Saturday, November 12, 2016

Donald Trump elected in a democracy: is it the end of the world?

As the polls showed Donald Trump was likely to win the US elections, Gerard Araud, French ambassador to Washington and a career diplomat known for his outspokenness, tweeted:

After Brexit and this election everything is now possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes. It resonates eerily with Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary as war came in 1914: 'The lights are going out all over Europe,' he lamented.

While it would be idiotic to ignore the seriousness of all that has happened this year, it is important not to get carried away like M. Araud. In 2016, the world is not collapsing before our eyes; it is confronted with a challenge not seen in today's great liberal democracies since the 1920s and '30s: fascism.

Fascism - intolerance, bigotry, tribalism - is always present in society because these tendencies are always present in human nature. Two conditions above all are required for fascism to break out on a threatening scale: straitened circumstances for substantial numbers of people and populist leaders who are prepared to cash in on their miseries. Other local grievances will feed the flames: defeat in the Great War in the case of Germany; a divided society resulting from apartheid in South Africa; foreigners coming and taking 'our' jobs in any number of countries.

In France, in Austria, in Holland, with frightening unexpectedness in the UK with the Brexit vote, now in the US, fascism threatens to break out. It threatens to break out, in the view of many, in SA too. The similarities between conditions and role players internationally are too obvious to require underlining.

However, the fight back by more enlightened leaders and ideas could only start once the threat was there, and the fight has duly started. Two leaders with unenviable jobs if they are to collapse the world are Theresa May and the demonised Donald Trump. The first is not a dictator, the second not the feared anti-Christ; they are voices amid loudly dissenting voices, in for a very challenging time.

Let us keep our feet on the ground. Democracy must plainly accept democratic decisions; it has no alternative. But it must always be on guard against the narrative that lingers from Marxist as well as fascist thinking: that the only way to put the world to rights is through radical 'change' or, more precisely, revolution, a sweeping away of the old 'broken' system and institutions and a 'cleansing' of society. The world has heard and suffered that story before from left and right. None of it had any more truth in it in the past than Trump's promise to make America great again today.

History - if the metaphor is not too trite - is a rolling river that is not to be dammed up nor run into the sands. For those who like a fight, there is a brave one on again, as what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature strive to turn the present current.

It does not look likely to - and certainly one hopes and prays it does not - take the lives it took in the old century, when a world really did collapse twice before their eyes.

Friday, October 14, 2016

South Africa under President Zuma: a call for pessimism, realism or optimism?

They say we live in a post-factual age where we decide things irrationally, purely on our emotional feel, and most of that is decided on line.
We don't study, read or think anymore, or even watch TV like we used to. Teenagers text endlessly - three times a night according to a recent report - and send each other selfies that can get them into trouble, while adults actually find themselves in trouble for what they Tweet or ReTweet. The luckless Penny Sparrow springs to mind.
You will have your own view how far that is a true picture of the times. On one reading of history, things stay pretty much the same the more they change, though in the middle of our global world's unremitting electronic and social media din, you can be forgiven for thinking things have never been worse. 
But could it all be just a case of temperament, of whether we as individuals are optimists or pessimists, see the glass as half full or half empty?
In a Business Day article titled Big Questions and a big day is upon us*, Peter Bruce editor-in-chief of BDFM writes: 'How does this all end? .. the war at the centre of our body politic?'
He presents the daunting list of so-called student protest that has burnt universities and their books; the alleged crimes and misdemeanours of President Jacob Zuma; the highly suspect case of fraud brought against finance minister Pravin Gordhan by SA's National Prosecuting Authority, which claims to be 'independent'. 
Bruce passes on too the disconcerting rumour that a Russian delegation is in South Africa to push ahead the even more suspect, astronomically expensive nuclear deal Zuma and President Putin are supposed to have signed and sealed between the two countries. He questions how SA's state-owned Eskom, designated to handle it, can be capable of handling it.
And the 'big day that is upon us' is the long-awaited day the Public Protector Thuli Madonsela publishes her interim report on state capture, with its putative 'damning evidence' of an improper relationship between SA's president and his wealthy friends, the Gupta family. At the last moment, Zuma and his faithful servant Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Des van Rooyen are both trying to interdict it.
No wonder Bruce's gloomy conclusion is: 'Things have gone too far. The damage is too much. Jacob Zuma has broken the state.'
Yet is this where realism, with its different perspective and line of questioning, must come in?
The conclusion goes too far. The present major crisis has been incubating for years, the wholly foreseeable outcome of more than two decades of one-party government in South Africa.
As the local elections this year show and will turn out perhaps to prove, we are in fact in the throes of the most serious democratic challenge to ANC hegemony to date. It contains opportunities for better times as well as risks of worse. Democracy was and never will be a destination we reach. It is a way of life and, as with life, no one promised it was plain sailing.
US President Barak Obama said in his speech to the National Democratic Convention last month: 'It can be frustrating, this business of democracy. Democracy works, but we've got to want it. Democracy isn't a spectator sport.'
The state of South Africa is not broken. It is broken when the constitution is dumped and we have a Mugabe or Putin or a Julius Malema at the top of a new order.
You can argue what is going on is a widespread, enormously promising fight against such a development. So far at least, it is not the state but the ANC that is breaking. That was always certain to be a huge, noisy event.
Or is that not realism, but optimism?
*October 14 2016

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Brexit: Prime Minister David Cameron's personal and public failure

Politics in the end is someone's personal responsibility as well as the impersonal art of the possible.
Challenged by his own party's rebellious Eurosceptic right and by the single-issue United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), prime minister David Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU: let the people decide whether to leave or stay.

It sounded plausible, a sensible compromise. Few chose to argue about it. After all, went the spin, asking the people would be real democracy in action, the truly democratic way to settle the Tory party's problems once and for all. And, as most of the political classes seemed willing to believe, also settle the country's problems.

It has not worked. Leavers and Remainers are sticking to their guns and both sides now know the simple majority vote for or against Brexit has settled nothing.

Both ran campaigns of threats, false promises and lies that grew increasingly bitter and divisive. The unelected populist Nigel Farage, the eccentric celebrity politician Boris Johnson, the opportunist Michael Gove among others, kept the media pack in full cry after personalities, not realities. Government and shadow cabinet ministers, caught up in an alarming neck-and-neck race, presented Brexit as either a wonder cure-all or an impending catastrophe.

Only after their apparent victory have Leavers realised they have no plan, no clear objective and no strategy to achieve one: debate about them has only started now.

The biggest argument is over how, when and - with supreme irony - even whether to leave the EU. Some  demand that it happens without delay; others insist government can only trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty after negotiating an entirely new set of terms with Europe. But what terms will satisfy all interests? The process seems certain to cause more division in a United Kingdom more divided on the issue than ever.

Remainers have not accepted the outcome of the referendum. Either 52%-48% was an unconvincing majority, or the referendum is not binding, or it is unconstitutional, or all three. Britain Stronger in Europe and Open Britain are campaigning as if it never happened.

Nothing to regret?
David Cameron's resignation on defeat was accepted calmly as inevitable but, more than that, as the typically British, right thing to do, a replay of the playing fields of Eton. (Those, incidentally, had also been the stamping ground once of Cameron’s flamboyant adversary, the arguably less sportsmanlike Boris Johnson.)
The view contrasts sharply with the question that flummoxed the prime minister at a press conference shortly after his defeat. The journalist asked, 'Do you regret what you've done to your country?'

As a professional politician, Mr Cameron carried and understood all the heavy responsibilities of his office and all his duties to his party; one can sympathise that there were the greatest pressures on him.
But he should also have understood, as a professional politician, that a referendum could never be a solution, that it had only the potential to divide people in any number of damaging ways. Young and old. Employed and unemployed. Haves and have-nots. British and 'them'.

'The people', as the pure Democratic Will, exists only in the minds of philosophers and the speeches of radicals like Mr Farage. In the real world, the British, like any other people, do not conform to populist stereotyping. They comprise a multitude of individual motivations, views and interests. They act in accordance with them, but do not and cannot govern the country in practice, much less decide its future by answering an obviously simplified question once.

David Cameron no doubt excuses the imbroglio he presided over by saying he is a democrat and acted democratically. But he was aware he was prime minister in Britain's representative democracy and that his prime duty was to work through its parliamentary institutions.

The people did not make a mistake: the mistake was to hold the referendum. The right thing for Mr Cameron to have done as a Remainer was to resign rather than agree to it, not after it turned out to be a wholly avoidable diversion and failure.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

The EFF: no coalitions, no promises ... no future?

There will be minority governments in South Africa's major metros, coalitions that are led by either the African National Congress or the Democratic Alliance, but count the Economic Freedom Fighters out.

That was the message from Commander-in-Chief Julius Malema in a press conference today. He made clear the EFF would not join forces with either major party, but instead constitute the opposition in hung municipalities resulting from the 2016 local elections.
The coming cooperative period in local government, whatever it turns out to be, marks a fundamental change from the past. It will test and develop the professionalism, administrative skills and staying power of South Africa's political parties as never before.
After some well publicised days in conference, the EFF could not join them. In spite of the media billing it as kingmakers, the EFF is not a negotiable democratic party so much as a loosely knit Marxist-Leninist or fascist grouping, the breakaway far left or right of the ANC, depending on how people see and label it.

As a result, its mediocre election results have left it in limbo. Under the leadership of Mr Malema, the EFF has alienated the ANC, the majority party and its president, but has nothing to offer a democratic opposition, the DA, besides serious problems. Its revolutionary programme threatens to wreck government at the local level in the same way it has threatened government at national level, through calculated disruptions of parliament and inflammatory talk of meeting violence with violence.

With President Zuma remaining in office, the scene is set for these methods to resume more widely.

These are admittedly early days. But if the EFF is ever to become a tsunami the signs would be there now. The party apparently does not enjoy the confidence of voters; its manifesto cannot work except through coercion; it has no chance alone of demonstrating a sense of responsibility in government. The question going forward is how, and if, it can manage to hold together during a long period out in the cold.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016


Brexit was not about 'ordinary people' being confused by the facts; not about expert opinion being superior to grassroots opinion; not about sovereignty and bureaucracy as if these are absolutes; not about 'getting your country back' and 'saving' £380m a week in EU contributions that will go to the National Health in future - not about any of the populist sloganeering and mendacity that passed for a serious national debate.

Fundamentally the problem was - and remains - how you run a democracy, specifically Britain’s democracy, in a responsive and responsible manner in a complex global world.

And that, very plainly now, is not by asking the public to decide a major issue by answering Remain or Leave to a childishly simplified question in a simple majority, one-off referendum got up to 'settle' the Tory party's internal problems. No number of referendums on the EU could ever settle those.

The evidence comes straight from the horse's mouth. A few weeks before the Brexit referendum, Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), an alarming right wing threat to the Tory government and party, was nervous about his chances. To guard against a narrow defeat, he claimed that a narrow victory for Remain - something like 52%-48% - would not end the argument. And, indeed, millions of people would find such a close finish unconvincing. Mr Farage was pointing out the obvious.

But the change was startling when in fact the Brexit side won by much the same margin. Now the referendum was, unarguably, a 'clear mandate' from the British people to leave the EU, presumably unconditionally and forever. And equally, of course, had the Remain camp won 52%-48%, we would now be hearing the British people had given a clear mandate to stay in the EU, presumably on existing terms forever.

Dividing the United Kingdom
Only those on whichever side won so narrowly would ever consider the matter closed. 'The people have spoken' does not describe an outcome where even the 72% who felt strongly enough to vote split almost down the middle. On another day, in different circumstances, even just different weather, the people clearly might give a different 'clear mandate'.

A referendum is arguably no more than a measure of a nation's mood, a manifestly unreliable way to determine what 'the people' want, and no way at all to run a country. That is why the UK evolved into a representative democracy with parliament sovereign, not a 'direct democracy', whatever that is imagined to be and however one is supposed to function.

By gambling on one throw of the dice, Britain’s political classes divided their country and people disastrously and to no avail, the more concerned citizens feeling the deceit sooner and more keenly than those happy to be left to get on with their lives.

What now, after the framers of the futile turmoil have quit and gone? Only the hope new leadership can restore stability and a sense of reality, as frightened and chastened politicians row back on the lies and false hopes they raised.



Saturday, July 2, 2016

British Government to follow up success of Brexit referendum

Following David Cameron's triumph in the Brexit referendum, which enabled the British people to vote for or against almost anything besides the issue - Boris Johnson's hair was a concern for many - the new Tory prime minister intends to follow up with three further referendums. These will decide:

1] Does God exist? If the people decide S/He doesn't, Boris Johnson will assure members of all faiths that government will not pull down churches, mosques and synagogues immediately. Rather everything will be alright after a period of time that will become clear to people as they go along. Mr Johnson cannot say how long that will be, nor when the process will commence, though he is sure things must not be delayed too long;

2] Should capital punishment be restored? In the certain event of a Yes decision here, executions will be made retroactive to 1910, to protect everyone's democratic rights and safety; 

2a] What is the best means of execution? After the Yes vote to 2], there will be a second referendum. This is not, as some people may imagine, to reverse the first one, but to guarantee strict democracy again by allowing people a free vote between hanging, poison injection and shooting. They will not be able to opt for public executions. Some MPs think that is going too far; 

3] Should England annex Scotland and Northern Ireland? That would guard against these awkward provinces deciding for themselves to stay in the EU or, indeed, deciding anything. If this regrettably calls for the use of force, the government wishes to reassure the world the Treasury and armed forces have been laying contingency plans for invasion since October last year.

However, an official statement confirms there is not going to be a referendum on whether the entire Tory government should resign. Though useful to pass the buck from time to time, referendums do not mean the people govern the country.



Tuesday, June 28, 2016

HOW BRITAIN COULD BAIL OUT OF BREXIT: some serious and not so serious thoughts

Serious thoughts 

After his inglorious defeat in the UK referendum, David Cameron has resigned as Tory prime minister. 

However, like him, a majority of MPs of all parties in the UK House of Commons are reportedly against Brexit. They could organise on non-party lines to threaten a vote of no confidence in any proposed new leader, whether Tory or Labour or coalition, who is in favour of Brexit. They would only support a new PM on the side of Remain.

The new majority Remain leader would select his cabinet and call a general election to secure a mandate from the voters to undo the referendum result. The opposition to this move in the House would be insufficient to block it, and the Labour Party would have little chance of winning the general election under the weak and divisive leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

The UK's friends and allies in Europe would be informed and involved in the plan and take the pressure off Britain to make a speedy Brexit.

In neglecting to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to exit immediately after the referendum, the Conservative government may already have in mind such a plan, working through the backbenchers 1922 Committee and party whips.

It requires Cameron to go very soon, not to take three months; for Boris Johnson to be emphatically rejected as the new Tory leader - a distinct possibility; and for Remain MPs and any supporting ministers to stick together to pull the executive's chestnuts out of the fire. All that is extremely difficult, but not impossible to achieve. It requires only a commitment to the national interest instead of narrow party interest.

What would help also is a true parliamentarian once again: a John Hampden (1595-1643) with the courage and will to fight (in his time against the King) for the sovereignty of parliament. That is perhaps too much to ask for in this age of disciplined political parties.

But it already seems likely the country's MPs will find their own way to bail out Britain in a similar spirit.

Not so serious thoughts - hopefully

Following David Cameron's triumph in the Brexit referendum, which enabled the British people to vote for or against almost anything besides the issue - Boris Johnson's hair was a concern for many - the new Tory prime minister intends to follow up with three further referendums. These will decide:
1] Does God exist? If the people decide S/He doesn't, Boris Johnson will assure members of all faiths that government will not pull down churches, mosques and synagogues immediately. Rather they will all fall into ruin over a period of time that will become clear to people as they go along;

2] Should capital punishment be restored? In the certain event of a Yes decision here, executions will be made retroactive to 1910, to protect everyone's democratic rights and safety; 
2a] What is the best means of execution? After the Yes vote to 2], there will be a second referendum. This is not, as some people may imagine, to reverse the first one, but to guarantee strict democracy again by allowing people a free vote between hanging, poison injection and shooting. They will not be able to opt for public executions. Some MPs think that is going too far; 

finally 3] Should England annex Scotland and Northern Ireland? That would guard against these awkward provinces deciding for themselves to stay in the EU or, indeed, deciding anything. If this regrettably calls for the use of force, the government wishes to reassure the world the Treasury and armed forces have been laying contingency plans for invasion since October last year.
However, an official statement confirms there is not going to be a referendum on whether the entire Tory government should resign. Though useful to pass the buck from time to time, referendums do not mean the people govern the country.

(Also, Dave says privately he's relieved to be the hell out of it.)



Saturday, June 25, 2016


Cheer up - well, at least cheer up a little.
There will be some kind of renegotiation because it is unavoidable. Britain is 'in Europe' whether it likes it or not: it's called History and Geography. There is no way out of either of them.
The renegotiation will eventually agree issues that could equally have been dealt with by staying in and fighting for them: democracy has always involved doing that.

But prime minister David Cameron chose to solve his internal Tory party problems by referring them to 'the people', a cop out for party political ends, not to keep faith with 'democracy', and least of all to protect the national interest. It has backfired disastrously for him and his country and he has gone. 
The tragedy is all the pointless and avoidable waste and chaos, as we start solving the same problems over again. That's what people do. We're a dopey and fragile lot.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Would you say this is a successful blog?

Since I started my blog three or four years back, I've had by this morning 66666 reads - if that is what a 'hit' is.
I have no idea if that is a lot or a little for a blog, but it is certainly very many more than I imagined I would get when I posted my first piece.
A blog is of course online publishing; there are no hard copies to handle and browse in book shops and libraries, and maybe to glance through again from time to time at home. 
But I look at it this way. If I had written a book (non-fiction) and been read 66666 times, I think it would be something to write home about. I'm sure my publisher would be smiling. And there would be 66666 copies on shelves out there somewhere with a squared-up pic of me on the inside front or back dust cover.
So, late though it is, and for what it's worth, here's a pic. Hope it doesn't put you off reading in future.
Thanks for reading anything you have read so far.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

What kind of revolution does Julius Malema intend for South Africa?

There is something incongruous, if not contradictory, about Julius Malema holding up on TV a copy of South Africa’s constitution and swearing allegiance to it.

Mr Malema was expelled from the African National Congress for advocating rebellion. His Damascene conversion appears to be due to SA’s constitutional court judgment on Nkandla, praised on all sides for its ringing endorsement of democracy and the rule of law. 

But the revolutionary Mr Malema wants to nationalise mines and banks, although it is government policy not to. He threatens to take back the land without compensation. He speaks of eliminating ‘white supremacy’ in language that hints at violence: he maintains always he is speaking metaphorically. In the ANC, he proposed the overthrow of the legitimate government of Botswana, a friendly neighbour. That was perhaps the last straw.

Mr Malema formed his own party, the Marxist-Leninist Economic Freedom Fighters. There, he is unchallenged Commander-in-Chief and has made the EFF a thorn in the ANC's side.

It serves the ANC right: the party has only itself to blame for Julius Malema. He is the heir to its own promise of revolution - except the ANC’s revolution was meant rhetorically, especially after real revolutions saw the implosion of the state in Libya, Egypt and Syria. What has counted for the ANC since 1994 is that SA earns the best living it can in a capitalist world and ANC leaders and loyalists live very well in the mixed economy they preside over.

Cut off now from such benefits, having little to lose and much to gain, Mr Malema gleefully rocks the overloaded ANC boat. But after his conversion to constitutionalism, it is impossible to see how his Marxist-Leninism would work. And if it would not work, what other kind of revolution he would intend - or, horror of horrors, unleash on SA’s fragile democracy.

Many are suspicious Mr Malema is the champion of people whose lives he visibly does not share. In everyday language, they cannot understand how he can be a ‘communist' and an obvious capitalist at the same time. People are not lost for words. They explain in their own way how he contrives to speak for the poorest of the poor when his personal preferences are plainly the riches of the rich. Mr Malema is a hypocrite, a populist, a demagogue - are three of the more polite ways his detractors put it.

That still leaves a political explanation outstanding. Can Karl Marx go hand in hand with what some openly call Mr Malema's fascism? There seems to be another contradiction there.

Marxism springs from the highest ideals of humanity - the community of all, internationalism and peace. Fascism is not an ideology in any sense. Fascism is a politics of coercion which, if it entails anything besides verbal and physical violence, promotes extreme nationalism or nativism shading into racism, all being embodied in a messianic leader ready to be martyred for the sake of 'the people'.

However, these theoretical differences have always had a way of vanishing in practice. In Europe a century ago, communism and fascism were implacable enemies: their street brawls in Germany after World War I finally ended in the World War II fight to the death between Comrade Stalin's USSR and Herr Hitler's Third Reich.

But in both cases, the revolutionary party-state had extinguished civil liberties much earlier. The difference in reality was only between a dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the German volk.

Outside Europe, communism got a new lease of life by teaming up with new and growing national feelings. In China in the early 1920s and in the long war against Japan, communists and nationalists fought on the same side. Later the two worked together to end French rule in Indo-China and to replace the corrupt regime in Cuba. In SA the story has been similar. Nativism-nationalism fought to free the land from colonial rule; communism fought to free the people from capitalism. Both marked out the imperial west, and its one-sided democratic values, as the permanent enemy and threat.

This is the complex inheritance of Julius Malema: African and European; white and black; national and universal. Whichever descriptions you use - imperialism, Marxism, democratic centralism, fascism - all are driven by a crusading zeal to dominate. What that means for SA, we must decide. Mr Malema cannot tell us when he cannot say what he means himself.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

What is 'state capture' in South Africa all about?

When some idea or other becomes a buzzword, especially if it sounds impressive or alarming, it is time to stay calm, take a deep breath, and think about it. ‘Quiet diplomacy’, ‘western plot’, ‘National Development Plan’, ‘innocent until proven guilty’, are buzzwords that served the African National Congress’s political purposes in the past. Now the party has a dire warning for us of ‘state capture’.

State capture refers to the control of the state by substantial private interests, the state thereby losing its independence and the power to legislate and act for all. France before the 1789 Revolution provides a good example of state capture: the state was hobbled by a privileged untaxed aristocracy that meant it had to raise money by selling state offices to a rising business class.

As a modern example of state capture, the left like to point to the USA, the state there having lost much of its freedom of action to pressure groups. The NRA is the best known among very many.

State capture in this sense is not the condition of South Africa; it is a buzzword here. It asks South Africans to believe an affluent business family, the Guptas, appoint and remove cabinet ministers at will, and generally run the Republic without the knowledge and say-so of its ANC president. Since that is evidently impossible, it is necessary to look at who has most to gain from this fiction. It cannot be the Guptas, who are likely to end up scapegoats. It certainly will not be President Zuma. That leaves the party.

We must never forget South Africa is a party-state and the governing ANC is there to remain in power. No political organization manages that by sticking rigidly to principles or individuals. The ANC’s priority always is to shelve or smother issues that could divide or even ultimately destroy it like other African liberation parties.

The ANC cannot indulge any major internal dispute, however morally significant. From start to finish in the long drawn-out scandal of Nkandla, where President Zuma only finally surrendered in the constitutional court, the ANC dummied up and closed ranks as always in a crisis. It was not so much to save President Zuma; it was to keep the party intact.

Last week dummying up ended abruptly. Mr Mcebisi Jonas created an uproar by revealing the Guptas had offered him the finance ministry. President Zuma was immediately at the centre of a climactic row as it became clear he must be guilty of putting the interests of business friends before his oath of office.

In case anyone was still in doubt about it, the Honourable Member Mosiuoa Lekota shouted out in the national assembly that President Zuma was no longer ‘honourable’ because of his conduct. Mr Lekota's performance has featured on TV almost every day since.

The party is in a terrible dilemma. The leadership knows beyond doubt that what South Africa has is not a case of state capture, but of Zuma capture. It isn’t the first time. Schabir Shaik and his family captured Zuma; the ANC leadership had to manage his escape. But they ignored all objections, and arguably the law, to elect Zuma as party president and then to elect him again in parliament as state president.

Rank and file, parliamentary caucus, Cabinet, cronies and hangers-on are all trapped together in this and local elections are coming. President Zuma can only lend his face to these as a discredited leader, or not feature in them at all. Yet to replace him right now is as impossible as anything could be in politics.

The ANC leadership is falling back on the old stand-bys of shelving and smothering the issue. An exasperated ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe told insistent journalists over the weekend that the party’s National Executive Committee was under ‘no pressure’ even to consider recalling President Zuma. It seems he is safe for now.

What could be the break point to change that? Only the coming elections.

If the ANC do well, or even just okay in them, President Zuma could serve out his full term, not because he has support to spare anymore, but because it is very difficult, not to say dangerous, for the party to 'recall' a second president after the splits that followed former president Thabo Mbeki’s recall in 2008.

However a bad result, even without the ANC losing the major municipalities the opposition claim are up for grabs, would be fatal. An outright victory, a clear winner and loser, are not required for this. Elections are also measured by share of vote.

Mr Mantashe will be counting anxiously later this year, even if he can blame 'low turnout' for any fall off in the party's support. A low turnout is a favourite get-out for bad local election results.

Everything is where it should be to force change: in the hands of South African voters. Has their loyalty to the ANC been seriously dented at last? Has democracy been moving forwards underneath all these dramatic events, or does South Africa remain, dangerously, a party-state despite them?



Thursday, March 17, 2016

Julius Malema and Donald Trump: two of a kind

Radicals - reformers, activists, extremists, call them what you will - are part and not part of every society. Readers do not need examples: in France, in the UK, in Iran, Pakistan and other Asian countries, across the Middle East, they are to be seen more than ever today, some working for good, some for ill, some more famous - or notorious - than others.

Political extremism - Isis, Boko Haram, to name two among countless others - implies a significant coercive movement depending on a broad and particular context to take root and flourish, as Nazism and Stalinism did in a largely undemocratic Europe in the last century.

How then to look at two radicals or extremists, both falling into the famous or notorious category: Donald Trump in the United States and Julius Malema here in South Africa? Can they lead, have they led, to extremism?
Finding Mr Trump as awful as just about everyone else, Douglas Gibson writes in a recent article, America's democracy trumped*: 'Trump has proved in this campaign that a candidate can say anything and get away with it.' 

In fact, he hasn't done any such thing yet. US free speech permits political candidates to be crude and vulgar and, like children when they are cross, to say anything they want. But the US people and their representatives decide if they get  away with it. The US President and Vice President are elected in a complex process full of checks and balances that from start to finish takes around two years. By the end of it, Mr Trump may find his free speech has won him fewer friends than his supporters like to claim.

There is another way to look at what's going on. Whether or not he seems to be preaching extremism, Mr Trump is most certainly an extreme example of the politics of entertainment. The politics of entertainment lays down that, like everything else in today's 24/7 surround-sound mass media world, politics has to amuse and divert. If it isn't entertaining, politics won't get a look in. On top of giving folk some timeless punch-and-judy knockabout, Mr Trump can also be seen as a useful fool in America: he says all the repugnant things 'ordinary people' often feel, but fortunately do not generally practice. In America's established, confident democracy, he is cathartic rather than incendiary.

Like Mr Gibson, I believe the world needs the United States and what it stands for, and I am sticking with arguably the country's greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, who always trusted the American people to do the right thing when it came to having their say.

Will that be the case in South Africa with Julius Malema, Commander-in-Chief of the EFF, a party some see as major opposition already and would like to see as the future government?

Mr Malema is the sworn enemy of President Zuma and ZANC, the term of abuse he uses to distinguish between the late great ANC and what he relentlessly attacks now as President Zuma's corrupted party.

He gives away nothing to Donald Trump in terms of radicalism: Mr Trump promises to expel Muslims and to build a wall between the United States and Mexico; Mr Malema's  declared objective, after getting rid of President Zuma, is to rid the country of 'whiteness' and overthrow the status quo. In the context of South Africa's young and fragile democracy, it is impossible to see Mr Malema as a useful fool.  

Imperfect as its democracy is, however, South Africa is plainly a democracy of sorts. Of course the country's elections this year are not about electing a president; they are local elections. In any case, presidents are not elected by the people of South Africa even in national elections. After voting a party into government, you get the president the party gives you, take it or leave it. The ANC gave us President Zuma.
Prophesy is foolhardy. But it seems safe to say this year's elections cannot avoid being also a verdict on President Zuma's disastrous presidency, inevitably dragging in the ANC's overall performance.

The revolutionary Mr Malema has been oddly quiet on this point so far, perhaps because, by Marxist-Leninist rules, he should really shun, or at the least sniff at, elections as a bourgeois instrument of oppression; as ever it is not certain where he stands. But shuffle his position as he may, the coming elections will surely be a verdict on Julius Malema and EFF extremism, as the presidential elections in the US will be on Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
These are not easy times in the States and they are hard times for South Africa with harder times to come. In the elections in both democracies this year, will the people do what Abraham Lincoln always trusted the American people to do?

Friday, March 4, 2016

Corruption in South Africa's government: a few words of advice

South Africa does not need another commission of enquiry. It does not need an appeal to the Constitutional Court.

It does not need a revolution.
It simply needs some more voters to stop voting ANC. Change will commence that moment.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Things you must know before writing on Twitter

Professional writers, assisted and managed by experienced subs and editors, produced the traditional media. But times have changed. You and I produce the social media. And we're on our own. 

Before You Write

Understand that whatever you believe, someone, somewhere, will not agree with you. Lots of people do not believe in god; lots do. Some people support the soccer team you think are rubbish. Some believe everyone should own guns.

Some people are dedicated supporters of the political leader you can’t stand. Many don't know Charlize Theron is South African. Some will tell you Charlize Theron isn't all she's cracked up to be. A few don't know who Charlize Theron is. Others support England at rugby.

There is no accounting for taste.

Before you write one word, understand also it is like shouting it all out in the street and at work. Or, more accurately, like airing your views in the UK Sun, New York Times, on CNN and all of them together. Except that what you say on the internet will reach millions more people than all those media together, and reach more influential people than the people in the street or at work. And reach them all at once, there and then.

Remember things you write on the internet may be actionable at law. You may get yourself into serious trouble by a single ill-considered remark - you know about the famous and frightening examples in South Africa recently. You aren’t safe even if you’re hiding behind a pseudonym, or just clicking the ‘Like’ button. Someone may RT you, with dates and times and a critical comment.

Remember, above all, that what you write is permanent. It may come back to bite you from long ago and faraway.

After You’ve Written

Remember the first point in Before You Write and be prepared to encounter at least four types of respondents: [a] people who agree with you; [b] people who are prepared to have a rational disagreement; [c] people who are only looking for an argument; [d] people who like to insult and abuse anyone available.

You don’t need any advice on types [a] and [b] because these are presumably the people you wish to engage on your subject. But never get personal or rude, even if you find you strongly disagree and s/he scores a good point. S/he is entitled to her/his opinion like you and may be as smart as you. Maybe smarter.

Type [c] - amateur arguers (AAs) - are difficult to detect at first. They write something to snare you. It may seem reasonable, even polite. But as soon as you begin to suspect someone is in it just for an argument, watch for these tell tale signs and do not fall into the trap:

1. AAs will dispute anything you say but never answer any of your points. Watch for that particularly; it is the first sure giveaway. Do not repeat what you said or defend it. Do not deny accusations and say you did not say that; AAs will say you did. Remember you are being drawn into an endless argument, which is all the AA is about. Whether or not that works, AAs also try to escalate the argument.

2. Escalation can be detected in a number of ways. An AA will accuse you of saying something you did not say, and also of saying the very opposite of what you said. Another ploy is to switch the argument by moving on from the original subject. Be wary of answering remarks like - “So you’re saying that …?” or “Why are you defending such-and-such?” - when you are not saying or defending any such things and never would. Don’t start to do so with an AA then.

3. Here is a splendid way to remember all this. In one of his great sketches, John Cleese runs a ‘Buy-an-Argument’ shop. An argument costs you £5. A customer pays over his £5 but Cleese says and does nothing. The customer therefore says he wants an argument. ‘No you don’t,’ says John Cleese. 

4. Even if it gets that silly, never become rude or personal. That is not because the person who becomes rude loses the argument; it is because any fool can be rude back.  You are escalated into category [d] and set yourself up for insults.

5. Lastly, AAs always want the last word. It is what they are about and futile to try beating them at their own game by having the last word yourself. They will come back as long as you carry on, because - always remember - their aim is to have an argument. When you’ve said what you want, stop. Let the AA have the last word. You’ll be pleasantly surprised how feebly it reads, last.

6. Under no circumstances ignore any of these points. Unless, of course, you are looking for an argument yourself.  

7. In the same way, with regard to category [d], repeat: never resort to personal abuse. Unless you don’t mind personal abuse in return.

8. Add any points I’ve missed. These days we writers need all the help we can get.