Play the facts, not the man
I was astounded by the anti–democratic stand taken against Jacob Zuma in your editorial “Be afraid, be very afraid” (October 14).
Your assertion that Zuma’s actions offer a clear snapshot of what his presidency would be like is totally misplaced. He is on the back foot in a case that the National Prosecuting Authority strangely wants to postpone after almost five years of investigations. His behaviour should be judged in a context of one who is defending himself against accusations, and not that of the presidency.
You refer to Zuma as a populist prepared to pander to the basest instincts of ordinary people. What exactly is populism? Without it and the efforts of the ordinary people, the African National Congress would not have been unbanned and Nelson Mandela would still be in jail. Without it, the ANC government would not be in power.
It is not the intellectuals at the Mail & Guardian who put the ANC and Thabo Mbeki into power, but the ordinary people. Didn’t President Mbeki descend from his ivory tower to pander to the “basest instincts of ordinary people” to get himself re-elected for a second term? Didn’t the ANC use populism to win elections by promising “a better life for all”? “Populism” is a loose term whose meaning is unclear and which can be abused to advance certain arguments. If you have a case against Zuma, argue it factually without resorting to wanton generalisations.
You complain that Zuma has never given his version of the R500 000 bribe message, although he has only to call a press conference to provide it. Perhaps — but what if doing so would compromise his impending case? What if his attorneys advised him against doing this?
And why only Zuma? Why are you not using your investigative journalistic skills to follow up the other two encrypted faxes of a similar nature that “implicate” another high–ranking politician? I’m referring to the ones raised by the Democratic Alliance in Parliament.
You also hint that Zuma needs to be prevented from becoming a presi-dent. I am disappointed that the M&G, like whites under apartheid, seems to be afraid of democracy. The decision on who becomes president lies with the electorate. If voters catapult Zuma to the presidency, everyone who respects democracy — including the M&G — should bow to the wishes of the people. And since when have you been in the business of canvassing support for or against potential presidential candidates?
Another thing — Zuma has every right to express his feelings in an open forum. A dangerous pattern is emerging in South Africa whereby certain pronouncements are regarded as taboo and should not be aired.
The M&G has every right to dis-agree with Zuma, but should do so by playing the facts and not the man. Comments like “If installed as president, it would be reasonable to conclude that Zuma would continue operating in the same way” are premature, reckless, devoid of fact and speculative.
This case is still far too much in its infancy to conclude what a Zuma presidency would be like. We do not even know what revelations — either against or in favour of Zuma — will come out of the trial.
Until then, it would be prudent for the M&G to keep its daggers in the closet, and in the process retain the credibility it has painstakingly established over the years. — Mitchell
Your summary of the appalling situation Zuma is creating was spot on. Most sane people would likewise be appalled at the prospect of a Zuma presidency, for the reasons you list.
He appears to be milking his supporters to the very limit, while showing no loyalty to his country. — Ailison Coles
The M&G is one of the few newspapers — if not the only one — to comment on the alarming potential of the scenes at Zuma’s court appearance in Durban, and the ominous appearance of self-appointed “bodyguards”.
The appearance of similar, if not the same, sinister individuals at Brett Kebble’s funeral was equally disturbing. One was reminded of early events in the rise of Hitler. — D Fowler, Malmesbury
It is obvious that the next president of South Africa will be chosen by ANC members. Those who are “afraid, very afraid” that the next president is not to their liking have a simple remedy.
The ANC is a vibrant institution governed by powerful democratic forces that even the president cannot ignore. If even half of those quivering in their boots would join the ANC and vote on all issues dealing with the succession, their nemesis would be dead in the water — Zuma rather than later. — Olav Jordens, Durban
It has been widely claimed that Zuma has breached a truce between himself and Mbeki. It is breathtaking that the very elements who expelled him and destroyed his chance of becoming the next president want him to abide by an absurd “truce” in which he is expected to maintain the silence of the sacrificial lamb — when his dignity and legitimate place in the history of the struggle is at stake.
The idea is also being flighted that Zuma may receive a presidential pardon if he is willing to drop out of the presidential race! The presidential succession was the reason for his expulsion in the first instance. It is outrageous that this very fact is now being proposed for a plea bargain. To accept it would be to surrender to a devious ploy. — Bhan Mahabir, La Lucia
Health sector buys protection
The (draft) Health Charter makes it clear that private healthcare runs counter to the national interest. Its comments include:
- “There is a small minority of South Africans … who have a high degree of access to health services and a large majority … who have either limited access … or no access at all”;
- “The most significant challenge facing the South African health system is to address the inefficient and inequitable distribution of resources between the public and private healthcare sector” ; and
- “In the private sector membership of medical schemes has become increasingly unaffordable … [even to the middle class].”
Official concern and denunciations like the above — which the South African Municipal Workers’ Union fully supports — are clearly worrisome for those who profit so handsomely from the health business.
Their answer to the threat to their dominance is bribery via BEE (black elite enrichment). Tens of billions of rands secure both security and an expansion of the business that perpetuates the inequities of apartheid. The trick is to create a small number of black shareholders.
Incredibly, the bribery is openly acknowledged. Edwin Hertzog, chairperson of Medi-Clinic, speaking on October 4 about his company becoming 15% black-owned, announced the rationale for BEE: “Private health-care can be an emotional field; we need partners who can put our case clearly to the authorities.”
The protection is already bearing bountiful fruit. Why else should the announcement of the Medi-Clinic deal result in an immediate 6,2% increase in the value of Medi-Clinic shares, despite the deal costing the company more than R1-billion?
How else does one expose the fact that, having exposed private health- care as inimical to the health of the general public, the Health Charter leaves the private health industry undisturbed, provided only that space is made for black ownership? How else does one explain the government’s plan to expand the industry by making private health insurance a compulsory condition of public sector employment? How else does one explain the proposed taxation changes designed to entice more people into private health, at a cost to the state of between R2,6-billion and R3,8-billion? — Jeff Rudin, national research officer, South African Municipal Workers’ Union
A racist attack on racism
‘I was wondering how the Jews and the whites were going to get away with it this time,” writes John Matshikiza in his column slamming “capitalist nigger” Chika Onyeani (“Partying with the Niggeratti”, October 14). Just to ensure everyone got the point, he writes later that Onyeani had “come all the way from America to let the South African white man and Jew off the hook”.
Why does Matshikiza distinguish between Jews and the rest of the white population in this way? He appears to be placing Jews in a separate category and singling them out for a special dose of invective.
The brazen message of his column is not just that whites are the enemy of the black people in South Africa, but that Jews are especially so. Is this how he denounces the evils of racism and discrimination? — David Saks, associate director, Jewish Board of Deputies
I would expect seasoned Mail & Guardian journalists like Matshikiza not to stereotype members of other ethnic groups in such a derogatory way (“Out on a limb at Aardklop”, October 7). And I am puzzled that he should see the Aardklop festival as marking “a gap that had become more deeply marked since the trashing of official apartheid”, rather than a grouping of the rainbow nation celebrating its rich culture. Why should new cultural festivals indicate the perpetuation of old political policy?
At no point during his visit to Aardklop did Matshikiza try to come to some understanding of the event, or to engage critically with Afrikaans speakers — the alleged purpose of his visit. “Very few people are able to learn anything new, most only defend their prejudices” is an observation that seems to apply here. — Inus du Plessis, Centurion
What a sad little dormouse Matshikiza has become. I have yet to meet a single New Yorker uncomfortable with annual St Patrick’s Day festivities in Manhattan.
Sadly, no other South African culture mobilises as proudly as Afrikaners do, on all continents, to celebrate their contribution to the colourful South African pie. Of late, my black compatriots only mobilise in their frenetic attempts to muster noisy support for corrupt politicians. Here you’ll find that Afrikaners are not the only Africans predisposed to beer boeps.
The 10 largest (unsubsidised) cultural get-togethers in South Africa are Afrikaner initiatives, en ALMAL is welkom, my bru! Even racists! — Steve Hofmeyr, Midrand
ABC campaign failing the poor
The plight of domestic workers illustrates why the government’s prevention campaign, “Abstain, Be Faithful, Condomise”, is failing poor women, and why loveLife is making little impact on impoverished communities.
Knowing how the virus is transmitted is necessary, but education alone is insufficient. Ultimately, it is the lack of freedom to make choices that is putting women at risk of infection.
Many employers test domestic workers for HIV without their consent and without counselling. Most domestic workers live in single quarters away from home, making it impossible to have sex, let alone use a condom. If conditions do not allow for having safe sex, domestic workers, like anyone else, will have unsafe sex.
Do employers, the government and trade unions consider this in negotiating decent working conditions, including the ability to live with a partner? Or is this irrelevant? The Department of Labour needs to carry out routine inspections and bring to book employers violating the rights of workers protected by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Employment Equity Act. Trade unions must campaign for openness between employers and workers and an end to discrimination against people living with HIV. Domestic workers must know their rights.
Sadly, denialism is causing con-fusion and costing lives. Has the president ever made a call on all South Africans to test for HIV? — Sharon Ekambaram, Laezonia
Factual error
‘Transformation: It’s a mind game” (September 9) re-flected some of the views of the rector, Chris Brink, on the challenge of change at Stellenbosch University.
However, it contains a rather serious factual error on how he gets the full story of how people at the university feel about transformation.
Brink said he tries personally to visit as many departments and -environments as possible, but due to a full work schedule and time constraints he does not always -succeed. In his words: “I cannot claim a 100% success rate in this regard …” The article states the direct opposite. — Mohamed Shaikh, manager: communications, Stellenbosch University
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.