Voting

I wrote this up over a couple of days, it's more a collection of random thoughts than a coherent argument.

______________________________

With just under a week to go until the April 22 elections political parties are gearing up for the final days of campaigning. Jacob Zuma who has been criss crossing the country in a private helicopter, while Helen Zille has just announced that she will have the use of a private jet for the final week of her campaign.

Among the places that Zille will visit is Butterworth. I wonder what the folk of this poor rural Eastern Cape town will make of the, botoxed faced, white madam who steps out the private jet wearing yet another pristine business suit. She’ll tell them that Jacob Zuma is no good for them, or for the country, but who is going to pay serious attention to Zille when she jets in, tells them what is good for them and then jets out again?

It’s sad to see that yet again the DA has chosen to take the ugly route. We had the ‘fight back’ campaign under Tony Leon, and now we must endure the ‘stop Zuma’ campaign under Zille. Does the DA really think that it can endear itself to millions of South Africans by continually shouting wolf and scare mongering? Sure this approach might go down well with disaffected white South Africans, but what of the millions of other South Africans that remember that the ANC fought for their liberation? How does a party grow when all it offers is the same tired diatribe?

People in townships across South Africa are angry and upset at the lack of service delivery. Surely it doesn’t take a genius to work out that these people are more likely to warm to an alternate, and moreover empathetic, message than the constant ANC and Zuma bashing? What resident of Butterworth is going to believe that Zille, who steps into their world, berates the leadership of the ANC and then jets off, not to be seen again for at least another four years, has their interests at heart?

On a personal note I voted yesterday. I must admit I was unsure whether I should vote or not as it entailed a two hour bus journey to Seoul. In the end I did and I’m glad I did. I discovered my reason for voting at the end of a piece by Simon Jenkins: “If the opposition can deprive Zuma of his two-thirds majority, South Africa could entrench just enough liberty to defy the pessimists.” The first person Jessica and I spoke to outside the embassy after voting told us that it was important that we voted as the ANC has to be deprived of a two-thirds majority.

[And the latest, I read this just a moment ago, Zuma: "If I sit here and I look at the chief justice of the Constitutional Court, that is the ultimate authority. I think we need to look at it, because I don't think we should have people who are almost like God in a democracy. Why? Are they not human beings?"

The M&G:
A senior Cape Town advocate, asking to remain anonymous, said Zuma's utterances are "unforgivable". "He is clearly, constitutionally speaking, illiterate and it's dangerous because it's subversive. This is our future leader, who will have to appoint the judges of the Constitutional Court. Will he take us to the American model where judges are overt political appointments?" the advocate asked.]

Incidentally I came to read Jenkins article as it is the subject of a defamation case in Britain brought by Jacob Zuma. Would it be too much to say that Jacob ensured that I went to the polls? Thanks JZ.

Jacob Zuma, who is to be our next president, cannot tolerate dissent. Not even by papers published in another country. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The already spineless SABC executives are going to be reduced to quivering wretches under Zuma. The SABC is already kicking for touch on just about any topic that may offend our latest Big Man. In this last week it pulled a documentary that discusses satire in SA and interviews Jonathan Shapiro. If this isn’t shocking enough it’s absolutely galling that the SABC won’t even acknowledge that it pulled the documentary; instead it claims that it pulled the documentary as it was waiting for advice from its lawyers.

Apart from dropping the Special Assignment segment the SABC continues to mothball the pilot to the political satire ‘Znews’, that it commissioned for a million Rand, which prominently features JZ. Shapiro claims that the SABC’s stated reason for not showing the pilot is that JZ would sue the SABC should the show be aired. As Shapiro rightly says, “it's a matter of spinelessness on the part of the top SABC execs.”

Perhaps, in dropping the documentary, the SABC took its cue from Mpshe who pins the blame for dropping Zuma’s charges on Leonard McCarthy and Bulelani Ngucka. Mpshe is of course another sniveling weasel, looking to ingrate himself with the latest powers that be, that has to go.

How can we be expected to believe the decision to drop the case was ‘one of the hardest decisions of (Mpshe’s) life’ when it turns out he plagiarised significant parts of the speech that outlined his reasoning?

People that struggle over difficult decisions have a lot to say.

This is of course stating the obvious though, we know this as these people go on to write books and address audiences on their decisions and how they reached them -- they have certainly have no cause to plagiarise others writing. Nor should we forget that plagiarism amounts to intellectual dishonesty, and in academic circles is so detested that it is regarded as tantamount to theft.

Perhaps Mpshe was simply to lazy to set out his reasoning, in which case how can we ever accept that he applied his mind to his decision in the first place? Students that are too lazy to properly reference, or even do the work, end up plagiarizing. Is this to say that Mpshe is a lay about? Lay abouts don’t reach the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. So what does Mpshes plagiarism suggest? It strongly suggests that Mpshe did not properly apply his mind to all the competing interests.

Plagiarism is an act of avoidance, and strongly suggests abdication from responsibility at an earlier stage. If the student cannot arrive at independent conclusions, how can we believe that they applied their mind in the first place? The hours that should have been spent in the library were probably spent elsewhere. Ian Davidson, Chief Whip of the DA, was entirely correct when he said, “[the plagiarism implies that] the NPA never bothered to apply its mind to the evidence before it.”

Since Mpshe plagiarised, and was caught out in an act of deceit, we cannot accept his claim that he struggled with the decision at face value. And we are left wonder what pressures would dissuade a person in his position from earnestly applying themselves to the competing arguments.

Once again Zuma comes to mind, and one has to wonder what pressure was brought to bear on Mpshe in his name. I’m reminded of the initial period following Mbeki’s dethroning from the Presidency. Outwardly Zuma praised Mbeki’s contribution to the ANC, but he made no move to curb the likes of Malema from mounting visceral attacks on the former president. One can only wonder how many of Zuma’s allies exerted extreme pressure on Mpshe while Zuma looked on. In the end the pressure brought to bear on Mpshe proved too much and, in Wim Trengrove’s words, Mpshe “seemed only too relieved to find an escape from unbearable pressure.”

The whole arms deal saga has been both disappointing and very ugly. South Africa’s international reputation has been damaged. With still greater embarrassment we must also acknowledge the effect of Mpshe’s decision. The principles of equality before the law and the separation of the state’s powers have been severely undermined. Convicting Zuma as state president would also be embarrassing, but it would be a fantastic message to send to the world. It would be a message of hope and a clear affirmation that the South African state strives to realise the highest ideals.

Living so far away from South Africa, and feeling removed from South African society, I can only hope that my vote contributes to a very vocal opposition member taking a seat in the National Assembly. I hope that this person treats Zuma’s blunders with the disdain they deserve, and him with the indignation he deserves. Someone is going to need to remind Zuma that although he may be the president he is far from presidential.

I should be careful about what I ask for in my own anger and indignation though; lest I dream up my own Julius Malema. Jacob Zuma is an embarrassment, and a person that should never ascend to the presidency, but he will and it will be necessary to work with him and his acolytes. So my dream politician must dance to a two step tune: treat Jacob with indignation when his actions fall short of our expectations, but otherwise work with the man and try to build a constructive relationship with the ANC. It’s a big ask, and not one which many opposition members are capable of.