem utterly antipodean, but how can that be when they are both linked by calls to the ‘greater good of national unity.’

Yes, the national pride that we had was a heady joy. For someone like myself, for whom South Africa had always been a nation of people constantly at each others throats, and I imagine even for those who remember the 1994 elections, or Francois Pienaar lifting the Rugby World Cup trophy with Nelson Mandela by his side, it was amazing to see us all standing together for one common cause. Be that as it may, that has passed, and though it’s more than natural for us to feel despondent to see ourselves returning to the way we were, I’d rather things be this way. I wish I could see it another way, write it away in a lovely fashion, but the fact is, without that spirit of national unity we are an ugly nation. We have seen ourselves at our worst in the last couple of weeks with the Press debates, and the strike. Nevertheless, amidst all that ugliness, we have seen ourselves at our best; not waving a flag, blowing on a vuvuzela or proudly singing Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika, but rather mopping the floors in a deserted hospital. I would hope that this was not because of national pride, or patriotism, but because of something far more simple, something not innate in South Africans only, but innate in humanity as a whole I would like to think; because it was the right thing to do.

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.

Barack Obama: Homophobe in Chief…

Judge Vaughn Walker, in handing down his ruling on California’s gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, marked the 4^th of August 2010 as yet another historic day in the long battle for the recognition and protection of equal rights in the US. Whether they praised or decried the decision, across America reactions poured in recognising the historic nature of this ruling. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in her reaction recognised the two basic rights Propostion 8 violated, and referred to it as, “a stain upon the California constitution.” California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself an opponent of Proposition 8, closed his statement saying, “Today’s decision is by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.” From President Obama, the silence was deafening. The only reaction was the following statement from a spokesperson, “The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transsexual) Americans.”

The reaction from ‘LGBT Americans,’ to that can be characterised overall being a resigned sigh. Murmurs of confusion and discontent on his LGBT credentials have tailed President Obama for a while now. Most of those murmurs, which are now escalating to outright denouncements, have been heard in primary from the LGBT media, but even now, the mainstream media is noticing this spreading zeitgeist.

As ­­­­­­­­­­­­­former Massachusetts State Senator,­ Jarrett Barrios, President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) questioning whether to accept an invitation to the White House’s first ever event commemorating the Stonewall Riots, the political coming out of the LGBT community put it: “The problem is that I haven’t been as excited as I’d like to be about President Obama. I’d been excited by Candidate Obama. His campaign invited people like me and my husband Doug…into has aspirational vision of America the possible.” In running for office, Barack Obama promised many things, some attainable, some not, but most, falling into a murky grey in-between area. As candidate Obama, his LGBT positions were progressive and sympathetic to the cause, but once President Obama, there has been a marked lack of action on many of these promises.

A sad reality is that in American politics, LGBT issues tend to fall into that murky grey area though there is one that isn’t; ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ (DADT), the US military’s gay-ban. Whilst Obama using presidential powers may not be able to repeal DADT, as the repeal of this policy slowly makes its way through Congress Obama does have the power to stop its implementation, and has he? The answer to that question is a sad, expected and disappointing, no. With 80% of Americans being in favour of a repeal of DADT, scores of mainstream Republicans have also come out in favour of its repeal. This leaves Obama, who in public iterates support for such a move, and has the power to at the least to stop its implementation with the single signing of an executive order, having done nothing to support this policy.

As his time in office passes, the true image of Obama’s views on LGBT issues, despite his stated policies is starting to emerge, and the image, in light of his actions, and inactions, is a disquieting one. However, perhaps even more disquieting is the opinion, that, no, Obama is not putting forth a homophobic agenda, but rather is playing politics with basic civil rights.

In 1996, he is known to have been in favour of gay marriage. However, the higher his political aspirations have been, the further he has shifted from this unpopular position. In 2004, he then was quoted as saying he didn’t support gay marriage, and favoured civil unions, but only for strategic purposes (to advance the cause for equal rights). Though couched in politically correct language, the message is basic and as ugly as it always has been; separate but equal.

But the drift didn’t stop there. By the time he ran for office, he was stating that personally, he believed that marriage ‘is between a man & a woman,’ and that it is a ‘religious’ matter and a ‘state’ issue. Today, we are now in an even more perplexing position. By Sunday, Obama’s administration has to indicate whether it plans to appeal a decision to appeal a ruling that found an element of yet another odious piece of homophobic legislation, the Defence of Marriages Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Disappointingly, the signs are that they will, despite, yet again, Obama’s official policy being that DOMA should be repealed.

In a memorable, though nonetheless contrived piece of dialogue, from The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman’s character opines to Sean Penn’s that she is ‘disappointed,’ in the politician the movie revolves around. He replies; “Disappointed is a lover’s word.” He’s right, ‘disappointed’ is a lover’s word. That ‘disappointed’ is a word that is often used in describing Barack Obama by the left of American politics and specifically the LGBT community is telling.

Whilst to call him ‘homophobe in chief,’ may be too early a call to make, and one to harsh to be ever made, the facts are as follows. Obama presented himself as someone who could be relied on to advance the LGBT cause, that his election to the Presidency and the passing of Proposition 8 came on the same night, lessened the blow of Proposition 8. However, nearing two years into his Presidency, it is time that some serious focus is placed on this image. He says the right things, but it’s time to recognise the reality; his inactions and most damning, his actions speak volumes. Perhaps it is time for the LGBT Americans to take that disappointment and channel it into a politician who will champion the LGBT cause with real action, not just one who does so with soaring, inspiring, yet ultimately and disappointingly, empty rhetoric.

Gay Pride: Is There Really A Point Anymore?

In his Daily Maverick Opinionista column, Simon Williamson asks the question that every June (LGBT Pride Month) is asked in the LGBT community & media, ‘has the time for Pride celebrations perhaps passed?’ The thrust of the argument in general is that we are now in a ‘post gay era,’ an era where one’s sexual orientation is of no importance, where ‘strategic essentialism,’ to deliberately and with purpose, separate oneself from society is no longer necessary. I must admit, this is an argument I could easily see myself agreeing with.

As Simon points out, one could argue that perhaps some prejudices and discriminatory ideas around homosexuals continue as a result of the gay community separating itself from society. That is a not an easy proposition to accept as the aim of strategic essentialism is to forward the primary gay cause, acceptance. However, no matter how difficult, it is one that must be accepted as a distinct possibility. Despite the allure of that argument, I would have to disagree and argue that; the world over, and South Africa in particular; there is still a place for strategic essentialism.

The fight for rights by minorities or any other oppressed group is never truly complete. If the undergraduate analysis can be excused, power relations in society can be said to be static, and if at all fluid, are painstakingly slow to change. A case in point is the struggle for women’s rights. Though things have undeniably advanced a century after the first wave of feminism (the fight for women’s political rights), equally undeniable is that power relations between men and women are still skewed to the former. Essentially, there is still much work being done by women’s groups to both protect and further advance the women’s cause.

Gay rights in relation, particularly gay rights in South Africa, can barely be said to be nascent and thus their protection and advancement is of utmost importance. Across the world, it is generally within particular spaces and even then so, within particular sectors of society that ‘post-gay’ is a reality. The case for South Africa is even more extreme. Most of South Africa’s LBGT individuals (as Simon points out by mentioning the horror of corrective rape) are far removed from the life promised by our progressive constitution. Yet, as with much of South Africa there’s a stark disconnect; to those of us who are gay and live relatively affluent lives in urban areas, where the notion of overt & extreme homophobia is practically foreign, we can enjoy these rights.

Despite this, we cannot be complacent, the reality is homophobic attitudes in South Africa are the prevalent opinion on gay rights. Lest we forget, our very own President stated, gay marriages were “a disgrace to the nation and to God” and that “When I was growing up, an ‘ungqigili,’ (a homosexual) would not have stood in front of me, I would knock him out.” Whilst this statement cannot be taken as irrefutable proof of malicious intent and disregard for constitutional rights afforded to the LGBT community; that statement in conjunction with the less than accepting attitude of the majority of South Africans towards gay rights goes to show the protection of these rights is of paramount importance.

To return to the point I opened with, Simon cannot be faulted with pointing out that strategic essentialism, conceivably is self-defeating. To this though, I would say strategic essentialism is only one element of the gay rights movement, the radical element. However, as the history of minority rights movements shows one needs both the radical and the more mainstream elements for there to be progress in the fight for rights, and protection for those won.

For every Andrea Dworkin who turned off so many to the Feminist cause with her militant positions & aggressive posturing, there must be a Gloria Steinem to temper those positions and postures making them acceptable within society as a whole. For every Martin Luther King Jr. who brought the American civil rights movement into the mainstream of popular political thought & culture, there must be a Malcolm X to test the limits and push the boundaries when moderation of positions turns to appeasement of the powers that be. With the gay rights movement, it is no different. For those of us who already enjoy these rights and for those who are still to benefit from them, no matter what possible alienation it may cause, the radicalism of strategic essentialism is integral to the protection and advancement of these rights.

This post was originally posted on "That's How It Is"

E-Mail To Malawi's High Commission

It is with great sadness and regret that I note the conviction of Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza by magistrate Nyakwawa Usiwa Usiwa for merely being in love.

A few years ago I went on holiday to Malawi and it was a wonderful few weeks I spent there. I have always spoken highly of the warmth and love of your people and your country. But after this, I can no longer do that.

Your constitution, in much the same way that South Africa's does, expressly prohibits discrimination, yet your leaders have yet to speak up against this ruling or speak to your people on homophobia. This silence can only be seen as a tacit agreement with this odious view.

These laws being applied are a horrendous hangover from our colonial days, and as a fellow African, I can only hang my head in shame as further invective and vitriol is hurled at our continent and us as a people for being "backwards" for what can one say to that when our attitudes show just that.

Cordially,
Mvelase Peppetta

The 3rd & Final Leaders Debate: My Take

Last night saw the 3^rd and final debate in the run-up to the British polls last night between the top 3 party’s leaders, Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats, David Cameron of the Conservative Party and embattled incumbent, Gordon Brown for Labour. The general topic was the economy and much to my surprise I have to say I found it to be a rather entertaining and stimulating exchange.

I really had no idea what to expect when the debate started, sure I had read the articles on the first two debates which generally had found Clegg to have bested Brown and Cameron in this form of electioneering thus accounting for the reported upswing in Lib-Dem’s in recent polls. The only knowledge and experience I’d had regarding debates was (as most people have) the American model. Whilst this generally followed the ‘town-hall debate’ format of American debates, with questions being taken from the audience, where the British departed from their American counterparts was in the manner in which questions were answered. Whilst in the American debates this format is generally marked with seemingly disingenuous, ‘I feel your pain,’ plaintive answers lightly skirting over the actual issues, at least two of the debaters, Brown & Cameron took the opportunity to actually go into the nuts and bolts of their respective policies. Clegg, however, was patently out of sorts, displaying his and his party’s naivety and unpreparedness to govern.

The looming spectre of “BigotGate,” which had occurred just the day before, was, I will admit, one of the main reasons I chose to watch after ignoring the first two debates. However, any expectations for a full on attack by either Clegg or Cameron were thwarted with Clegg and Cameron choosing to take the higher ground on what essentially was a non-issue. In fact, the only blatant reference to the gaffe came from Brown himself who in his opening statement said, “There’s a lot to this job (the Prime Ministership) and as you saw yesterday I don’t get all of it right,” which I felt brought a sense of much-needed finality to the issue in an appropriately apologetic tone before swiftly moving along.

Nick Clegg, whilst he in my opinion failed in the debate, the one message which he was able to successfully put across, was how the blame for the muck and mire that the United Kingdom found itself in today could be squarely placed at the feet of both Labour & Tory, and as far as I saw, there was no response to that claim from either Cameron or Brown. Despite the fact that his main message was put across successfully, Clegg took quite a battering from both Cameron & Brown who took this opportunity to show the Lib Dem manifesto for what it is, a collection of unfeasible idealism. He was particularly hammered on Lib Dems’ call for an amnesty for illegal immigrants that had been in Britain for over ten years, with Cameron & Brown coming extremely close to outright ridiculing the proposal. Personally of all the zany policies, that Clegg put forward, the most nonsensical was his housing policy. Exactly how he expects to compel private owners and builders of blocks apartment blocks to start building family sized apartments instead of the studio apartments with the market has a demand for, I don’t know. The one positive in his housing policy which he didn’t speak on too much, choosing to instead focus on the previously mentioned malarkey was his call, which he admitted was unpopular, for more council housing. Essentially with Clegg, form for him was his strong point, he channeled the best of US political debate style, appeals to emotion and broad (read vague) statements when it came to actual policy.

Cameron was the one candidate I was probably most interested to hear. Reason being, of the three candidates and parties, his was the one I had paid the least attention to. My reasoning for not bothering to listen or read up on the Tory manifesto was supported right from the moment he answered his first question. Despite all the promises of a ‘new Conservative Party,’ he espoused the exact same liberal-economic policies that Conservatives in the UK (and their Republican counterparts in the United States) have been selling since at least the eras of Thatcher & Reagan. “Smaller government is the way to go, government has to cut the deficit as government cannot stimulate the economy etc.” In these claims one could immediately see, that there was no new Conservative Party, a point which Brown repeatedly hammered, though how effective he was in relaying that message, I’m not too sure. A rather humorous moment for me with Cameron was his blatant attempt to capture some of that Obama-magic. His policy (and Brown’s it would seem) regarding financial regulation mirrors that of President Obama’s and after explaining his policy, in case you had missed that it was a near mirror of Obama’s Cameron stated, “we agree with President Obama’s plan…”

Gordon Brown explained his party’s policies extremely well, being able to respond to the critiques and attacks of Cameron & Clegg. However, this is where the problem with Brown comes in. Unlike Cameron & Clegg, who were very good at their delivery and thus had a number of easily remembered moments with Brown, there are no such moments. There are only two quasi-exceptions to this. His opening statement which is only memorable as being the only mention of BigotGate and when I felt he scored points not through anything he said, but because he stood back and allowed Cameron & Clegg to bicker between themselves when they were answering the immigration question.

Ultimately, I am a believer in substance over form and that is why I felt that this debate went to Brown, followed by Cameron then Clegg trailing a very distant third. However, the main poll that was being circulated both on television and on Twitter after the debate, YouGov’s poll, gave the win to Cameron by 41%, followed by Clegg with 32% and Brown trailing far behind with 25%. What to make of these numbers, I truly don’t know. What to expect on election-day, again I don’t know.

However, many seem to be returning to the belief that we can expect Cameron to be Prime Minister either through aligning with Lib-Dem as Brown charged or one or some of the smaller fringe parties. My take on this possible scenario is this. Clegg is an idealist, but at the end of the day he is a liberal idealist and though he may now eschew Labour for ‘betraying’ liberal ideals as one analysis prior to the debate argued, I cannot see, how the Lib-Dems would be able to explain to their electorate, that they chose to align with the ultimate enemy, Conservative A scenario I could see playing it is a Clegg Prime-Ministership. What would occur is Brown would resign after Labour placed 3^rd position in the election and the Labour leadership would go to Clegg proposing a Lib-Dem led coalition. This would scupper any chances of a Conservative led coalition government (made up of the smaller parties). Lib Dems if they failed to do this, would ultimately have to answer to their extremely liberal base as to why they failed to stop a Conservative government.

Ultimately though, I don’t have a crystal ball to look into because despite what the analysts say, having a politics degree doesn’t mean you can tell what’s going to happen. The only thing I can say for a certainty is this. Keep your eyes glued to the UK, exciting times are ahead and anything could happen.

Bastard, Don’t Touch Me On My Studio: An Open Letter To South African Media

One incorrect preposition and an ZA internet meme was born. South Africans were delighted and entertained by arguably the funniest moment in South African politics since Deputy Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene broke that chair. In a filming of eNews’ African Current Affairs programme, Africa360, Andre Visagie, Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging (AWB) Secretary General, in a fit of anger, simultaneously seemed to threaten political analyst, Lebogang Pheko and started storming out of the studio. This resulted in a rather funny, standoff between Visagie, his bodyguard, Etv staff & the true ‘star’ of this story, Chris Maroleng, who uttered the phrase which (at least for now) is the phrase de jour, 'don't touch me on my studio,’ and various variations of that. However, the message was clear, the man was not to be touched to be touched on his studio. (see the video here) Now the jokes on this have gone on & on, my favourites alluding to the vaguely sexual nature of ‘don’t touch me on my studio.’ Forgive me, I have a gutter mind.

As this is a blog on South African politics would it truly be complete without a Juju mention? I think not, so here is the Juju aspect. Today, in yet another press conference, our dear ANCYL President saw fit to refer to BBC journalist Jonah Fisher as a ‘bastard,’ ‘agent,’ & ‘little boy’ amongst other things (full tirade, word for word can be found here). In all of that, Julius then attempted to have him forcibly thrown out of the press conference. Why you ask, because Mr Fisher had the nerve to make mention of the fact that Julius himself lives in Sandton after Julius launched into one of his patented tirades, this time against Zimbabwe’s MDC referring to them as a “popcorn” party who spoke “from air-conditioned offices in Sandton.”

However, there is a slightly more serious aspect to this story. Has the South African political landscape, truly fallen to these depths or perhaps is the media focusing on certain aspects of South African politics a little too much?

We’ve been grappling with the Julius question for a long time now. So much debate has been waged in blogs, Twitter, and newspapers columns on whether Malema is as a monster that the media has created and whether the time has come for South African media to ignore Malema. And whilst there are pertinent arguments on both sides of that particular debate, I’d have to agree with the majority of South African media here, we can’t ignore Malema. He is a leader within the ANC, which is South Africa’s ruling party and will continue to be so for many more years and the prospect of him leading the ANC, as terrifying as it is, may not be that far-fetched.

That’s Julius though, but the AWB, really? In 2010, a group that by all measures is practically defunct (except their own unreleased member numbers, which they claim, grow by the thousands daily) is now getting primetime television spots and making headlines? Ever since Eugene Terre’Blanche was killed the AWB has been everywhere. I understand to get the inside story on the death of Terre’Blanche, they are the people to speak to. However, what has really irritated me is that the media has allowed the AWB now, to speak on other issues. I’m sure a freak show is always good for ratings and papers sold, but the media also has a responsibility. They may like to hide behind the general argument that, ‘if they (consumers) don’t want to hear it, we won’t report on it,’ and whilst there is an element of truth to that, there is also a slightly fallacious basis to that statement. On numerous occasions, we do see the media, ‘lecturing’ the public, with headlines & stories exhorting our fascination with the frivolities in life and directing our attention back to ‘important news.’

Let me be clear, I’m not calling for a black-out on the reporting on the views of Right-Wing Afrikaners. However, there are far more responsible and capable voices that could be allowed to represent these views. Whilst I disagree which much of what they say, the Freedom Front Plus gained my respect when they used our legal mechanisms to get “Kill The Boer’ declared as hate speech. Whilst we may complain a lot about our proportional representation system, the beauty of it is that nearly all, regardless of how much of a minority they may be, do get a voice in Parliament. For South Africa to truly become the nation it seeks to be, all need to feel that they are heard and whilst parliament has a role to play in that, so does the media. However, the media cannot allow themselves to be seduced by AR’s and sales figures into choosing the most virulent and angry of voices, the freaks, to be the news. If for no other reason, look where a democratic tradition as old and eminent as that of the United States’ has fallen thanks to the growth of partisan media.

Finally, I’d like to round this off by going back to my Std 1 (Grade 3 for you young ‘uns) teacher Mrs Hibbert (one scary woman). That year, 1995, was when South Africa was in the midst of debating and ratifying out new constitution and we, in Std 1.1. had a little booklet explaining our right as children. What I loved and has always stuck with me from that booklet was that with every right explained, there was a corresponding responsibility expected from us attached to it. So media, freedom of the press is something that no democracy can do without and I will defend vociferously, but remember, with that right, there is a responsibility, to not only ensure that all sides of a story are represented but to also ensure that such representation is done in a responsible manner.

Note: While the Internet meme is "don't touch me on my studio" what was actually said was, "touch me on my studio."

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.