Lies, damned lies, and statistics
By
Mphuthumi Ntabeni
ABSA stadium in East London, where the African National Congress (ANC) celebrated its 97th anniversary the and launch of its manifesto for the 2009 national elections last week is almost a backyard of my home. I’ll not get into the insufferable noise, the street drunkenness, reckless driving, and dirt such things generate. My mother, a now wavering supporter of the ANC, had serious issues with it though, threatening to tip over her scales against the organisation. “The rowdiness of it all”; her words.
As I went to the ABSA stadium I was listening to Bob Dylans’ song; Desolation Row: ‘They’re selling postcards of the hanging. / They’re painting the passports brown [yellow]. / The beauty palour is filled with sailors [politicians]. / The circus is in town . . .’ I was hoping against experience to hear something fresh, and battling with cynicism, thinking there must be better things to do with one’s holiday than this; ‘[E]verbody is either making love, or else expecting rain. . .’
I had noticed an interesting, even worrying, turn in the ANC campaign; the use of commodity market strategies for the election campaign. [The young lady with flowing braids—mimicking Vodacom—in a consumption pose: My ANC! ]The manufacturing of popular will does not get more narcissist than personalized commercialisation, I thought. The idea, I suppose, is to launch into the subconscious the idea of the ANC as not just a political party but a way of life to be consumed as a cultural statement, hints of suaveness and all. The ANC too now once to be part of modern culture.
The staduim was painted yellow with ANC supporters in jovial mood, ferried for free from all corners of the country. As I sat behind myriads of these t-shirts I was amazed at the irony written at their backs: Better education, health, safety and security, jobs for all, social development. They’re advertising their failures. These are the areas the ANC has proven to be shabby, to say the least. The scandolous audacity of it! I thought. ‘They all play the penny whistle. You can hear them blow; if you lean your head out, far enough from desolation row . . .’ The whole thing looked more like a stock-in-trade of some low comedy whose punch line I didn’t get.
Then came the speeches; the usual recycled self-satisfied fealty bosh and romanticized version of our history, tilting towards revolutionary heroism that lacks proper understanding of the mechanics of our national inherited history. Jacob Zuma (JZ) lacked depth, as usual. Even his leitmotif, umshini wam, seemed to have lost its spark, sounding stale and contrived. Then, in tradition of the organisation, he read the statistics of ANC’s achievements, bringing to mind what Hilaire Belloc wrote; ‘Statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death.’ Mark Twain put it more succinctly in the sentence (wrongly attributed to Disraeli sometimes) I used as a title of this article.
JZ spoonfeeded the masses with optimism, taking his authority from reading birds intensines; poisoned them, in totured self-confidence, with hopes of rooting out corruption, something he has no moral authority over. The masses got distracted, not paying much attention after the automaton chants. With ill equipped habits of culture, nostalgia for the past, they stood no chance to grasp the glaring truths. Overdetermined into redundancy by rehearsed political habits they’ve yet to unshackle themselves from political manipulations. You could sense their human spirit getting resteless, straining to go beyond emotional attachments of the past.
More than any other time I was convinced that attending ANC rallies is a waste of time, and subjecting oneself to verbal wasteland. Only people with vested interests can endure it, after all, gold has no smell and hungry stomachs no noses. Once again though, I doffed my hat to the ‘ill fed, ill housed and ill clothed masses’ for the resilence of their intoxicated hopes in dubious claims of blatant propaganda. ‘And nobody ever thinks too much, about desolation row . . .’
I felt dizzy and tired with going in circles on the fetish ANC wagon that’s stagnated on nostalgia. I guess that makes me elitist. So be it. Having drained my ungratified faculty of curiosity , and in grips of aggressive cynicism, I left before it became apparent I was counter revolutionary. ‘Praise be to Nero’s Neptune; the Titanic sails at dawn. Everybody is shouting, whose side are you on . . . I got your letters yesterday, about the time the dawn’ broke. When you asked how I was doing; was that somekind of joke? All these people you mention; yes I know them, they’re quite lame . . .’ The folk singer echoed in my ears.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Answering Helen Zille
I seem to recall, not so long ago, in the South African National Convention at Sandton last year madam Helen Zille telling the gathered there that in the coming elections the opposition parties should try to rise above petty politics and concentrate on fighting the juggernaut power of the African National Congress (ANC). From reading her 2009 second week letter in the Democratic Alliance (DA), where she castigates the Congress of the People (COPE) for being not better than the ANC, I guess she’s no longer singing from that sheet.
Madam Zille writes; ‘it should be clear to all South Africans that the substantive choice in this election is between the ANC’s “closed crony society for some” and the DA’s “open, opportunity society for all”. . . The emergence of COPE, and the role it plays in breaking down the ANC’s monolith, should not blur this fundamental distinction. If it does, it could do more harm than good.’ Madam Zille further says ‘The split in the ANC is a direct result of the struggle for control between rival factions of a patronage-based system . . .’ And goes on to allege that the leadership of COPE is made of the same people that consolidate ‘the closed, crony system and blur the lines between party and state – a step which often signals the irreversible decline of an emerging democracy.’ Leaving aside the clear electioneering opportunism of madam Zille’s accusation, let’s see if there’s any credence in all this.
The most irresponsible statement Helen Zille makes is this; ‘Ironically, the party’s list selection process that most closely conforms to the “closed patronage model” is COPE’s. A small leadership group chooses every other representative in the party, including themselves.’ COPE ascertains that its leaders should be elected by its constituencies, which means the list of candidates should come from the Voter Districts (VD) [COPE operates on Voter District ground structure, along the Independent Election Council guidelines, instead of Branch system like most South African political parties.]
In Bloemfontein, late last year, when the interim national leadership of COPE was to be elected, it became apparent that most of the provinces didn’t have proper VD structures [It must be remembered that COPE is hardly few months old]. A decision was then made for the province representatives present at the party launch to make lists of proposals for national leadership. Most provinces came up with the required list, with the exception of Western Province that could not come up with an agreed list in time. I won’t get into the details of how that was resolved, its party internal matter. Suffice to say from the lists prepared by the provinces an aggregate was taken, based on proportional representation of all racial, ethnic, gender, age groups. The bulk of people on provincial lists became the present interim leadership structure of COPE. To say this was made by a ‘small leadership group’ of ‘closed patronage model’ is misrepresentation of facts to say the least.
‘While all candidate selection processes create a measure of conflict, it is predictable that the COPE approach will still result in profound ructions for the new party.’ Madame Zille writes. The only ruction COPE’s national election of leadership drew was the duration the structure should take. Some people felt two years was too long for an interim structure. Admittedly, there are tensions in the creation of provincial leadership at present. This because COPE is largely made up of groups from different cultural and political culture. COPE is learning the best ways to accommodate and represent these groupings. Indication is, with some difficulties, the principles of the party are prevailing.
As for the sore loser theory from Polokwane, it is tiring to have to answer this allegation. How is Charlotte Lobe a sore loser for instead, since she was elected in the present ANC National Executive Council from which she voluntarily resigned to join COPE at great political, financial and personal risk to herself. What gains of power is Terror Lekota looking for when he was not even willing to stand on the interim leadership structure of COPE and had to be persuaded in a protracted process to do so for the stability of the fledgling party. For that matter, most people who are in COPE leadership structure are doing so rather at great financial and personal strain; what is so attractive about that? And where does madam Zille feature people the likes of COPE second deputy editor,Odendaal, in her accusations? The fact is, COPE membership as it is now is largely made up of people who’ve never took any interests in politics before, and not of ANC breakaways as wrongly perceived.
Another misnomer is the notion of COPE’s lack of identity as insinuated by madam Zille when she says; ‘COPE now faces the challenge of showing that it is different from the ANC, that it is not merely a bunch of sore losers seeking to hold on to their positions by creating a separate electoral platform for themselves.’ COPE is a movement for the dawn of new era in South African politics, founded on the promise of commitment to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as a will of the people of democratic values that are sensitive to individual and minority rights. COPE believes human rights overrides even democratic ones. That everyone's right to life, liberty, property, free speech, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights, are given by life and may not be subjected to vote, or depend on the outcome of electioneering.
Having seen how easy it is for majority political parties to manipulate the governing laws of the republic to suite the capricious and arbitrary power of the day, COPE founders saw that it is not enough to merely legislate laws if the values and ideals espoused by legislation for the public good is not robustly defended, or does not become part of the very fabric of political process. By doing so they woke many of us who were apolitical and complacent under the illusion that our country was in a correct political path.
COPE believes all political and legal developments must be measured against the moral principles that lie at the core of our human rights. Thus COPE sees that Rechsstaat, i.e. a society based on the rule of law, is not sufficient. We need to create a society based on social justice and dedicated to higher moral calling. This requires not simply good laws but also leadership of knowledgeable insight who are untarnished by duplicitous moral and ethical dubiousness. Hence COPE seeks to strive to be led by effective, competent, efficient, industrious leaders with organisational qualities and deeper sense of truth; a leadership who must despise personal gains at the expense of the public at large.
Another issue that has recently been in fashion is that of accusing COPE of evasive strategy when it comes to Affirmative action and Black Economic Empowerment. Madam Zille and Jimmy Manyi are examples of different extreme, which suggests that COPE in its endeavour in taking the mean between nationalist and liberal politics must be doing something right. For 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 was suggested, by one of COPE’s prominent member, 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.
It is perhaps not surprising that those of stagnant and moribund politics feel threatened by COPE’s gain of momentum and strategic positioning. Historical factors, especially its lure of proper mean between nationalist and liberal politics, are on COPE’s side, which is why it is quickly capturing the imagination of South Africans. But one would expect that at least even in politicking parties would be fair and try to criticise from an informed position. The firing pressures directed towards COPE will only serve to clarify its principles and purify its leadership. COPE is not prepared to enter into mudslinging with other political parties. Instead it invites all South Africans of goodwill to remember the rock they were hewn from, and rediscover the hope of the society they sort to build when Nelson Mandela became the president of the country.
Towards building the just society it envisages COPE commits itself towards working for:
• Rapid and sustainable economic growth.
• Distribution of resources in a fair and equitable manner that does not prejudice against others.
• Creation of fair and equal opportunities for all, regardless of colour, gender, age, or creed.
• A Constitutional democracy depending on the superiority of the constitution and committing to upholding it.
• Building a competent and apolitical public service that is composed of qualified civil servants who are committed to taking services to the people.
• Rallying all South Africans behind the idea of hard work and self-uplifment with commitment towards a vision of creating and sustaining conditions for prosperity and peace, especially in the African continent.
• Inspiring the nation with visionary leadership and commitment with moral and ethical values.
• Finding a new political narrative that fits our social needs and times, away from stagnant politics of prejudice, without neglecting our proud history of liberation struggle and individual rights.
Monday, 05 January 2009
An idea whose time has come
Opinion is growing in the South African public that the Congress of the People (COPE) is turning up to be nothing more than taxonomical adjustment of the ANC with same old prescriptions and cadences. Indeed COPE has been taking in a lot of detritus dumped overboard by other political parties, giving them 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 heroes convicts like Allan Boesak?
Granted, Boesak was given a presidential pardon that eradicated his criminal record, but COPE sells itself as the guardian of moral principles among other things, and rallies on politics that are built on solid principles. Because of this, more than other political party, COPE is judged harshly when it shows holes on its moral fabric. 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 beginnings, trying to realise the full potential of the country, etc.
It is correct that repentant ex-offenders should not feel left out, but be re-integrated into society and accorded all their rights as enshrined in the Constitution. There’s a danger, seen long ago by Aristotle, of vices sometimes being virtues carried to excess; the error of puritanical organisations. By accepting Boesak COPE, on top of being practical, avoids excessive virtuousness, and the superficial culture of appropriating blame as the sign of virtue. I’m sure COPE is not a post-Freudian political organisation that relaxes moral views, pardoning all on pretence of understanding all. Rather by adopting the more strenuous position that regards real virtue as a thing that require more discriminating, even less immediately gratifying populist stance, COPE put itself in a stronger position, above the slack disposition of self-righteousness by readily apportioning blame to others, and dishing double jeopardy to those who’ve paid their debt to society.
Political parties must find value on people for what they stand for now, how they, heron, conduct themselves. Otherwise they’d have to refuse admission to many people, especially politicians who almost always have shoddy pasts, one way or the other. Once you start preventing people from becoming members of your party simply because of what they did in their previous political parties, positions of employment, family matters, churches, schools, rugby clubs, soccer clubs, etc., where do you end? I’m sure COPE wants membership of great stature and credible leadership with integrity, who respects the rule of law, and will uphold the Constitution, etc. But it does not have to be finicky about these issues. It is hypocritical bĂȘtise, and suspension of reality, to say in politics there are no second chances, as if politics were not part of life. We all believe that everyone deserves a second chance in life. As much as we want to put our country back to sound ethical and moral principles we must avoid the high frisson of reification, treating people as disposable things and demonising them because of their past.
COPE has so far been making right noises towards progressive, pluralistic, consultative, participatory, ethical democracy. It has captured the imagination of South Africans who want to move away from exhortatory passĂ© politics of nostalgia and perpetual myth making. True, if it wants to gain the confidence of the majority of South Africans it must find ways of reducing the disabling gaps between political rhetoric and practise to eliminate performative contradictions. The real test is on whether COPE is able to avoid the cloying carnivalesque delirium of the Tripartite Alliance (TA) they so eloquently criticise. The TA has fallen victim to its own myths making by placing too much credence on its rhetorical slogans, and by conducting itself as a self-appointed messianic custodians of our freedom. Most South Africans seek a fresh break from all the stale about the so called national revolutionary politics that glorifies barren ideologies and superficial radical appeal. COPE’s success will be determined by how much it makes itself platform of expression for the spirit of our times.
COPE has chosen what is termed progressive politics where political leaders acquaint themselves with sentiments and derivations of the masses, and the narrative order of the day. Progressive politics sublimate social tensions by adopting development social spirit for common good. If COPE promotes and practice that with structural integrity of democracy and justice, break the power of stultifying illusions that has been created by the TA, people are in intelligent enough to realise where their best future rest. Sometimes when an idea arrives at an opportune time, and finds right leadership of progressive spirit, it acquires a force of inevitability.
Sunday, 04 January 2009
Too much power corrupts
Without belittling the global economic crisis, the shameful xenophobic attacks, the renewed fighting at the Gaza Strip, even the brilliant win of Proteas in Australia and all; this year for me go down as the one the African National Congress (ANC) showed its real intentions and scared the pants out of me with its shenanigans. That woke me out of complacency that our country, politically, was on the golden path.
It is a given fact of history that governments that hold power too long lapse into decadence and corruption. Leaving aside semantic quibbles about the callous meanings of the word corrupt, it is fair to say that the dictum of the English nineteenth century historian, Lord Acton, proved to be applicable to our post apartheid government after the pivotal moment in our modern history at Polokwane. The ANC Government has since been through crisis after another, largely from dearth of vision and lack of proper leadership. It has, in my eyes at least, lost moral authority due to scandals, sleaze, arrogance and incompetence. The worse part is that, instead of attempting to mend its structural flaws it tried to save face by amassing more powers through what can only be termed as tyranny of legislation (changing laws of the republic to suite its designs).
It has become clear that what the ANC Government, with its Tripartite Alliance (TA) partners, is seeking to do by its so called National Democratic Revolution is to establish a society of unified intent, a society where uniformity of thought is enforced by the tyranny of the majority. It is trying to adopt what in historical terms is called the machtsstaat, a state based on might of arbitrary will of the persons in power without the strict observation of the rule of law.
After the horrible apartheid years South Africa chose to follow the rote of a Rechsstaat, i.e. the government that is bound by law with powers limited by the individual rights of its people. This rule of law emphasises the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to arbitrary power, even that of the majority and has been known, since the founding of the United States Republic, as Constitutional democracy. In this system an independent judiciary interprets and enforces provisions of the constitution even when it means overturning the acts of a democratically elected legislature. Of course those within the TA tend to carelessly drum the sacrosanct of democracy even when it violates other rights.
For instance, the ANC National Executive Council (NEC) was at pains trying to justify it’s decision to unconstitutionally recall the president of the republic, Thabo Mbeki. {Our constitution states clearly that only the Constitutional Court may decide that Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. [The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, sec.172(4)(e).} The ANC NEC disregarded this in the recall, and the fact that in the South African system of governance only the constitution is sovereign. Section 2 of our Constitution Founding Provisions established the supremacy of the constitution above even the government. It says; “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”
The supremacy of the Constitution was promulgated to prevent exactly these kinds of abuse of political power, and to control government power against the citizens. South Africa is a constitutional republic with checks and balances to minimise the impact of faction, and reduce the risk of the tyranny of the majority. This is the heritage it adopted from the American republic.
The American founding fathers realised the dangers of tyranny even from the majority rule when they established Constitutional democracy as means to control factions that may harm other citizens. James Madison, as if foreseeing what happened in SA since Polokwane, wrote in The Federal Papers that factions are “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” It is easy to control a minority faction by a democratic process. At worst, Madison wrote, a minority faction “may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.” But what of the majority disguising their abuse of law through manipulation and changing of laws?
Madison saw that the real danger arises with a majority faction. “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” In a democratic system the tyranny of the majority and legislature (which represents the majority) is something always alive and was given colour in our country post Polokwane by the ANC. “[I]t is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” Admonished Madison.
A person who tabulated clearly the dangers of the “Tyranny of the Majority” was the nineteenth famous French social commentator Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. He warned against the lack of sufficient limitations on majority rule and dire consequences of unfettered democracy. Thomas Jefferson, as Alexander Hamilton, Madison’s co-author, all came to a conclusion that power must be granted to constitutional courts as a barrier against the tyranny of political assemblies, and means of accountability for the government. With that the American government shifted away from majority rule towards constitutional principles, which South Africa inherited and improved in certain areas. To see that thrown down the window by a few elite group elected by political factions was highly disconcerting.
We’ve seen the reshuffles and cathartic upheavals within our government ever since Polkwane. We now find ourselves under the power of leaders with wry perspective and bruised egos whose faces we were never sold into during our last vote. And near moral and political collapse of our democracy that has been hijacked by factions. We’ve seen plotters and mutineers invoking the name of democracy, making us accomplices in their designs. Surely at some stage we have to say enough is enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)