Zuma’s jackboot bulldozing
President Thabo Mbeki had no choice but to dismiss Jacob Zuma. Right? Wrong! There were several alternatives to deal with a man with struggle credentials second to none and a more affable personality than any other in government. As deputy president, he deserved to be treated with dignity befitting his status, not fired in unseemly haste like a casual worker.
Zuma could have been suspended until a judicial commission investigated his involvement in the Schabir Shaik affair. Mbeki could also have called an imbizo of alliance partners to decide his future, or waited for an indictment.
No citizen, least of all the deputy president, is expendable for considerations of expediency and image. The people have voted in a government not to pander to the whims of an opportunistic opposition, indulge an insatiable media or placate world opinion. Which world? Which opinion?
An extremely dangerous precedent has been set. The constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence and due process have been violated by a president who holds forth eloquently on the centrality of our democratic Constitution.
The dismissal is reminiscent of the jackboot bulldozing by apartheid apparatchiks, devoid of the sensitivity we have grown accustomed to in the new democracy. Public opinion and the press being fickle, this unseemly deviation will undoubtedly return to haunt the African National Congress.
A thought for cogitation: when enemies begin to praise you exuberantly, it is a sure sign that you have fallen into a hole of their making. — Bhan Mahabir, La Lucia
Dumisani Mthalane of the South African National Civics Organisation has asked, in response to Zuma’s sacking: “Is this decision in the interest of the First World or South Africans?”
The sad thing about democracy is that you have to accommodate people with pea-brain opinions because they have rights like everyone else. The Zuma saga has exposed plenty of pea brains. — George Makola, Tembisa
What has become of the proud Mail & Guardian? You get a chance to nail Zuma down on questions of vital importance, and the result is a pathetic effort that lets him laugh all his problems away. Whatever happened to hard questions? — Thomas Knemeyer, Cape Town
Many have lauded Mbeki’s action not for the reasons he gave but because it serves their political interests.
The opposition is happy because it sees cracks in the unity and cohesion of the African National Congress and, possibly, the stalling of the national democratic revolution. — Phillip Musekwa, Germiston
The Zuma affair has brutally exposed the limitations of one-party “democracy”. Instead of being hailed as correct by all sides in the tripartite alliance, Mbeki’s stand is now sullied as “injustice” by the one interest, and used to smear all opposition as disreputable by the other.
The world’s oldest democracies never stop learning that there is no harm in dissent; harm comes from suppressing it. An open split in the ANC alliance is the only honest step now towards greater freedom for all. It comes with risk, but the alternative carries more. — Paul Whelan, Umhlanga
The bashing of JZ by the media has reached sickening proportions. You show no respect for a man whose sacrifices gave you the liberty to write.
Where were you when Zuma was incarcerated for 10 years? When he risked his life and received no remuneration for his tireless work?
Today the Wouter Bassons of this world are protected, while our heroes are persecuted and vilified by ungrateful scoundrels like those who work for the M&G. — Sipho Dlamini
The ANC Youth League must immediately stop its campaign of misleading South Africa’s youth. What Mbeki did to his deputy, he did in the interests of everyone in the country. We cannot afford to have a person in South Africa’s second highest office with dark clouds hanging over him.
Those who support him can continue doing so, but without going to extremes and confusing the youth, like league president Fikile Mbalula.
Mbalula — stop now, or you will lose me as your supporter. Stop personalising this whole thing! — Luphert Chilwane, Diepkloof, Soweto
The Durban Youth Day celebration reflected the confusion of our youth on the Zuma issue. It is of the essence that it is cleared. — Sibusiso Mimi, Cape Town
Zuma is a great statesman; he has the support of many South Africans and can lead us. If anything, he knows what could happen if he strays from his duty to the people. I hope this is a lesson learnt.
I urge him to have his day in court and, should he be innocent, make a comeback in the government. — Christopher James
I foresee a political split in the ANC if Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma is appointed to succeed her ex-husband.
The problem will start when she expects the party to forward her to the presidential seat, which will not easily happen. — Foster Mohale, Skhiming-Bolobedu
Oprah dig gross prejudice
Krisjan Lemmer’s June 17 column (“Zulu yawn”) displays the gross prejudice and stereotyping some South Africans, white and black, exhibit in relation to the rest of Africa. Oprah Winfrey’s claim to be a Zulu is nothing new; she is one in a long list of black American celebrities who claim African identities. Maya Angelou, Isaac Hayes and Rita Marley have at various times claimed various West African identities, from Asante to Ibo.
For Lemmer, Oprah’s claim can only be linked to the fact that South Africa boasts five-star hotels. Such a statement can only come from one who has not seen beyond the borders of Limpopo, for not only do cities like Dakar, Accra and Abuja rival Johannesburg in terms of five-star hotels, but they provide a far better ambience.
This attitude that anywhere north of the Limpopo represents the dark side of continent does not help our quest for an “African renaissance”. — Kofi Mangesi, Durban
Were bullets a myth?
Helen Zille of the Democratic Alliance has demonstrated the attitude of denial among the privileged in South Africa by referring to the rally showcasing the Freedom Charter last Saturday as an African National Congress attempt to revive “struggle mythology”.
The Freedom Charter is the vision and mission statement binding all liberation movements that struggled for South Africa’s freedom, and is aligned with the United Nations declaration of human and children’s rights.
I knew this when I was six years old. What excuse does Zille have for her ignorance?
My question to her is: Were the bullets that entered our children on June 16 1976 also mythological? Where is the real opposition in South Africa? — Camaren Peter
Something rotten in Ga-Modjadji
In April 2003, 30 000 tribes-people, accompanied by African National Congress officials and dignitaries from far and wide, attended the inauguration of Mmokobo Modjadji VI as the sixth Queen of the Bolebedu tribe in direct descent from the “Rain Queen” Modjadji I.
Yet two years later, the queen lies dead, her brother has fled the country and her baby daughter and heir, Princess Masalanabo, is living under the protection of her lover’s family away from Ga-Modjadji. The following facts are even more disturbing:
Three generations of Modjadji royal women have died in just four years. Princess Makhaela Modjadji died mysteriously in 2001, followed a few days later by her mother, Queen Mokope Modjadji. Now Makhaela’s daughter, Modjadji VI, also lies dead.
At the time of her death, Mmokobo Modjadji VI was involved in a court battle with a rival lineage over her matriarchal family’s rights to the Bolebedu throne.
ó
Clearly something is very wrong in Limpopo. Whatever the cause of the Queen’s death, her devoted Bolebedu subjects have a right to the truth. A judicial commission of inquiry would be a good start. — Douglas Mackinnon, Johannesburg
Only ICC can do justice
The Sudanese government remains resolute in its attempts to avoid accountability for its human rights violations in Darfur. The authorities are also devising new methods of repression, with the latest tactic being the use of Darfur’s scattered water sources to attack civilians.
On June 1 Janjaweed militia and government forces attacked the Tormeez well, north of the town of Kuttum, leaving one dead and another seriously injured, while other civilians abandoned their belongings and fled. Dead animals and other toxic materials are thrown into water sources by the militias and government forces.
Immediately after the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate mass slaughters and rapes in Darfur, Sudan announced the formation of a special court to do the same work.
That the ICC move has caused deep agitation in ruling circles was highlighted by former United States president Jimmy Carter, who said he suspected the perpetrators of abuses in Darfur were “nervous now as they contemplate the possibility at least that ICC could be a forum in which they might be tried for their crimes”.
Senior members of the Sudanese court are among the 51 referred to the ICC under sealed indictment. The court lacks all credibility, competence and impartiality.
Significantly, certain suspected officials have vanished from the spotlight. The lately resigned Sudanese minister of interior, Abdel Rahim Hussein, bears responsibility for crimes against humanity in Darfur.
Kolawle Olaniyan, director of Amnesty International’s Africa programme, has condemned the court as “a tactic by the Sudanese government to avoid prosecution by the ICC”.
The Sudanese authorities are also trying to get rid of all those who may have knowledge of mass graves or have other evidence of government crimes. Aid workers are being threatened, harassed and attacked — hence the recent arrest of staff of Médécins Sans Frontières.
In his recent visit to Kalma camp, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan described the conditions as “heart-wrenching” and said “the culture of impunity that has taken hold in Darfur … must stop”. Growing insecurity would only make humanitarian aid more difficult to deliver.
For the slaughters, rapes, widespread destruction of villages in Darfur, only the ICC can provide credible justice. Those responsible for the murder of 400 000 and the displacement of 2,5-million will not hold themselves accountable in a court of their own making. — Ahmed Mohamedain, The Netherlands
When will SA act?
Thein Win rightly reminds us of the need to remember Burma and not to forget Aung Sung Suu Kyi’s 60th birthday (“Memory and forgetting”, June 17).
Six years ago, at the invitation of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, and with the knowledge of the South African Presidency, I spent two weeks on the Thai-Burma border talking to Burmese refugees about what they expected from South Africa and from the political change in this country. To a man — unfortunately I mostly spoke with men — they had high expectations of the things that South Africans might do to help deliver them from their own political nightmare.
Despite a report I submitted to the governments of Norway and South Africa, nothing has happened.
Isn’t it time for us to have a serious discussion on why this country has done so little to fulfil these high expectations? Or shall we, like the West over apartheid, wait until Burma’s only true political leader, Suu Kyi, like Nelson Mandela, has spent 27 years out of the public eye before we get round to doing something? — Peter Vale, Nelson Mandela Professor of Politics, Rhodes University
Oblivious
Where are the human rights activists and world leaders while a multitude of desperate, destitute, freezing Zimbabwean families plead for help as their demon-possessed leader continues his reign of terror?
Only an insane person could be so cruel as to destroy the shacks of thousands of poor people.
Our government is in a prime position to make a difference, but seems oblivious to what is happening.
To quote American singer Bob Dylan: How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry? How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died? — Judy van Aardt, East London
E-mail a letter to the editor
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.