Scene of the crime: The media should have asked Judge Ian Farlam
M&G‘s unforgivable sin is blaming Number One
The Mail & Guardian editorial Number One’s unforgiveable sins was very angry, with more hype than substance. Editorials are usually balanced views on a particular matter, taking facts into account before pronouncement. The use of words such as “callous”, “impunity” and “slaughter” is reflective of an editorial team that sits as judge, jury and rules committee. This cannot be the ethos of an editorial team committed to a progressive code of conduct for the fourth estate.
In this editorial, as in so many in the M&G lately, the attack on President Jacob Zuma is personal and vindictive. We need to fight ideas with better ideas, ensuring editorials deal with content and structure as opposed to hyperbole and slander.
When the Marikana report was released to the president by Judge Ian Farlam, the president said that because of the gravity of the report’s content he required time to consider it and the actions required. He set June 30 as a deadline for his response.
Yet, despite this, civil society organisations launched an unnecessary high court application for the immediate release of the report – which the court rejected.
The only explanation is that these organisations are using our courts to further a political cause. This is precisely what Judge Dennis Davis warned about when he said: “When politics fails, the last (and often only) avenue left to affected parties is to proceed to court. The courts in this country are thus faced with making decisions which may fly in the face of an executive commission or omission … When, as in recent times, the executive loses cases, the role of the courts is then scrutinised with ever-increasing levels of criticism … Courts are then caught in … a sterile ideological struggle.”
More and more civil society formations are attacking the political mandates of the ANC. I do not have a problem with this, if you declare your interests in the political domain. Fight an election against the ANC and rubbish it before the electorate, not before our courts.
The M&G argues, without a shred of evidence, that the president treats the widows of Marikana with contempt, and has callous disregard for the dead. This is preposterous and grossly unfair. It is precisely this level of generalisation that gets the ANC worried about the role the media is adopting against the ANC.
After Marikana, the president appointed the commission to investigate. It did inspections in loco and cross-examined the deputy president, the national commissioner of police, the leaders of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union leaders and the National Union of Mineworkers and others.
Farlam and the commissioners wrote the report. The president, with no censorship, released the report. Every word in the report is that of Farlam and the commissioners, but who gets attacked by the media and certain civil society organisations for the report’s “failures”? Judge Farlam? No. The sole “failure” of the report rests with the president. Why? Surely the authors of the report must answer criticism, if any.
But it’s not proper to attack a judge, so the next best target is the president. The M&G’s version is he needs to take political responsibility for the gaps in the report. What does this mean? Should the president have rejected the report, asked Farlam to defend it, attacked the report for its limitations, or demanded expansion?
The president did what he believes to be the correct action in terms of his government. If the media wants a different set of outcomes, ask Farlam why his report is so restricted. Nobody questioned the commission’s terms of reference.
Marikana is a blight on the history of South Africa – we hang our heads in shame. But to respond without due process is irrational. Our media and parts of civil society cannot have it both ways.
It’s clear certain media houses take the view Zuma must go now. This they are entitled to. But allow the ANC to govern based on its electoral mandate of 2014. Let’s not be fork-tongued for political expediency’s sake, just to try to remove a sitting president. – Marius Fransman, Western Cape ANC chairperson
Climate policy may harm industrial growth
The Chemical and Allied Industries’ Association (CAIA) wishes to point out the lack of context and inaccurate use of information from a brief slide presentation it made to the Davis committee in Corporate SA promotes carbon myths.
The CAIA has a history of constructively contributing to the development of sound government policy and, as a member of Business Unity South Africa, actively engages in discussions about the contribution business and industry have made and will make to climate change mitigation.
The association is not against the further development of climate change policy, but calls for the consideration of a number of factors, such as the economic slowdown, the delay in power stations coming online and the requantification of the remaining mitigation potential.
Though it can be agreed that the carbon intensity of the South African economy should be reduced in a phased manner, there is no urgency for this to take place.
South Africa continues to expand its fleet of coal-fired power stations. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from these sources alone account for about half South Africa’s total GHG emissions. This is contradictory to South Africa’s overall climate change mitigation policy.
Significant investments have been made by industry players to mitigating GHG emissions, without regulatory or economic instruments being imposed by government.
Climate change policy is an ideal starting point to implement government’s renewed commitment to do socioeconomic impact assessments when new legislation is contemplated. The CAIA fully supports such assessments, but advises that updates to the mitigation potential analysis and the peak-plateau-decline trajectory be undertaken to reflect the status quo. The CAIA has called for a clear indication of the remaining mitigation potential and an understanding of how implementing amended climate change policies will affect a fragile economy.
Along with the electricity supply catastrophe, climate policy in South Africa runs the real risk of causing increased deindustrialisation. Its negative effects must be seen in the light of future growth and stability and the economic freedom of its citizens. – Deidre Penfold, executive director, CAIA