In his recent column, Richard Calland once more recites the tired old mantra that the Democratic Party’s 1999 “fight back” election campaign represented a “conservative agenda far removed from the liberal heritage of the DP” (“Campaign 2004 starts now”, October 25).
This analysis can only be sustained if one assumes that the African National Congress’s offer to the electorate was a package of progressive and enlightened policies that could herald a better life for all. If this were so, then “fighting back” would indeed represent a conservative position.
But to many of us the ANC’s dominant agenda was already crystal clear by 1999. The racial nationalists had established their hegemony in the movement, marginalising other tendencies that ranged from communists to liberal democrats.
Although these competing voices were sidelined within the ANC, they were not entirely silenced. This is why the ANC continues to reflect its “multiple personalities” in incoherent and contradictory positions ranging from its “neo-liberal” macroeconomic policies to its “workerist” labour dispensation.
But it is becoming increasingly clear that racial nationalism is the priority agenda, trumping the rest when a choice must be made. This position is most clearly articulated by President Thabo Mbeki himself, supported by spokesmen like Smuts Ngonyama and politicians like KwaZulu-Natal’s Dumisane Makhaye.
Their major objective is the “racial nationalist transformation” of all institutions of society, inside and outside the state. In practice this agenda leads to rich returns for the ANC elite, their friends and relations, irrespective of the consequences for the rest of society, particularly the poor. What we are seeing is the growing hegemony within the ANC of the racial nationalism that has become the hallmark of the “post-liberation” era in many Southern African countries, most recently in Zimbabwe and Namibia. It is sensible and progressive to “fight back” against this tendency.
The socialists and communists have taken slightly longer to begin their “fight back” campaign and are now doing so under the leadership of Jeremy Cronin and Willie Madisha from within the tripartite alliance. That is why Marthinus van Schalkwyk and his rag-tag band of racial nationalists in the New National Party have rushed to defend the hegemony of racial nationalism within the ANC. In this way, Van Schalkwyk believes, he has the best chance of securing the future of his inner circle in the process of “race-based” transformation. The coalition of the racial nationalists within the ANC and the NNP makes perfect sense. They share a common, group- based ideology.
Those of us who oppose racial nationalism believe that unless we can transcend the politics of race, and racial mobilisation, we will never establish a non-racial democracy or a viable economy. This is what we will continue to fight for. — Helen Zille, leader of the Democratic Alliance, Western Cape Legislature
Russia must stop paying lip service to human rights
The actions of the armed group who took hostage hundreds of people in a Moscow theatre in the past week must be condemned in the strongest terms.
This is not the first time that Chechen rebels have taken civilians hostage. Chechen rebels have also targeted civilian members of the pro-Moscow administration in attacks that have resulted in dozens of fatalities and serious injuries, and they have kidnapped civilians. Like most conflicts, though, there are two sides to the story.
Amnesty International has actively researched numerous, consistent and credible reports that Russian forces have been responsible for widespread human rights vio- lations such as “disappearances”, unlawful killings and torture, including rape, in Chechnya. When people around the world think about human rights abuses in Russia, they might think about Chechnya. What is much less know, is that the ongoing human rights abuses in that region have been fuelled by the lack of accountability, and that the same climate of impunity unfortunately permeates the entire criminal justice system of Russia.
What this suggests is that the human rights the Russian Federation enshrines on paper have yet to be turned into reality: torture and ill-treatment persist widely because the perpetrators almost always get away with their crimes. The climate of impunity is so grave that even when victims have the courage to seek redress they face countless obstacles in obtaining justice.
Amnesty International recently launched a 102-page report, Denial of Justice, which analyses serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by Russian law enforcement and security forces. The report documents the widespread use of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officers across the Russian Federation. Men, women and children are frequently tortured or ill-treated by police to extract confessions or incriminating information. This treatment has also been persistently reported in pre-trial detention centres and prisons.
The time has come for the Russian authorities to stop paying lip service to human rights. They must now show a clear political commitment to promote and protect fundamental human rights for everybody.
Similarly, the international community can no longer be allowed to stand by and compromise the respect for human rights for other political and economic interests. They must now put pressure on the Russian authorities vigorously to investigate and prosecute in fair trials the perpetrators of human rights violations and to abide by their international obligations to protect human rights for everybody. Major powers cannot be allowed to ignore human rights within their own borders. — Heather van Niekerk, chairperson, Amnesty International South Africa
Is eating fast food in the same league as hunting?
I found Saliem Fakir’s deeply insightful analysis of the ethical issues in the hunting industry a splendid read (“The hunting industry must embrace ethical practices”, October 25). It is encouraging to see that conservation in South Africa has such a broadminded and moral champion.
But I have always been puzzled by people who single out hunting as fundamentally different from other forms of farming. Maybe it is because I grew up on a farm — does this make me vulnerable to dysfunctional ideologies?
Anyway, in my personal view I do not see any ethical, moral or psychological distinction between game farming, fish farming, cattle farming, fruit farming, oyster farming, ostrich farming or bee farming, et cetera. Most living creatures are exploited for the benefit of humankind and those that are not useful to us soon find themselves endangered and shortly extinct. Strange how no domestic animals are on endangered species lists.
I would be interested to know if sport angling is also a “blood sport” that is driven by “the indulgence of the lowest form of human instincts” — maybe not, since anglers are not allowed to use 4x4s anymore.
Apparently it is okay to hunt if you are hungry and for the good of the economy, but not if it involves “rampant commercialism”. Does eating fast food constitute pandering to rampant commercialism? I guess we should only order chips at our favourite fast food drive thru. I’m sure glad I can’t hear the grass screaming over the noise of the lawnmower, how about you, Tonto? — Shane Poultney, Grahamstown
In the US we trust …
John Matshikiza’s recent article “After Saddam, what next” (October 18) refers to the views of some his American friends. I count myself as one of his friends, but must take exception to some points in the article.
First, the history of slavery in the United States can certainly not be viewed outside of the context of European and African involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, all of which is well documented.
Second is the reference to “various treaties the US had made with itself regarding its justified behaviour when it felt that its interests were being threatened”. This, I believe, makes reference to the Monroe Doctrine, the early 19th-century statement of American policy that had the effect of recognising the nascent states of Latin America, while concurrently warning the bickering European states to keep their affairs and disputes confined to Europe. In return, the US expressed no interest in participating in European affairs. This statement of policy was negotiated with the British (who had their own reasons for accepting it) and can be seen as the beginning of American isolationism.
Finally, I uncovered some pre-United Nations legal justification for unilateral military action of states. Under the larger body of international law, grounds assigned for forceful intervention include: self-preservation; intervention in restraint of wrongdoing; intervention by invitation of a party to a civil war; and intervention under the authority of the body of states.
Obviously the UN Charter supersedes these principles from a de jure perspective. However, in the de facto context, the UN forfeits its role if it cannot take the action to enforce its own resolutions. The UN is only able to do this when there is a unique confluence of political interests of the five veto holders of the Security Council. And this does not happen very often.
I, too, seriously question the wisdom of invading Iraq. But at the end of the day I must trust the political and social institutions that are the fabric of American society to make appropriate decisions.
We Americans are not above criticising — even impeaching — our president. But the institution of the presidency survives. Few nations can lay claim to that. — JL Jackson, Johannesburg
Readers don’t want a ‘university rag’
I do not have a problem with who sits on the board of the Mail & Guardian (South Africa’s best newspaper), but I do have a problem with the statement by the new chairperson, Malegapuru William Makgoba: “We have a staff that is young, loyal and committed.”
This statement by the vice- chancellor of the University of Natal implies that only “young” reporters are capable of ensuring the M&G brand remains exciting while at the same time maintaining excellent journalistic integrity and standards.
Piffle. It would seem to me that Makgoba has been around young people for too long and doesn’t realise that there is another world outside of university. As a 67-year-old who has been reading newspapers since I was five, I would like to inform the gentleman that some of the finest, most dedicated and committed journalists are in fact older and experienced writers.
Makgoba also implies that a successful editor would need to be “young”. I’m a long-time reader of the M&G and it’s of little concern to me whether the editor is white or black, or young or older, so long as he can do the job.
If Makgoba wants his young and dedicated team to produce a “university rag” then it doesn’t need a university degree to predict that the M&G circulation is going to take a beating. — Peter Hargreaves
Non-racist rugby
For all African rugby players who love the running and tackling aspects of the game, yet are uncomfortable with its undeniable and deep-rooted association with apartheid culture, there is an answer.
It is called Rugby League. The game was banned not only by apartheid but also by Vichy France, and has been the favourite game of the working class in the pockets of the world in which it has survived.
All African players are invited to investigate the breakaway from racist rugby to a truly multicultural version of the game enjoyed by millions of its loyal fans. — Chris Thomas, New South Wales, Australia
In brief
When Harold Wilson resigned as prime minister of Britain, he announced that he did not believe in the principle of indispensability. Reading “Political anarchy besets Malawi” (October 25), how one wishes African politicians would share such a view. Doing so would bring about an end to tinkering with the Constitution for personal gain. Malawian President Bakili Muluzi is longing for a third term in office. The Constitution will have to be amended — exactly what President Sam Nujoma did in Namibia. There is talk of yet another amendment to the Constitution for a fourth term in office for Nujoma. Zambia’s Frederick Chiluba almost succeeded in getting a third term by attempting to challenge the Constitution, but Zambians and the international community prevailed over him. This is what Africa needs. — Professor Tuntufye S Mwamwenda, University of Natal
While one appreciates that Krisjan Lemmer (possibly not to be confused with the genuinely witty Krisjan Lemmer of the late 1980s) may experience a shortage of interesting snippets on which to vent his spleen, it is regrettable that he should choose a flimsy pun to mock the Catholic Welfare and Development (CWD) agency for providing food for the poor (“Baffling buckets”, October 25). And what do the activities of the CWD (an organisation run by laypeople, incidentally) have to do with the sad incidents of children being abused by priests? Should Lemmer’s efforts be judged likewise against the unethical behaviour of some journalists? The CWD may hand out “Buckets of Love”, but Lemmer has scraped the bottom of his bucket of cynicism. — G Simmermacher
Please include your name and address. Letters must be received by 5pm Monday. Be as brief as possible. The editor reserves the right to edit letters and to withhold from publication any letter which he believes contains factual inaccuracies, or is based on misrepresentation.