The Mail & Guardian’s editorial of October 25, “Stop beating the war drums”, is welcome. Political tensions in KwaZulu-Natal are high, and the Inkatha Freedom Party’s reported intimidation of IFP councillors during the two-week window for defections should not be tolerated.
IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi says his party respects the rule of law. The floor-crossing legislation was voted in with an 86% majority of the National Assembly, giving councillors the democratic right to defect should their consciences dictate. In our emerging democratic order, political parties such as the IFP, which brazenly flout the law with war talk, should be speedily dealt with by the security forces.
In the brief period before the defection window, pending the Constitutional Court judgement on the constitutionality of floor-crossing, an African National Congress councillor from Tongaat, James Mthembu, was gunned down. On the eve of the floor-crossing, an IFP councillor from Umlazi, Bhekinkosi Mhlongo, was murdered. Two IFP members are on trial for the slaying.
IFP threats and intimidation of would-be defectors throughout the province was widely reported — a situation Albert Mncwango, the IFP’s national organiser, openly justified to the M&G.
The IFP is not “justifiably angry that its control of the province is under threat because of a legislative sleight of hand”. This is a fraud propagated by the IFP. In the 1999 national elections no political party, including the IFP, obtained a simple majority to control KwaZulu-Natal. The IFP and ANC/Minority Front alliance share equal support in the provincial legislature, with 42%, or 34 seats, each.
The fact that there is an IFP premier in KwaZulu-Natal is at the behest of the ANC, for no other reason. The ANC/IFP coalition agreement clearly spelt out equal power and status for both parties in provincial government.
That the IFP has violated this agreement at every turn, threatening the fabric of peace in the province, is something on which history will judge.
The IFP has held our province to ransom for too long. For every step forward South Africa makes towards democratic advancement, KwaZulu-Natal takes two steps back into a mindless abyss. We ask President Thabo Mbeki to liberate us from this tyranny. — Belinda Scott (KwaZulu-Natal MPL, recently defected from the DA to the ANC), Durban
Your editorial “Stop beating the war drums” asserts that the IFP is “threatening a regression to violence if it does not get its own way”. No IFP leader has said that the party will resort to violence if the ANC succeeds in illegitimately gaining control of KwaZulu-Natal.
It is not the IFP that has shown such wanton disregard for constitutional democracy, but the ANC. It was the ANC who sought to actively recruit defectors from its coalition partner, the IFP.
It was the IFP that displayed “a level of maturity” in suggesting that the parties sign a pact not to accept defectors from each other, only to be rebuffed by ANC. It is the ANC, not the IFP, that continues to choose short-term political gain and rejects the greater prize of reconciliation and peace in KwaZulu-Natal.
If violence breaks out in the province it will be an expression of the electorate’s anger at the ANC’s “gerrymandering” of our Constitution for political gain, not “the rhino clarion horn” (whatever that means) of the IFP.
I know of no other genuine democracy in which a party can come to power by defections without the express consent of the electorate. In most democracies the opposition calls a vote of no confidence if it wishes to dislodge the administration between elections. If the government loses the vote, a general election is called and the people decide. The same rule applies if parties wish to change the governing configuration mid-term.
The nub of this debate is, therefore, the long-term damage that the ANC’s floor-crossing legislation, within the present electoral arrangements, has done to the consolidation of democracy in South Africa. — Albert Mncwango, MP
Opposition is good for government
The Mail & Guardian’s editorial (“Don’t write off the right wing”, November 1) implies that opposition politics “reinforces negative perceptions about South Africa”, which in turn “encourages extremists to fight back”.
The Soweto bombings are a terrible incident and a blow against democracy and the communities concerned. But it is irresponsible to use it to corral everyone into a single (African National Congress) camp.
It is too easy to paint oppositional politics as subversive or disloyal. The truth is that strong, independent and principled opposition is an essential part of democracy. As competition is good for business, opposition is good for government.
Any opposition is mandated to hold the government to account, point out what is wrong and offer practical alternatives. In a country where the majority party is centralising power and marginalising Parliament, the role that oppositional politics plays becomes more important.
The Democratic Alliance performs this role proudly because it is good for South Africa.
Indeed, if there is “negativity” it is largely the consequence of government action and inaction.
The M&G’s argument implies that the DA should keep quiet about the scourge of baby rape (surely not caused by any “negativity” on our part). Perhaps it is “too negative” to discuss the out- of-control arms deal at R60-billion and rising. Perhaps we should refrain from calling the minister of education to account for the R72-million wasted on an outcomes-based education exam never to be written. Perhaps the M&G itself should not have drawn attention to the fact that none of the 500 000 promised learners had registered for the minister of education’s adult literacy initiative one year after its launch.
It was the M&G, rather than the DA, that suggested President Thabo Mbeki was not fit to rule, exposed the shenanigans in the fuel industry and accused the ANC of the “Zanufication” of our politics.
The point surely is plain — if the opposition is too negative, so is the press. If the government wants government-controlled opposition it will soon want a government-controlled press (or it has one anyway with its so-called media diversity programme).
Perhaps the M&G has changed its tune along with its editor. But the DA has a contract with the voters and will continue to honour it. — James Selfe, DA chairperson of the Federal Council, Cape Town
I agree with your editorial (“Don’t write off the right wing”) — the venom of extremism is largely fuelled by political parties that deliberately paint a desperate picture of the country and its future. Our politics have assumed an opportunistic character, where politicians say things they do not really mean. These utterances are misinterpreted by those looking for an excuse to challenge the status quo.
If this tendency is allowed to manifest itself fully, it will destroy every effort made to bring us this far. In the long term, it may have a devastating effect on our stability. — Ferdinand Mabelane, Johannesburg
There’s blood on their cricket bats
Minister of Sport and Recreation Ngconde Balfour’s alleged racist utterances need to be seen in the context of the frustration he faces at the hegemony of the United Cricket Board (UCB).
The puppet-masters pulling the strings of the Uncle Toms that are the public face of South African cricket are the same ones who have controlled the sport for decades.
Many of them were players and administrators during the “rebel” tours to our country; some were even active during the Basil D’Oliviera snub. Few walked away from the game in disgust; most carried on playing, bleating about sports sanctions in their segregated sports clubs, enjoying professional careers in English counties and building networks to continue their careers once their playing days were over. This is now culminating in the hosting of the Cricket World Cup — the highlight of their sporting career built on a racist foundation.
The psychological effect, particularly of rebel tours, was to prolong the existence of the government by misleading whites into believing that “everything is all right” and that although the world wanted nothing to do with them, they could still beat all comers. It’s a pity the truth commission did not investigate sport — it would have helped to root out the rot we see in so many codes.
If the voters for the previous regime had been stripped of all sporting contact and had seen leading players set an example by refusing to play against sanction-busters, the Nats might have been pressured into letting go earlier. Whether they like it or not, there is blood on their cricket bats! Why are these apartheid agents still running cricket? –David J Ntoni, Cape Town
Any “debate” concerning quotas in sporting codes was effectively ended when President Mbeki mused aloud — in the manner of “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest” — that a lack of success at international level might be acceptable if it meant that more of “our people” were involved. Presidents (and kings) do not muse aloud to no purpose, especially if they know themselves to be surrounded by sycophants. The only outstanding matters from that moment were the timing and the methods, and it is the timing that Balfour seems to have got wrong.
Some sort of truce or compromise will be reached with the UCB until the Cricket World Cup is over, after which time the matter will be “revisited”. By this time next year quotas will be back. — R Elder, Riebeeckstad
Down and out in the new SA
Reg Rumney, why don’t you meet Denise? I was standing next to her on April 27 1994 when Nelson Mandela said: “Do not think of what the nation did for you, but what you did for the nation.” She nodded and said: “I did my part.”
Little did she know that eight years later she would be facing eviction, her telephone cut off, her son addicted to drugs and her daughter dependent on family handouts for food. Denise was a trade union militant of the early 1980s who led a strike. Blacklisted, she never found another job.
She is one of the millions who form part of the statistical debate about how good the new government is — one of the 700 000 with telephones they would not have without the God of Privatisation. Her son is one of the 350 000 school leavers who have turned to drugs, partly because Telkom, Eskom and Transnet are shedding jobs.
It would be nice if Telkom gave her 30 free phone calls a month, if the municipality provided 100 litres of water, if she had access to a R100 income grant so her family could eat and have some dignity instead of being hounded in the name of “cost recovery”.
Denise lives a crow’s call away from Constantia, where residents refuse to pay equitised rates and whose children are guaranteed a job in the new South Africa. The part they played in the country’s liberation is small. This is the privatised, commercialised South Africa so wished by Rumney and our leaders. — Moses Glynn Cloete, Diep River
Selfishness
Helen Zille (Letters, November 1) is right. The “racial nationalists” are establishing their hegemony within the African National Congress and this does not bode well for our country and its multiplicity of communities.
“Racial nationalism” is nothing but an attempt to write good old selfishness into public policy.
Concern for a wider group than oneself would seem to fit the bill here. But the hypocrisy is that the promoters also happen to be members of the group that is supposed to benefit.
Selfishness enshrined in public policy, no matter how it is justified, is a cancer which destroys the fabric of society. –Rory Short, Kensington
In brief
John Matshikiza (“Be positive or else!”, November 2) describes the Falklands War as a disastrous and ignoble military campaign. Disastrous for whom? For Galtieri and the despotic regime he led, certainly, but no one else springs to mind. Certainly not the island’s inhabitants, much less the Argentinians themselves, who saw the downfall of a regime that had persecuted them for so long. As for the campaign’s lack of nobility — what better reason is there for going to war than protecting one’s fellow citizens? It’s a pity more present-day leaders don’t protect the people they represent rather than their own interests. The world would be a wealthier and safer place if they did. –PJ Rex, Cape Town
That the Moscow theatre siege and the resultant loss of lives need to be condemned in the strongest terms goes without saying. But the United Nations Charter aims to respect and foster the inalienable right of all peoples to independence. Why has the UN not condemned the Russian extermination campaign against the Chechens, let alone imposed sanctions or authorised the use of force, as it has done in the case of Iraq? –Hajee Musa Tshabalala, Mayfair
For me, the M&G was an intimate weekend flame — foreplay courtesy of the provocative street posters. Its swift descent into a dreary cabbage stew of African National Congress dogma, dogmatists and comradely slagging off is a cautionary reminder of media mortality. The editorials are written by boy scout retards and Krisjan Lemmer is seriously unfunny. Cheers, M&G, it was great while it lasted. –Robin Carlisle
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.