How stupid does the ANC think we are?

The debate about the ANC's media bill continues.

The latest is Jacob Zuma's letter admonishing anybody for arguing against it.

The Daily Maverick has a good analysis of the key parts.

The ANC argues that nobody should worry about them using the media laws for censorhsip or other evil. They are the ANC and elected due to their strong moral compass.

The one simple arrow that shoots straight to the heart of the ANC's argument is this: the test of a good law is whether the lawmaker would be comfortable with the law in another party's hands. Would the ANC be happy if the proposed media laws were used by the DA, or even the old NP?

So did you vote DA or ANC?

Why might I ask?

The current all out war emphasizes all that is bad about both.

The stupidity of the DA anti-Zuma campaign shows an opposition unable to campaign on policy - but instead is anti-everything. I once suggested this to Tony Leon after another anti-ANC crime diatribe. He looked genuinely hurt. "I thought my speech was quite positive..."

Further, it is actually an indictment on the DA that they are 15 years into democracy and still predominantly white and male. Joe Seramane is used as quota chairman despite his very real struggle credentials. I'm white and male and I don't relate to the DA leadership. My workplaces and social life are more integrated.

On the other hand, the ANC and communist responses have been nothing short of staggering. Particularly the responses of their youth leagues. Grief. I wrote more mature letters at 6 years old.

Frankly, the responses are transparent. The ANC has merely been paying lip service to democracy. Threatening to make the Western Cape ungovernable betrays their inability to countenance opposition and debate. Further, their insistence that Zuma must not be criticized because he is president is immature and dangerous in the extreme. You earn trust - no matter who you are. Further, the essence of democracy is the ability to criticize freely. Would the ANC have insisted that Americans refrain from criticizing George W. Bush?

All that said, whether quoted out of context or not, Zille's reference to Zuma's aids risk to his wives was ill-considered and frankly, naive.

Will you vote based on principles?

It is interesting that for the first time that I can remember, details of South African parties policies are being circulated prior to the election. The Mail & Guardian policy test seems to be spreading like wildfire. It asks a series of questions and provides party policies as answer choices. Based on your responses, it then ranks parties based on their alignment with your choices. The results will surprise you. Of one of my client's teams, we all ended up with parties other than those we had considered. Makes you think, doesn't it?



Another person had sourced the Family Policy Institute's guide to parties' values and that generated huge interest.

Then we began to remark at how interesting the interest in party policies and the appearance of these tools is. It really is encouraging. Instead of listening to the mud slinging that characterizes South African political debate, we can now evaluate parties based on their policy. Surely the voter curiosity and the creation of these tools marks a maturing of our democracy?



We remarked that what we were experiencing is perhaps due to the emergence of a potentially credible opposition in Cope, but most likely the sensation of Obama's campaign and election. A colleague remarked how she had listened to her 17 year old daughter discuss the elections with friends. She asked her daughter who she would vote for.

"Cope, mom," her daughter replied.

"Why?" she asked.

"Because Cope is hope," her daughter recited the party's enigmatic slogan. It sure echoes the Obama, "Yes we can!"

What was also evident is how much damage the DA's Stop Zuma campaign has done to the party's image. People are tired of "anti-" campaigning. Tell us what YOU stand for.

Someone remarked, "What does it matter? If you don't vote DA, your vote against the ANC is wasted."

No dammit! If the Cape Town results of our last local government election proved anything, it was the power of coalition politics. Non-ANC parties were forced to form a coalition to gain control of the Cape. It meant that those that agreed with the Independent Democrats' policies were granted huge power as the ID became the king-makers in their coalition choices. Their initial choice of siding with the ANC probably knocked the party back forever, but the point was proved. Even the third, forth or fifth most popular party can wield tremendous power in the swing vote in coalition formation. Lesson - vote your conscience.

Further history demonstrates this point. Most South Africans know of when Helen Suzman was the only representative of the Progressive Party in South Africa. She stood up against tireless abuse from the National Party and her voice echoed from the one seat her party held in parliament to the corners around the world. Tell me it was not worth voting for her.

On a far lighter note, the Nandos campaign has landed it in hot water with the ANC Youth League. But oh how brilliant:



I really hope you vote tomorrow if you're eligible. It should mean something that people died for the right to vote. Some friends won't vote for a variety of reasons:

• "Because all politicians lie"


• "Because the ANC will still win"


• "Because I don't identify with any of the parties"

Vote for the rational above. It only takes a few thousand votes to obtain one seat based on South Africa's proportional representation system. That means that even if only a couple of people in each town or city vote for your choice of party, together you could add up to a seat in parliament for your choice.

So Vavi is quite OK with the LRA protecting lazy incompetent workers?

I can only assume so based on this quote:


Vavi added that Cosatu would ensure that Zuma keeps to his promises that ministers who do not perform will be fired.

"The Labour Relation Act should not apply to lazy ministers. The thing of keeping deadwood in Cabinet belongs in the past."

M&G

Are you a blind ANC follower?

This week has seen more about the potential dropping of corruption charges against the ANC president and the debacle regarding the refusal of a visa for the Dalai Lama (and here).

It is sad reading the articles quoting Finance Minister Trevor Manuel (and here) and Foreign Minister Nkosazana Zuma - I believe any objective, vaguely intelligent person would see the glaring hypocrisy in the ANC's stance with regard to the Dalai Lama. A liberation organisation that fought for freedom of speech and the right to disagree - banning a visit because of the SA state's relationship with China and its endorsement of the One-China policy? The ANC continues to ignore the flagrant human rights abuses of China, Burma, Zimbabwe and others. Its position seems dictated by "pro-non-west" policy rather than thoughtful interrogation of what is right.

It would seem that the ANC would rather turn a blind eye to the ZANU murder of thousands and continued state sponsored violence in Zimbabwe than be embarrassed by the failure of an African leader.

Similarly they would turn a blind eye to the oppression of opposition to the Burmese military dictatorship.

And they would ignore the detention and murder of Tibetan activists in China.

The hypocrisy and arrogance is embodied in their leadership by a man (Jacob Zuma) who talks of having "laws that bite" and cracking down on corruption - but has pulled every legal option available to avoid going to court - including threatening to make public tapes embarrassing the former president Mbeki and the National Prosecuting Authority (and here).

Let's make this clear. I am sure I speak on behalf of almost all objective South Africans when I say that all those guilty of wrong should be prosecuted without fear or favour. If Mbeki knew of the arms deal corruption, he too should be prosecuted. If the NPA generally, or Leonard McCarthy specifically, were politically motivated in their actions, they should be prosecuted.

It is only when all believe they will be equally prosecuted before the law that all will equally abide by it. The best example of the consequences of a group believing they deserve different treatment is the behaviour of taxi drivers in South Africa - people who disregard the law because they believe they stand apart.

I can't believe the ANC and their supporters fail to see the hypocrisy. During apartheid they implored the world to give them a voice they were denied at home. Denying the Dalai Lama the same opportunity seems to be in their collective blind spot.

Further, the ANC response lends credence to the rumour that their denial of the visa was ordered by China - an order more weighty through funding of the ANC election campaign by the Chinese government.

Even over the past few months, any disagreement from within their own ranks has conveniently become treasonous. Witness the response to Minister Hogan's criticism of the Dalai Lama scandal and this letter from Duncan Hindle - "The individual should not criticise the collective." Anyone for the return of Stalinism perhaps? Merely a few months back, anti-Mbeki sentiment within the ANC was excused under the headline, "The ANC is a broad church and has room for many opinions." Even more recently, Malema's rantings are excused as being those of a young man who would one day know better.

Sadly it is the ANC supporters that give rise for the most concern. The rabid unquestioning support visible in comments below every article about any of the above-mentioned issues would seem as racist and unquestioning as that of the conservative supporters under apartheid.

It reminds me of the result of the unquestioning support from the West provided to Idi Amin in his rise to power. Murmurings of his abuses were swept under the carpet as the west saw someone they thought they could control. As his power grew, the monster threw off his minders and the result was clear for all to see. Similarly, the Matabeleland murders by Mugabe and his followers were allowed to be covered up. The result is again clear to see.

If we are to enjoy the hard won successes of the liberation struggle, then it is each of our responsibilities to question all leaders and representatives equally. If we call what is right or wrong without partisanship, we stand stronger together. If we have the security to ensure our leaders are defined by us rather than us being defined by our leaders, we need not fear their failure making us less worthy.