CABINET’S decision to “provide a comprehensive package of care for survivors of sexual assault” and to strive for a complete universal roll-out to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/Aids has, understandably, been described as a turning point, a breakthrough, a triumph of reason and a victory for the people. To those infected and affected, the decision removes the unbearable weight of gloom and doom.
Considering President Thabo Mbeki’s sponsorship and resolute pursuit of dissident ideas on HIV/Aids, the turnaround has the elements of a melodrama à la paradigmatic shift. It represents a belligerent and rapid overthrow of a regime of misguided ideas. For those with biblical orientation, it evokes images of a Damascene experience. It hopefully brings to a close the fruitless debates on whether HIV causes Aids or whether HIV exists and an end to suggestions that poverty causes Aids.
Most importantly, the shift comes three weeks after the African National Congress’s national executive committee (NEC) had taken the most retrogressive position yet on the epidemic. With typical arrogance and buffoonery, the ANC argued: “The hypothesis that HIV causes Aids is an assumption.” That “it would not provide nevirapine to HIV-positive women”; and that “the efficacy of the use of anti-retrovirals [for sexual assault or needle-stick injury] was unproven.” It would therefore not be “stampeded into precipitate action by pseudo-science, an uncaring drive for profits or an opportunistic clamor for cheap popularity”.
In making the shift, Mbeki underscored his independence from the ANC, effectively exposing the organisation as simply a bunch of idiots swimming against the tide of mainstream opinion. Luckily for him, he comes out looking better than the ANC.
The sense of optimism, however, should not stop us from asking penetrating questions. We need to ask: What was the fuss all about? What lessons can be derived from this saga? How was it possible that one person could hold the country to ransom for so long? Responding to these questions should help us appreciate the weakness of our democracy. We should, accordingly, isolate the factors, forces and processes at play. It’s much like decomposing white light into various colours.
First, the turnaround could not have been influenced by new medi-cal evidence. There has not been any revolutionary insight or stupendous scientific information on HIV/Aids that has come to the fore in the past two years. Mbeki has always had the best Aids scientists at his disposal. Instead, he preferred the comfort and folly of Aids dissidents.
Second, the turnaround comes after thousands of lives were sacrificed. By the time the government implements its decision more than 50 000 South African babies will have been born with HIV. Half of these could have been saved if a single dose of nevirapine were given to mothers during labour and to the babies within 72 hours of birth.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that Mbeki buckled under internal pressure. For more than two years he dismissed and navigated through a storm of criticism from the broad spectrum of South African society. Many patriots were dismissed as counter-revolutionaries, unpatriotic and un-African. The intervention of the likes of archbishops Desmond Tutu and Ndungane Njonkulu and former presidents Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter seemed to magnify his obstinacy. Confident of his political stature, Mbeki accused anti-Aids activists and scientists of “populism and the opportunism that derives from cheap politicking or from benefits lavished by the lobby of powerful local and international interests”.
Instead of owning up to his failures, Mbeki puts the blame on shortcomings in government communication. He undermines the intelligence of South Africans.
Let’s cut through the crap. Evidently Mbeki suffers from a serious bout of amnesia. Did he not boldly assert that a “virus cannot cause a syndrome”? Or revise basic medical understanding by saying “a syndrome is a collection of diseases”? Did he not embrace dissidents who held the view that HIV does not cause Aids and that HIV is harmless? Did he not use six-year-old statistics to dispute suggestions that HIV/Aids is the country’s leading killer? In typical Mbeki fashion, he conveniently overlooked the 2000 UNAids statistics, available on the Internet at the time, which estimated that 250 000 South Africans died of Aids during 1999. He sought comfort to the 1995 figure of 2 653.
Did he not unleash the dissidents to lead a vigorous media campaign in his name? Did he not deliberately misquote and half quote scientific texts to justify his misguided views? The intervention of Tony Leon – yes, he of the Democratic Alliance – exposed Mbeki’s intellectual dishonesty. He came to Mbeki’s assistance by finishing the quotes.
And Mbeki expects South Africans to believe that the problem is communication? Mbeki’s refusal to own up to his failures provoked a sharp rebuke from Bantu Holomisa.
“Communication did not break down – a great deal of communication was dedicated to genocidal dissident views. [Mbeki] must immediately and unreservedly apologise to the people of South Africa, especially the women who have until now been denied treatment for HIV/Aids in cases of rape, and also apologise to those women who did not receive treatment that could have saved the lives of their unborn children.”
How could he? Haven’t those with twisted minds praised him for his aloofness to human suffering? His refusal to visit the late Nkosi Johnson is depicted as a virtue – proving him to be a president who does not pander to populism or social expectations. It must gnaw him that Nkosi has become an international symbol and human face of HIV/Aids.
Clearly, neither wisdom nor internal pressure can explain Mbeki’s turnaround. The puzzle is solved when we factor in Mbeki’s ambition to become an international statesman. It is a realisation that depends on the success of his pet project, the New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development.
The success of the project depends on it being endorsed by Africa’s colonial masters. These masters have expressed their disquiet over Mbeki’s stance both on Zimbabwe and on HIV/Aids. Like a modern day Uncle Tom he had to identify with his masters on both counts, leaving behind a confused ANC. Mbeki can afford to deviate from party position or policy. Other members would be accused of lacking revolutionary discipline.
In a profound sense, in stripping the provinces of the power to elect premiers, and local communities to elect executive mayors, the ANC has colluded in its own bondage. The party is nothing more than a convenient vehicle to massage Mbeki’s ego and his ambition.
There we have it – the masses elect, the [Western] masters dictate! Painful thought for those seeking African solutions.