Where will they lead youth?
As we approach our national Youth Day, the calibre of our youth leaders needs to be scrutinised. The breathtaking display of political imbecility by Fikile Mbalula of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) and Buti Manamela of the Young Communist League (YCL) in response to Judge Hillary Squires’s findings against Schabir Shaik makes this even more urgent.
Their attack on Judge Squires shows appalling lack of judgement, and borders on contempt for the institutions of our democracy.
President Thabo Mbeki, Deputy President Jacob Zuma and the ANC have been careful in their comments. However, these two laid into the judge in terms so personal, childish, petty and nasty that one cannot but despair.
It seems that they could not wait for the president and other senior leaders to take South Africa out of a painful, delicate situation. How undermining of the president! How disrespectful of youth and workers!
They may have recklessly raised doubts in the wider world about how committed our youth — South Africa’s future — is to the processes and institutions established to shore up democracy. This may raise global concerns about what will happen when Mbeki steps down.
The youth movement was forged by brilliant and strategic leadership, like that offered by Nelson Mandela in his youth, and the likes of Murphy Morobe, Billy Masetlha, Tshediso Matona, Malusi Gigaba, Dipuo Peters and Ignatius Jacobs.
As we celebrate the youth’s remarkable contribution to our democracy, we should be collectively outraged at the ugly exhibitionism of Mbalula and Manamela. Left untamed, where will they take our youth? — Nosizwe Afrika, Sandhurst, Johannesburg
The response of the ANCYL president and his YCL counterpart in the media about Judge Squires smacks of hypocrisy and opportunism.
What is frightening is the disrespect in the language they use. To dismiss Judge Squires’s ruling as political and label him racist is nothing more that a feeble attempt at spin doctoring. Mbalula and Manamela raise no substantive issues against the judgement.
The ANCYL and YCL were quiet when the judge was appointed to preside over the case. Now, when he passes a judgement contrary to their expectations, they haul out his past.
By crying racism, the two youth leaders seem to be suggesting that if the judge had been black, the judgement would have been different. This is an insult to our judiciary and to black judges in particular.
Their outbursts convey the message that in future, under their leadership, our democracy will descend into chaos. — Augustus Clive Polile, Wits University
If Zuma does not go on his own initiative and pleads innocence (as he has done), he does not set an encouraging example. If the ANC keeps him in his position, the message to the public is that corruption is acceptable. — Concerned, Pretoria
![]()
Judging by the ANCYL’s reaction to the Shaik verdict, we can expect South Africa to become a nation of corrupt and fraudulent nest-featherers with scant regard for honesty and the rule of law. The only guiding principle this shameless lot adheres to seems to be that anything goes as long as you don’t get caught.
And really, to smear a judge who was selected by the (black) head of the KwaZulu-Natal Bench with racism! With the overwhelming evidence presented, any independent judge would have come to the same conclusion.
The ANCYL is rapidly developing into an embarrassment for our democracy and defender of the indefensible. — Robert de Neef, Howick
![]()
Why didn’t the youth wings of the ANC and communist party air their concerns about Judge Squires’s ”racism” before the verdict? Would they have made the same claims had Shaik been adjudged innocent?
It is now patently clear that the real talent is entering the mainstream economy within the business sectors, and that youth politics is for those who lack the intellect to compete in that space. — Gary Smith
![]()
The judgement lends credence to our judicial system. Judge Squires and his assessors are to be commended for giving us the assurance that wherever your friends sit in the political food chain, there is still hope of justice. I hope many people have learnt a lesson from this.
However, black people now find themselves having to defend the government because of two individuals. Most of the attacks come from our white brothers, who seem to have been waiting on their marks to jump at this opportunity.
I advise those who have been gripped by this bout of moral supremacy to look back. There were corrupt politicians, even criminals, in the governments before this one.
One difference is that such politicians now appear in court — before 1994, political criminals were sponsored and protected by the government. PW Botha has never been tried for the government’s crimes when he was president. Why should Mbeki be treated harshly for what Shaik and Zuma have done?
Yes, perpetrators of crimes need to be punished. But before people get carried away, they should assess our past. — Zola Mbulawa, Coca-Cola Sabco
![]()
I understand that Mbalula has to fill the big shoes of the last president of the youth league, Malusi Gigaba. But this is not the right way to fill them. It is time he learned when to speak and when not to speak. — Erican Beekay Murulana, University of Limpopo
![]()
I do not share your view that Zuma should resign his position in the light of the Shaik trial findings (”No more Mr President”, June 3). I find it outrageous that a conclusion of malfeasance on Zuma’s part should be reached without him being given an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.
The judge’s findings were to a large extent based on a credibility finding in respect of Shaik. To impute Shaik’s inadequacies and lack of credibility to Zuma is unparalleled, particularly given the latter’s repeated invitation to the National Prosecuting Authority to bring charges against him.
Zuma has been so prejudiced by the judgement that it would seem impossible for him to have a fair trial, even if he is charged. He will not, as enjoined by our Constitution, enjoy the benefit of being presumed innocent until proved guilty. For this reason alone, I submit that any prosecution of Zuma must be deemed unconstitutional.
Zuma should resist the clamour for his resignation. He has made a great contribution to Africa.
It saddens me that the trend of vilifying and destroying South Africa’s true leadership continues unabated. I and millions of other South Africans do not believe Zuma should be judged so unfairly. — AW Badrodien, Cape Town
![]()
Racism is taboo, sexism just fine
Son editor-in-chief Ingo Capraro (”Son’s shining success”, June 3) says I ”hysterically” accused his newspaper of having a licence to kill after the gay lover of a dominee committed suicide in the wake of a Son exposé. He complains that I and ”fellow feminists and puritans” accuse him of ”bad tabloidism”.
Our Constitution says our state is founded on, among other values, non-racialism and non-sexism. Why is the one -ism taboo and the other practised with vigour, especially in the tabloid media?
There is an easy answer: because women are not represented in the same numbers and on the same levels of decision-making as men.
And men who have the power choose to ignore the voices of those who speak out. More importantly, they allow others to ridicule those who have the courage to comment on this violation of human rights.
We have a liberal Constitution, but not yet a liberal institutional culture in which all are equal. And for the record: I am not prone to hysteria. I leave that to tabloids. — Lizette Rabe, Stellenbosch
![]()
A smug and superficial claim
Felicia Levy’s smug claim that my ”intelligence network” failed to inform me that the British Association of University Teachers (AUT) has ended the academic boycott of Israeli universities is typical of her superficiality (Letters, June 3).
Levy does not care to acknowledge that the article (”A silent academe”, May 27) was first published in The Guardian before the decision was taken to end the campaign. It was later carried by the Mail & Guardian, which, as every-body knows, republishes articles from abroad.
While the AUT decided against the boycott, it does not lessen the call for the use of peaceful avenues to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I agree with those who found the cartoon accompanying my and Victoria Brittain’s article objectionable, and have complained to the editor about it. — Ronnie Kasrils, MP
![]()
If it walks, swims and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. So why do Benjamin Pogrund and David Newman (”Strangling liberal voices”, June 3) try to deny Israel’s apartheid status?
The same edition reported the demolition of Palestinian homes in favour of Jewish settlers. Sound familiar?
Zionism, with its claim of ”a land without people” sounds fantastic. The reality has been the immigration of millions of foreigners to Israel, on account of their religious affiliation, and the dispossession of the native, non-Jewish population. That is colonialism. — A Essop, Port Elizabeth
![]()
The response by Pogrund and Newman to Kasrils’ and Brittain’s advocacy of boycotts against Israel is intended to deflect growing public resentment over the continuing oppression of Palestinians.
Their suggestion that ”cooperative projects” should be promoted between Israelis and Palestinians is bizarre, though not surprising. Israeli spin doctors use such arguments in the hope that victims of Zionist policies will ignore their pain, humiliation and suffering and accept the status quo.
The fact that it is the last remaining colonial project, with a rogue government and apartheid structures in direct conflict with international law, ensures that Israel will remain in the spotlight.
Kasrils and Brittain make a case for boycotts as a tool that can be effectively applied to secure the human rights and fundamental freedoms of everyone.
The AUT exercise — far from over — is an indication that just as the international community did not tolerate apartheid in South Africa, it will not tolerate apartheid in Israel. — Iqbal Jassat, Media Review Network
![]()
ANC plot to weaken Zulu tradition
The media has misrepresented the feud between Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi and the African National Congress on the status of Zulu culture and traditional leaders.
Buthelezi and most Zulu traditional leaders want the institution of the traditional hierarchy recognised, entailing traditional authorities in specified areas, owned by the people, run by traditional leaders and accountable to councils representing the people.
The body of traditional leaders is represented to the king by the traditional prime minister. The king worked within this system before 1994 and publicly advocated it to FW de Klerk before the 1994 elections.
Buthelezi has tried to retain this hierarchy. The ANC has paid lip service to it, while undermining it at every turn — for example, by giving KwaZulu-Natal traditional leaders no place at Codesa; betraying an agreement to hold international mediation on the position of the monarch and traditional leaders; and failing to entrench a role for traditional leaders in the Constitution.
The KwaZulu-Natal House of Traditional Leaders has received no funding to support traditional leaders. The ANC now plans to disestablish it and set up mini-houses with less clout.
The ANC has wooed the king, cherry-picking royal family members for token input on its agenda. It schemes tirelessly to divide Buthelezi from his social base and weaken Zulu tradition, as part of a strategy to obliterate alternative sources of authority. — Ruth Rabinowitz, MP
![]()
Moral tone
Thank you for the fair article last week on our court action against the African National Congress Youth League (”Big bash hangover”).
Such situations make it difficult to build a company, create jobs and uplift disadvantaged people.
The ANC, the youth league and the government should look at how they do business.
Business in South Africa needs all parties to do business honourably. South Africa is the leader in Africa and we need to set the moral tone.
The youth league is fostering tomorrow’s leaders. It is vital that correct business practices are developed before they assume positions of power. — Hans Rooseboom, MD, Solid Rock
![]()
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.