Latest news with #ThaboMbeki
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Same same — how State Capture has become SA's greatest export
As Trump wipes away American history and redoubles down on thought crimes, he'd be horrified to know that the ANC has done it better, which is to say worse. Of all the ANC's masterstrokes — and believe it or not, there have been a few — the capture (and subsequent erasure) of history is perhaps its most successful. Without a past, there is no future — just an eternal now, a limbo that represents political stasis. And as dynamic as South Africa may seem if you have your nose jammed in the news, this is indeed a country of stasis, a country where new ideas and genuine transformation die before they are born. Because the ANC has captured history — it is, after all, the 'liberation party', and that's all there is to know — there is no point in revising history, because it's meant to be forgotten. Take the Zondo Commission. Remember that billion-rand boondoggle? Four volumes stuffed with the nightmare legacy of Zuma era corruption, and the results? Not much. The complaints are simple: all of that taxpayer money blown, and not a single meaningful prosecution. But that is to miss the point. As the political commentator and playwright Richard Calland has noted, 'State Capture was something that was really significant. And yet there was a real danger that we moved on too fast from it, and the lessons were not learned, were not digested. And then all the work that was done to defend democracy was kind of wasted. And it was a huge effort to protect the institutions and the rule of law. And I think, although full accountability hasn't happened yet, that it was a significant effort to defend public democracy from private State Capture.' And yet, the Zondo Commission Report should be required reading — the first thing placed in the hands of a kid hitting Grade Zero, in picture-book form. This, after all, is the story of how the world is hijacked. It's an epic, a fairytale, a parable. It's also universally applicable, at least as far as democracies are concerned. The Zondo Commission tells a linear story: how a state is captured, and corruption formalised, by a norm-breaking executive and its private sector enablers. President Jacob Zuma, who was manifestly and obviously a thief, became a viable candidate to replace the establishment figure Thabo Mbeki because he wasn't Thabo Mbeki. His shortcomings were overlooked because it was time for change. The change he offered — a populist spin on African nationalism — was the only thing that would keep the ANC, and therefore the country, from imploding. Or so we were told. In educational and intellectual terms, Zuma was not a Harvard University business school graduate. But he was at least as unethical and rapacious as one. A spy by (forced) vocation, he employed his louche paranoia as a tool against his enemies. He effortlessly subverted the State Security Agency, using it as a money funnel and a battering ram to enrich his cronies and undermine his enemies. His benefactors were brought into the fold to act as middlemen in the flow of funds from the state to state-owned enterprises and their private sector contractees. Then, Zuma went for the National Prosecuting Authority, and followed that up with attacks on other law enforcement agencies — a very simple procedure, given that the executive has the final say over who runs these institutions. He made foolish choices to head the Public Protector's office and the Constitutional Court, but they were his choices to make. By doing this, he signalled that it was open season for corruption, and that shame no longer had a role to play in moderating political behaviour in South Africa. There are other forebears of the 21st-century style of kleptocratic state vandalism. They include Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, Viktor Orbán in Hungary and, of course, the OG, Vladimir Putin in Russia. But no other country has 4,000 pages of testimony breaking down exactly how the system works. In this, the Zondo Commission Report is perhaps the most important piece of political literature written in the past 25 years. And outside of Ferial Haffajee, how many South Africans, let alone foreign political observers or analysts, have read the whole thing? From a certain perspective, Zondo is a blueprint for how an empowered and unembarrassable executive performs a coup on his or her own country. There are clues in Zondo for how the 21st century has gone so horribly wrong, and hints at how to fix it. *** If liberal Americans knew what they were doing — and they don't — they'd see South Africa as a bellwether, as a warning. This isn't a Zuma equals Trump comparative thing — this goes far beyond individual personalities. Instead, they'd understand how corruption becomes entrenched — how it underpins, and then entirely supplants, ideology. As in South Africa, in the United States, special interests long ago hijacked anything resembling a functioning democracy. Here, the Guptas were avatars for private parasites latching on to the state and leeching it dry. In the US, corruption was driven through the Supreme Court, which has proved almost gleefully amenable. The biggest moment was the Citizens United ruling in 2008, which effectively allowed unlimited corporate spending in election campaigns. From there, it's been relatively smooth sailing. In recent years, while much of the focus was on the repeal of Roe v Wade and the end of female bodily autonomy, Trump's Supreme Court has done two things. First, it's allowed the executive almost monarchical power. And second, it's made bribery — or, rather, 'gratuities' — legal. You don't have to be a genius to see how this leads to a culture of extreme corruption, and it has. The end of Joe Biden's disastrous term led to a slew of pre-pardons of family members, which slithered into Trump 2 and the Zuma-like strip-down of the state. Congress, ostensibly a lawmaking body, stares on gape-mouthed as Trump rewrites the American order in the Oval Office. The lower courts have held up what might be considered the rule of law, but at this point it's largely vestigial. Trump is so empowered that he's now very literally rewarding corruption. Take the case of Paul Walczak, a medical executive and tax cheat who made an application for a full pardon, which Trump ignored. Until Walczak's mother showed up at a million-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinner, where she hobnobbed with the Republican glitterati and scored her son a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's pay to play, and there's no longer anything ambiguous about it. *** Zuma's genius, as with Trump and his minions, is to make graft ideological. The infamous Bell Pottinger misinformation campaign, which reintroduced White Monopoly Capital into the South African parlance, situated corruption and anti-constitutionalism as a transformation project — as a means to empower the previously unempowered. In essence, this was a 'screw the elite' project, which conveniently ignored the facts of power distribution in South Africa, while exploiting the very real economic disparities. Likewise, the Trump ideology comes down to little more than Fuck The Libs. This is a deplorable uprising, the upending of snooty Harvard/Yale/Columbia shitlibs (which again ignores the specifics of who is currently in power in the US). This is emotion as ideology, a vacuous project of rage-baiting driven by the neo-Bell Pottingers on the likes of Elon Musk's X. 'So loud and quiet at once, ideology becomes a substitute for mood,' wrote the novelist Joshua Cohen. And the mood in the US is dark and rebarbative. The capture of the state by special interests — by the billionaire class and the corporations who will exclusively benefit from the revolution under way — is misinterpreted as fascism. But this is silly. The performance of authoritarianism is secondary to the flood-the-zone-with-sewage approach to governance, which hides the formalisation of corruption. No one bothered to call Zuma a fascist — it simply didn't matter. He worked for his family and his friends and benefactors, and no one else. It was a simpler time. It should hopefully be obvious that rebuilding a functioning state in the wake of State Capture is nearly impossible. The centralisation of corruption under Big Men like Zuma (and Trump) inevitably gives way to a violent contestation when they leave office. This fragmentation is lethal and destabilising, and it breeds nostalgia for the good old days of the God King. Which is where South Africa finds itself now. As Trump wipes away American history and redoubles down on thought crimes, he'd be horrified to know that the ANC has done it better, which is to say worse. The rest of the world should take note: it's not fun digging out from under ideology-as-mood. Very little is left to build with. But it always pays to remember that State Capture is an elite project, prosecuted from the top, that benefits the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us are just suckers and cannon fodder. DM
IOL News
a day ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Rule of Law: Judicial Accountability is Healthy for Democracy
Protest: EFF leader Julius Malema led a march to the Constitutional Court demanding that President Cyril Ramaphosa be held accountable for the Phala Phala scandal. The question regarding the judiciary's independence is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal, says the writer. Prof. Sipho Seepe Umkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) argues that 'Members of Parliament are required to declare their assets; therefore, the same standards should apply to judges, who wield immense constitutional power and influence. Judges must be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability. South Africa cannot afford to have a judiciary shielded from the same transparency expected of other arms of state.' The self-appointed guardians of our democracy would have none of it. The judiciary is a no-go area. After all, conventional wisdom dictates that judges are paragons of virtue. They cannot be compared to corruption-prone politicians and public officials. Counterposing MKP's call is an argument that says, 'Judges are already subject to the most stringent asset and income declarations of all public office bearers'. Also, subjecting judges to lifestyle audits would imply suspicion of corruption. If stringent processes for probing judicial integrity are in place, MKP's call should not pose a problem. A case of suspicion has been made. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, a publication of the Institute for Justice & Reconciliation, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya is on record that there are issues that require urgent attention including 'the report of the 2021 Afrobarometer survey that the public's trust in the judiciary has declined…loss of confidence in the judiciary does not augur well for the rule of law and our democracy'. She concluded that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' Delivering the Nelson Mandela Lecture, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng raised a similar concern. 'There is an attempt to capture the judiciary…. any captured member of the judiciary will simply be told or will know in advance, when so and so and so and so are involved, we'd better know your place. Or when certain issues are involved, well, the decision is known in advance'. Far from being denialists, Mogoeng and Maya have approached the subject with a certain degree of maturity. Theirs is to call for vigilance against attempts to undermine (or shield) the judiciary. All that MKP has done is put the matter up for public debate. For Joe Soap in the street, the question regarding the judiciary is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal. Mbeki asked. 'Are we saying that we suspect or know that he (Ramaphosa) has done something impeachable and therefore decided that we must protect our president at all costs by ensuring that no Multi-Party Committee is formed?...... We acted as we did [as if] there was something to hide'. MKP's call for judges to be subjected to lifestyle audits coincides with President Ramaphosa's initiation of the process for the appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice. The position became vacant following the elevation of Justice Mandisa Maya to lead the apex court. For his part, President Ramaphosa nominated four judge-presidents. With Mahube Molemela (Supreme Court of Appeal having declined the nomination, the remaining contenders comprise Dunstan Mlambo (Gauteng), Cagney John Musi (Free State), and Lazarus Pule Tlaletsi (Northern Cape). The Judicial Service Commission, headed by Chief Justice Maya, is expected to pronounce itself on the suitability of the nominees for the position. To be clear, this is a political appointment. With the recycling of Mlambo after his failed bid for the position of Chief Justice, it is a safe bet that Mlambo will get the position. Hopefully, this time around, President Ramaphosa will not go for a demonstrably weak candidate. This would be a case of history repeating itself. A knee-jerk response to MKP will not remove the lingering suspicions of bias. First, far from ubiquitous misconceptions, judges are neither necessarily wise nor omniscient. They are no angels. They are as human and as fallible as all of us. They are prone to self-interest and self-preservation, which may not cohere with the principles of justice. Second, judges do not exist in a vacuum. They are socio-cultural and political animals. There are many instances where history and politics cloud their judgments. The Constitutional Court's ruling regarding a tussle between the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and AfriForum on changing street names is a case in point. In challenging the Tshwane Municipality regarding its decision to change street names to names of struggle icons, AfriForum had, among other things, argued that doing so would violate the constitutional right of the Afrikaner people to enjoy their culture. The Gauteng High Court had ruled in favour of AfriForum. A majority judgment by Mogoeng CJ concurred by Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J, and Zondo J, upheld the appeal against the lower court. Justices Cameron and Froneman dissented. This couldn't be a mere coincidence that all black judges saw things differently from their white colleagues. It is highly possible that socio-political and cultural experiences played a role in arriving at this ruling. Another instance relates to a case in which a full bench (three judges) of the Gauteng High Court decided to offer a political commentary on a matter involving Eskom. Nailing their political flags to the mast, the three judges contended that the 'new dawn that engulfed the country in 2018 did not miss Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Eskom). It brought life to Eskom in that in January 2018, Eskom's old and inactive leadership was replaced by new leadership with new life to undo years of maladministration and corruption within the organization.' It didn't take long before the country was plunged into rolling blackouts. The fall from Ramaphoria to Ramaruin happened at lightning speed. Lastly, members of the judiciary have not covered themselves in glory. We need not go further than recall the unseemly spectacle that played itself during the publicly televised interviews for the position of Chief Justice. It was evident that Justice Raymond Zondo was a spectacularly poor performer. Only three commissioners reportedly gave Zondo a thumbs-up against the current Chief Justice Maya's twenty-one votes. A discerning individual would have declined the appointment. We must not underplay the extent to which many of our judges are beholden to neo-colonialism. After all, they are part of 'a native elite faithful and [compliant] to the needs of the colonialists. It was largely through educational processes at all levels that these elites were moulded and culturally turned.' It is not an accident that we have courts that foreground 'colonially borrowed languages; languages that are hardly understood by [their audience], and languages, which even these speakers handle with difficulty and grammatical inadequacies.' The sooner we demythologize members of the judiciary, the better for us. * Professor Sipho P. Seepe is an Higher Education & Strategy Consultant. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
The Citizen
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
Why South Africa can't defend itself anymore
From a mighty force to near irrelevance, SA's defence capabilities have decayed. The country is now vulnerable, with no real ability to respond to African conflicts. This is a war game scenario which could not exist in South Africa today but, in the mid-'90s, as the country transitioned to democracy, it would have been one of many discussed by officers of the SA Defence Force (SADF), soon to become the SANDF (SA National Defence Force). A force of rebels has taken over the eastern parts of mineral-rich Zaire – now know as the Democratic Republic of the Congo or DRC – has killed civilians and is now laying siege to the town of Kisangani. The government in Kinshasa sends out an urgent appeal for help to Pretoria. Putting boots on the ground would take weeks and would be politically risky, especially if SA troops were to start coming home in body bags. There is an alternative: send in the South African Air Force (SAAF). So a flight of Cheetah D multirole fighters – a version of the French Mirage developed locally with help of the Israelis – is scrambled in the early hours of the morning from the SAAF main base in Waterkloof, Pretoria, loaded up with sophisticated air-toground missiles and cannons. As the sun peeps over the horizon in central Zambia, the Cheetahs link up with their airborne tanker, a converted Boeing 707 airliner also used by the SAAF as an airborne warning and control system. ALSO READ: What is taking so long? Why SANDF troops can't get a lift home Not long after refuelling, the SAAF jets move into their strike profile, hitting rebel units and decimating them, saving the government in Kinshasa. At that time, the SAAF, and the broader SADF, which knew it was about to get new political masters, realised the critical role in peacekeeping and peace enforcement which could be played by South African armed forces, at that time still the strongest and most experienced in Africa. It was a vision which would gel with that of our second president, Thabo Mbeki, who believed this country could be the engine of an 'African Renaissance' and the continent's unbiased referee for internal conflicts. At that time, it was a dream which could well have come true. The SADF and, later, SANDF were well able to deal with any threat on the continent – and even in our territorial waters…. as a SA Navy Daphne-class submarine proved by 'sinking' one of the US Navy's most sophisticated guided-missile destroyers in an exercise off Cape Point. It didn't take long for the incoming government to get cosy with the already corrupt European arms industry, so we sowed up an arms deal which cost us more than R100 billion and equipped us with state-of-the-art systems like Swedish-made Gripen supersonic fighters and German frigates and submarines. ALSO READ: Frustration as Motshekga in Russia while SANDF begins DRC withdrawal These systems, good as they were, required maintenance and updating and the ANC government progressively reduced defence spending to the point where it is today. The Gripen fighters – the handful still flying – are only used for shows, while the subs are often beached in dry dock. Even the most sympathetic analysts would agree that our military would be comparatively easy pickings for a number of African armies and air forces – from Nigeria to Rwanda and even Zambia and Zimbabwe – who actually have newer equipment than we do. And it is operational. Our recent poor showing in the DRC, when our troops were humbled by M23 rebels, shows the extent of the slide. Not only can we not dream about being Africa's peacemaker, we cannot realistically guarantee the sanctity of our soil, airspace or territorial waters. NOW READ: How topless car thieves met their match against SANDF officer in pyjamas and slippers
The Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald
'It's a chant': Former president Thabo Mbeki defends 'kill the Boer' song
Former president Thabo Mbeki has defended the controversial 'kill the Boer' song, saying it's a struggle song and not meant to be taken literally. The song, which originated during the apartheid era as a liberation song, has resurfaced with the EFF singing it at their rallies. The song has sparked a controversy with white Afrikaner groups interpreting it as promoting violence against them. 'It was a chant during the days of struggle,' Mbeki said in an interview with SABC News. 'Chants of that kind in our tradition, in the African tradition, you don't take them literally.' He drew parallels with another song, 'Ngeke ngiye kwaZulu, kwa feli umama,' which translates to 'I won't go to Zululand because my mother died there', emphasising that such songs are not meant to be taken at face value. 'You don't mean that,' he said. Mbeki said the ANC policy has always been against the killing of civilians, and there's no evidence to suggest that uMkhonto we Sizwe soldiers were instructed to kill farmers. 'There's no uMkhonto we Sizwe soldier who went and killed a farmer. It's a chant to motivate people. It was never taken literally. Even during the course of the struggle, it was not literal. It's an exaggeration to take this as an instruction to go and kill. The people who are exaggerating know that they are exaggerating because they are trying to achieve some political purpose.' The song's controversy resurfaced recently when US President Donald Trump called for EFF leader Julius Malema's arrest, saying the song incites violence. During a meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump played a video of Malema singing the song and presented articles on farm murders to support his narrative that white farmers are being persecuted in South Africa. 'It's puzzling to me that you've got a president who believes absolute lies,' Mbeki said. However, he emphasised the importance of mending ties with the US. 'We have a task to make sure that we get the people of the US on our side.' Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court dismissed a bid by AfriForum to have the song declared hate speech. The court denied AfriForum leave to appeal against the 2022 Equality Court ruling which found the song does not constitute hate speech and is protected under freedom of expression. TimesLIVE
TimesLIVE
7 days ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
'It's a chant': Former president Thabo Mbeki defends 'kill the Boer' song
Former president Thabo Mbeki has defended the controversial 'kill the Boer' song, saying it's a struggle song and not meant to be taken literally. The song, which originated during the apartheid era as a liberation song, has resurfaced with the EFF singing it at their rallies. The song has sparked a controversy with white Afrikaner groups interpreting it as promoting violence against them. 'It was a chant during the days of struggle,' Mbeki said in an interview with SABC News. 'Chants of that kind in our tradition, in the African tradition, you don't take them literally.' He drew parallels with another song, 'Ngeke ngiye kwaZulu, kwa feli umama,' which translates to 'I won't go to Zululand because my mother died there', emphasising that such songs are not meant to be taken at face value. 'You don't mean that,' he said. Mbeki said the ANC policy has always been against the killing of civilians, and there's no evidence to suggest that uMkhonto we Sizwe soldiers were instructed to kill farmers. 'There's no uMkhonto we Sizwe soldier who went and killed a farmer. It's a chant to motivate people. It was never taken literally. Even during the course of the struggle, it was not literal. It's an exaggeration to take this as an instruction to go and kill. The people who are exaggerating know that they are exaggerating because they are trying to achieve some political purpose.' The song's controversy resurfaced recently when US President Donald Trump called for EFF leader Julius Malema's arrest, saying the song incites violence. During a meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump played a video of Malema singing the song and presented articles on farm murders to support his narrative that white farmers are being persecuted in South Africa. 'It's puzzling to me that you've got a president who believes absolute lies,' Mbeki said. However, he emphasised the importance of mending ties with the US. 'We have a task to make sure that we get the people of the US on our side.' Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court dismissed a bid by AfriForum to have the song declared hate speech. The court denied AfriForum leave to appeal against the 2022 Equality Court ruling which found the song does not constitute hate speech and is protected under freedom of expression.
