June 5 to 11 2009

How can Zapiro be right wing?

Jessie Duarte thinks that Zapiro is an element of ‘right-wing elementary journalism” (‘M&G accused of theft”, May 29). Never before have I seen somebody’s viewpoint so grossly misrepresented for the sake of political point-scoring, as Duarte obviously aims to do. Given South Africa’s history and the present socioeconomic situation, one can easily assume that, in the political debate, white people generally are right wing and black people are generally left wing. But to take such a generalisation too far is a serious mistake because, really, you cannot see somebody’s political affiliation from that person’s skin colour, and I cannot see any other way how somebody could label Zapiro a rightwinger.

Although a large proportion of politicians manage to convince people to vote for them with cheap soundbites and superficial appearances, without exposing much of their exact political ideas, Zapiro has made it abundantly clear through his cartoons over the years what stand he takes in the political debate. I would say it is to the left, maybe what Thabo Mbeki would have called ‘the radical left”. All of this becomes very clear when looking at his cartoons dealing with service delivery, corruption scandals, American foreign policy, ‘casino” capitalism and power-hungry tyrants in Africa and abroad.

The ANC is apparently not yet used to the fact that, just like any political party, it can be criticised both from the right (such as not accommodating minority identity politics, being too supportive of organised labour, being insufficiently ‘pro-business”), as well as from the left (such as not delivering on election promises, being insufficiently caring about the poor, being in the pocket of big business).

Ever since the ANC transformed itself from a liberation movement to a political party running the government, it has gradually moved from the left to the political centre, first to appease the National Party, which still held quite a bit of clout politically, later to appease the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and foreign investors, and in recent years to appease potential party sponsors. Yet it seems to think that it has a monopoly on left-wing thinking and easily brushes off all criticism as ‘right-wing”.

We have to judge their performance not by their words but by their actions. For instance, prioritising arms deals and national security over allocating funds for poverty alleviation is definitely not left wing. We need watchdogs such as Zapiro to keep on highlighting these mismatches between government rhetoric and government action.

Zapiro is one of the most visible, consistent and influential left-wing critics of government, so it is understandable that they would like to frame him as a rightwinger. They know that, in the South African context, the right wing will be a perpetual minority. In reality the ANC is much more concerned with the dissatisfaction of people who are the beneficiaries of the planned transformation process and are becoming restless on the left. – Erwin Sieben, Harrismith

The SABC is all steamed up because, they say, the Special Assignment documentary on political satire belongs to them. They spent a lot of money on it and now someone has ‘stolen” it.

Actually, the documentary belongs to us, the public. Because we, the public, are the owners of the SABC. It is funded with our taxes and our licence fees. The SABC is not a ‘pay-per-view” channel, so there’s no question of any financial loss here.

If the M&G has damaged the interests of the SABC, I trust that the relevant court will award damages — in the form of two boxes of tissues, a lollipop and a leaflet explaining the SABC’s obligation to serve the public. — Ron McGregor, Cape Town

All SAHRC funds can be accounted for

The article ‘EU wants its R10m returned” (May 22) suggests that monies received by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHCR) from the European Union (EU) cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the commission. This is false.

The SAHRC, acting on behalf of the Public Protector (PP), the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) and itself, entered into an agreement with the EU to create the Civil Society Advocacy Project (CSAP), initiated by the EU to assist civil society to access Chapter 9 institutions such as ourselves. A project office for the CSAP was set up in Pretoria and CSAP staff appointed, including an independent chief executive (approved by the EU). The CSAP board consisted of the SAHRC, the PP and the CGE. The EU also approved a technical adviser to assist the chief executive and the board.

All funds were held in a separate CSAP account and the project was managed independently. All funds were received by the CSAP and used to advance the objectives of the CSAP, and were accounted for. There has been no suggestion by the EU that the work was not done, that value was not received or that the payments were gratuitous.

The dispute with the EU centres on the interpretation of technical compliance — what is termed ‘ineligible expenditure” of €674 000. The SAHRC has consistently challenged this interpretation and submitted a full response to the EU in December 2008; we await their response. The amount of €505 323 in dispute relates to an audit query that timesheets were not used by staff and consultants. Our position is that timesheets were completed where they were required, for example by consultants. Timesheets were not required of CSAP staff and were thus not completed.

As to the remaining €169 677, there has been no suggestion of impropriety. The EU query in this regard relates, among others, to payments made against emailed and pro-forma invoices, as opposed to original invoices. These are the details, in brief, of the technical-compliance issues in dispute. To reiterate: there has been no suggestion by the EU that the work was not done, that value was not received or that the payments were gratuitous.

The Mail & Guardian article also makes general reference to a lack of strategic direction, low productivity and output and low staff morale. Yet the SAHRC has, with limited resources, strategically dealt with many issues over the years that go to the heart of our democracy. Reports on this activity are on our website, have been shared with civil society and submitted to Parliament and the executive.

The SAHRC is legally accountable to the National Assembly. We are happy to account to it on any allegations made against us. The report of the ad hoc committee on the review of Chapter 9 and associated institutions of late 2007 drew the unanimous conclusion that ‘over the past decade, the commission has built up a reputation among human rights activists as an active and passionate defender of human rights. With limited financial and human resources, the commission has made a real difference to the promotion of and protection of human rights in the areas it has focused on.” — Vincent Moaga, SAHRC spokesperson

My kingdom for a Merc

Comrade Sbusiso Joel Ndebele’s action, of returning the Mercedes Benz he was given, has been hailed as noble. I call it cowardice! His actions are unAfrican. As an African he knows that you do not reject a gift no matter how small or big it is.

Offering gifts is an act of love. Why make it dirty and force public representatives to go underground to accept gifts? It is an age-old practice among Africans for communities to deliver gifts to a priest or a teacher who served them well during his/her tenure.

A bribe is, according to my Oxford Dictionary: ‘money or a gift offered to a person to influence him or her”. How could this gift influence Ndebele? Part of our struggle was to assert our Africanness and I feel betrayed by the populist comments made by both my party, the ANC, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. I thought they would have grabbed this opportunity to demystify the offering of gifts to public representatives.

Every working person receives some reward for a job well done (and in most instances for mediocrity). Many receive an annual reward in the form of a 13th cheque, but public representatives get none. They are viewed with suspicion and are used as scapegoats for anything their parties do wrong.

These business people decided to reward a man they believe contributed to their success, in a manner they deemed appropriate. They are grateful. How can that be wrong? The public is Ndebele’s employer; what’s wrong with the public rewarding him? We are breeding a nation of hypocrites.

Is it immoral because the media say so? It would be a disgrace to find the media being used in the same way our oppressors used the Bible to demonise our (African) belief systems. How long are we going to roll over and accept everything we are told is wrong from a Western perspective? Why did the ANC defend President Jacob Zuma and Carl Niehaus if it cannot defend Comrade Sbu’s right to receive positive reinforcement? — Themba Zweni, former ANC public representative (Mangaung municipality)

Where’s the international news?

For many years one of the highlights of my week was the three to four hours spent devouring every article in the Mail & Guardian — political, scientific, economic, social, moral, humanitarian, cultural, philosophical, psychological and even humorous pieces. The M&G was the only local source of intelligent and objective analyses of international events and issues.

What has happened? This is surely one of the most challenging and interesting times in international affairs. There is global economic meltdown. The financial and political hegemony in place for centuries is in crisis.

Yet when I open my M&G these days I am presented with little more than narrow South African party-political analyses and personality issues and, of course, an obligatory piece on Zimbabwe, the environment, gender issues and how to invest money. International news is often reduced to a single page.

Your investigations and analyses of South African politics have been ground-breaking, but there is more at stake for me as a global citizen. I appeal to the new editor-in-chief to rise above local political shenanigans and to reclaim the international perspective that once made this a great paper. (And don’t tell me that I have to read international news online.) — Lorna van der Merwe

M&G replies: We’re also sorry about the decrease in international coverage. We are working on ways to expand this again.

I was misquoted

I was interviewed by Mandy Rossouw (May 29), but I am wrongly quoted saying that the appointment of Mvume Dandala as the Congress of the People’s (Cope’s) presidential candidate was a mistake. For the record, what I said was that an analysis of our performance in the elections included a view that introducing a new candidate late in the campaign affected the performance of the party at the polls. This was not because of the candidate and would have applied no matter who the candidate. I stated that this was not a reflection on Dandala or his capable leadership. Dandala continues to command the support and respect of all Cope members as leader of the party in Parliament. — Philip Dexter, MP, head of communications, Cope

In brief

I note the confident assertion in your editorial ‘A legacy of incoherence” (May 29) that ‘interns in hospitals … sometimes work 180-hour weeks”. While I agree with your concern over the working conditions of interns and their often unacceptably long working hours, there are but 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week. The old-fashioned kind of arithmetic taught when I was in junior school many years ago suggests that there are neither more nor less than 168 hours in a week. — Sally Gross, Cape Town

M&G responds: We regret the error. We meant 80 hours, not 180.

The article ‘Sutcliffe’s Achilles heel?” (May 29) says the city of Durban is trying to portray the Early Morning Market as ‘dominated by Indian interests”. Yet the majority of those owning trading space there are Indian people. Africans are mainly labourers earning meagre wages. I lived in Berea from 1989 and was a regular customer, and now, when I visit Durban, I take a walkabout at the market. The owners are not Africans. — Vernon Zakheleni Mchunu

Our government is hypocritical. It is quick to assert its position on Aung Sun Suu Kyi, but restricted the Dalai Lama’s access to the country. — Muhammad Essop Sheik