Jabulani Mzaliya
right to reply
A cursory reading of Craig Tanner’s Letters to the Best Man (February 2 to 8) may excite literary fundi as an honest attempt at avante garde satire. However, the subtext is that Dr Essop Pahad is like a monkey sitting on the President’s shoulder only so that the President may look nice by comparison. At its insidious worst, the text portrays Dr Pahad as a celebrated, if not self-conceited nose-wiper to the President. Were we not grown used to the desperate attempts of some sections of the media in this country to rubbish, if not the transitional project, then its driving personalities, the article would be considered seditious.
In desperation, the tabloid which gained my respect in pre-1994, has relegated itself to a gutter tabloid, taking a leaf from its Fleet Street counterparts which thrive on innuendo and vendetta. As the tabloid sinks to the wet part of the pit lavatory, it tries to bring in more guns to shoot at the post-apartheid political institutions and personalities and these guns shooting with cascading frequency, with the ebonian leadership being at a far more receiving end than its albinocratic counterparts.
Rolling back pre-1994 now appears to be the raison d’tre for the tabloid’s existence. If this is not done through the venom of the editorials, it surfaces through mathematicians-turned-ersatz-political analysts-turned-popcorn-associate editors and new columns such as Letters to the Best Man complete the array of counter-revolutionary forces. Just where and when the credible journalists made a Paul-to-a- lobotomised-Saul conversion still baffles but that is the stuff treasonable actions are made of.
Creating the impression that there are Africans who are as fed up with the current transition as their former oppressors does not hide the faddishness with which some in the current media approach the post apartheid state. There can be no fear of compunction in stating the obvious that working under an illusion of a press that should keep the State on it toes as a democratic expression, the narcissism relished by the editorship shines through. The recent recruits to editor’s crusade against the Presidency, and the President in particular, makes people wonder as to what the President is supposed to do to placate his eternal enemies, if only to allow himself space to concentrate on the issues of national and international importance at hand without worrying about the destructive section of the South African media.
As perfectly timed as farting in Mandeni (with due respect to people of Isithebe), Tanner’s invective leaves nobody in doubt as to realise that it was meant to impugn Dr Pahad’s status before his address to the Independent Newspaper Group. At one point it therefore becomes a crusade to arrest the democratic advance but also to raise the newspaper stakes in the light of the growing competition, at another.
Coming soon after the tabloid’s “expose” on arms procurement articles, the sequel had to be created when the story ran long enough to cause reader fatigue. Tanner could not find the cast so he had to create one a Machiavellian, octopus-like character who had all his tentacles in all spheres of government. Perfect too that he is Minister in the Presidency. And double perfect that his brother is a junior Minister.
On the unrelenting yet unsuccessful barraging of the new institutions, one cannot help but notice attempts to bananise the current transition. This desperation turns into a nightmare as the country improves its status, while at the same time it improves the lives of its people. For some obstructionists, the success is too much for their post-1994 prescience.
For the record, Tanner’s ambitious aspirations to a Ministerial position finds support in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, in the drafting and the finalisation of which Dr Pahad played an important part. It is my view that it is not so much Tanner’s unwillingness to test his popularity among the voters, as it is his messianic tendencies to cast aspersions, not only on Dr Pahad but also on the President himself and the entire Cabinet. The sum total of his invective is that the President, out of malfeasance, used no other criteria than his blind loyalty to his friend.
Dr Pahad’s contribution to the liberation of this country, and his dedication to sustaining its democracy through alleviation of hunger, poverty, disability and discrimination against women makes him an ideal choice for serving in that office. Of course he knows the President, and perhaps they are friends, but unlike the previously privileged class in apartheid South Africa which had to match-make their siblings’ friends, the President’s and Pahad’s was forged as a logical consequence of their resolve to eradicate the system of oppression. They did not meet teeing off at the 19th hole of a Sandton golf course. Their friendship was forged by the struggle but this does not remove from the President the prerogative to appoint him in his Cabinet, if he is convinced that he has what it takes to contribute significantly to his vision.
The surreptitious reference that the Ministry/Department of Arts Culture, Science and Technology is a demeaning responsibility displays the failure to understand integrated governance and immediately plays to the general hullabaloo from one section of the country about the decisive action that the Ministry has taken against the white elephant Arts Performing Councils. For the record, the Ministry/Department carries more responsibilities than some Ministries and they have, in my view done a tremendous job.
To blame Deputy Minister Pahad for being Essop’s brother is unfortunate as this is a natural phenomenon over which neither had control. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is at the coal face of the rapidly globalising world, leading some objective analysts who are broader in their analysis than writing about Zimbabwe ad infinitum, to concede that South Africa is punching above its weight.
The perks Tanner refers to in Cabinet postings are commensurate to the performance expected of them with an exit possibility for under- performance. It is surprising that character assassins of Tanner’s ilk shy away from interrogating the packages of corporate leaders.
No one controls the pedals of the tabloid movements, but the negativity with which it has approached its mandate, creates a stereotyping of a White-controlled media singing panegyric ululations to the Opposition without due credit to people who drafted the constitution that gave the same media the freedom it never dreamt of. We do not seek praise- singers, but our public watchdogs must also act with responsibility. It is at times like these, when ordinary people start questioning whether the transition has not created its own Frankenstein by permitting media freedom, the prospects for true democracy are threatened and history will show that some sections of the media were their own worst enemy. It is also at times like this when the victims of character assassinations deliberately waive their right of rebuttal that questions begin to surface whether the press is doing enough to be taken seriously or not. It appears the more people let the press go unchallenged, the more it makes itself insignificant to the entrenchment of democracy.
Jabulani Mzaliya works in the advisory section of the Presidency. He is writing here in his private capacity. This is an unedited version of his article