Why Winnie Mandela is wrong about Nelson Mandela
Winnie Madikizela-Mandela speaks as if it was not the ANC collective that made the decisions that caused her to complain about Nelson Mandela, her ex husband. She places all the blame squarely on his shoulders. She acts as if she was not part of the NEC that agreed to the principles that would lead to the formation a new South Africa. Apparently Nelson Mandela was a dictator who made every single decision by himself. Of course, that’s if what is reported is true.
I have always held Winnie Madikizela Mandela in the highest regard; I think most of us do despite what the media says about her. I couldn’t help but sympathise with her when former president Thabo Mbeki knocked her hat off her head when she arrived late for some ANC celebrations. I have not always agreed with her but I have always respected her struggle against oppression. I don’t know many people who would have been able to survive what she had to go through. Policemen budging down her doors as they pleased, humiliating her in front of her children. She has suffered untold humiliations. As much as Madiba was the symbol of oppression in jail, she was the symbol of resistance outside.
The mistake that Winnie Madikizela Mandela is making is that of approaching Nelson Mandela from the angle of a man who is incapable of doing wrong. It is as if she thought he was perfect and suddenly realised he wasn’t. Nelson Mandela puts this in perspective when he says of her, “She married a man who soon left her; that man became a myth; and then that myth returned home and proved to be just a man after all.” Perhaps she still sees him as a myth, a man who can do all things.
She tries to make him a mere man amongst the leaders of the ANC by the manner in which London’s Evening Standard claimed she criticised him. However she achieves the opposite of what she was aiming for – by blaming him she places him above the other leaders because she says he alone is to blame. If she listened carefully to what he has said repeatedly, “I must not be isolated from the collective who are responsible for the success.”
The first government had to achieve certain things, political liberation first. Try to avert any bloodshed that could possibly take place in the process of starting a new nation. It could not afford to be radical; radicalism has rarely led to stability anywhere. The second government’s job was to bring the masses to the economic front; it didn’t really achieve it by that much, and it certainly did bring large amounts of black people to the middle class but not enough. Sixteen years on black people’s spending power now exceeds that of white people. She points out correctly that the economy is still in white hands. The struggle continues.
She is quoted saying “I kept the movement alive,” a few sentences later she says, “You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered.” We realize that and Mandela himself says that Winnie suffered a lot more than he did and there are thousands who suffered more than he did for freedoms cause. If we look at what she said here she is claiming sole credit. “I kept the movement alive.” The ANC and the people kept the movement alive. If anything, the movement and the people kept them both alive. Both Mandela’s cannot claim credit, they were symbols that we couldn’t have done without. We needed both. There couldn’t be one without the other.
“This name Mandela is an albatross around the necks of my family. You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered. There were many others, hundreds who languished in prison and died. Many unsung and unknown heroes of the struggle, and there were others in the leadership too, like poor Steve Biko, who died of the beatings, horribly all alone. Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a burning young revolutionary. But look what came out.”
Another mistake she is making is that people don’t change. She remembers an angry militant young man going to jail, a man who was also the founder of Mkhonto Wesizwe (MK), the military wing of the ANC. She thought she would meet the same fiery man but what walked out was a better man than the one who walked into prison, she didn’t know how to deal with him. He had an advantage in prison she didn’t have outside – the advantage of thinking in isolation, putting pieces together without being interrupted by the temptations of short-term goals to please the masses’ immediate needs. Nelson Mandela could put his emotions aside and think of what needed to be done for the greater good.
When we entered into a negotiated settlement we agreed to things that ensured the unity of the nation. No one was happy with the outcome, the hallmark of successful negotiations – each side felt cheated. “When you negotiate, you must be prepared to compromise.” Compromise basically means being happy with being unhappy about what you agree to. That is what negotiations were. No one came out the outright winner during CODESA.
He realised that sacrifices had to be made, she was thinking pay back. He came out a hero; she was painted as a villain after the Stompie incident. Their world-views couldn’t have been more different. He wanted a divorce, she didn’t. Now he was too good for her. It’s possible that these were the thoughts going in her head. I made him, his name survived because of me; he’d be nobody without me. This is how he thanks me? Of course no one can claim to know what was going on in her head, I am making uneducated speculation.
Winnie is completely wrong. She speaks as if Nelson Mandela negotiated by himself, as if he didn’t have a team to work with, a team that came up with ideas, proposed them to the NEC and then presented to the apartheid government. She blames him alone for the ills of the current state of the country. This reminds me a little of the ANC blaming all that is wrong on Thabo Mbeki and taking credit for all that’s gone well.
Winnie reminds me of a bit in the Bible when Moses went up the mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments, he was up there for a long time, weeks if my memory serves me right. When he came back the people had become impatient and they made a golden calf and worshiped it, the man Moses had left in charge, his brother Aaron, in order to appease the angry Israelites built the calf, upon descending to see this abomination Moses slammed the stone tablet and smashed it to pieces. Moses would occasionally call the Israelites the stiff-necked people because they were never happy, never satisfied, always complaining. They would say Egypt was better.
Now I am not saying that we shouldn’t complain when we see that things are not going the way they should be. Nelson Mandela could have done a lot of things better but he is the first one to admit that. He is a mere man. He didn’t lead South Africa alone. Is he beyond criticism? Of course not. He must be scrutinised and we should forever remember that he is not God. Having said that, I hope Winnie Madikizela Mandela didn’t say the things she is reported to have said.
Evening standard article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812947-how-nelson-mandela-betrayed-us-says-ex-wife-winnie.do
My thoughts on the victims and Jub Jub
Yesterday a tragic incident happened. South African hip-hop artist Jub Jub allegedly killed four teenagers due to negligent driving. This was not mere negligent driving, he was drag racing in the middle of a township, in Soweto. Anyone who knows anything about the township is that there are always people walking or trying to cross the street. Always. You can’t drive fast there, let alone race. What makes this incident even worse is the alleged drinking and drug taking.
These six children woke up in the morning to go school, a stepping-stone to futures they had envisioned for themselves. Their parents said goodbye to them in the morning, maybe some didn’t get the chance to because they had already gone to work. No parent wants to bury a child – especially of school going age. The death of a child is not a mere interruption. It is the sudden death of promise.
Many of us are sitting on our high horses judging Jub Jub and his friend. We all have every right to be angered by what happened, angry even at Jub Jub. DH Lawrence said it best when he said, “Anger is just, and pity is just, but judgment is never just.” Four children died an unnecessary death. Four families that should have been making lunch boxes tomorrow are planning lunch for a funeral. People have the right to be angry.
“You do not define anyone with your judgment. You only define yourself as someone who needs to judge.” Wayne Dyer. I am not qualified to pass judgment. What I will state is what I know was wrong, facts. He was wrong to speed. Racing in the middle of the township in the middle of the day with children walking back home from school was irresponsible. All these things while under the influence of alcohol and drugs is insane. That we all agree on. Calling him names now I am not so sure because it could have happened to anyone. I doubt any of us can say Jub Jub and his friend are glad this happened.
Before you judge someone else remember that you too have done something you are ashamed of.
And in all this, let us remember that there are grieving families, our prayers and attention should focus on them instead, not on a celebrity.
This picture for me hurts the most. The bags are so innocuous, yet they tell a story.
Chuck Norris’ birthday: Here are some Chuck Norris facts I wrote
I made up some Chuck Norris facts for this man’s birthday. I hope I don’t get roundhouse kicked for this.
Chuck Norris never says excuse me, he’s already excused.
When Danish cartoonists were given the choice to depict the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) or Chuck Norris, they took the safe option.
“I roundhouse kick, therefore I am.” Chuck Norris.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Chuck Norris made the chicken.
Chuck Norris taught blacks how to dance.
Chuck Norris was the first man on the sun.
If Chuck Norris wrote a Chuck Norris fact, it would be the funniest.
Celebrities endorse Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris’ shadow glows in the dark.
Martina Navratilova, Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant and Caster Semenya are all Chuck Norris’ illegitimate children.
Chuck Norris ended apartheid.
Mohamed Ali is not the greatest.
Brat Pitt begged Chuck Norris to impregnate Angelina Jolie for him.
Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked himself just for the heck of it.
Bruce Lee kicked Chuck Norris’s ass in Way of the Dragon. Bruce Lee died mysteriously.
We Are The World 25 remake for Hiati 2010
I actually like it. I’m just not sure about the rap.
Boity in the Wimpy Ad: Cheesenator
This may look like nepotism because I worked on the strategy.
Please help. Kid in California looking for Dumisani Dlamini, her dad
I cried when I read this email. I received the saddest email on YouTube just now. A kid in New York (I believe) is looking for her dad. He was in Mbongeni Ngema’s Sarafina. This kid was born 14 years ago, his dad was in New York on Broadway 14 years ago, she has never seen him. If you know of a Dumisani Dlamini who was in Sarafina 14 years ago please don’t hesitate to mail me, khayav@gmail.com I will post the girl’s email as it.
“This has nothing to do with this video. :’( I’m Amala Dlamini and my dad’s name is Dumisani Dlamini. I’m 14 and I haven’t met him yet. I only have pictures. He has no facebook or messaging source. He was in Sarafina and he performed on the lion king in new york city on broadway. I just want to find him and there’s SO MANY Dlaminis on facebook I don’t even know if they’re related to me. It’s sad. I just want to talk to my daddy. :’( “
I would like to believe this is legit, if not then I’m an idiot. But I chose to be an idiot if that is the risk I’m taking to help this kid. Let’s help her. Please.
Please help me find Dumisani Dlamini, his son is looking for him
I just recieved the saddest email on YouTube. I literally cried when I read it. I will post it as is with no edits. A Young boy in New York is looking for his dad. His dad was in The Lion King. He is South African. He obviously had an affiar with someone in New York. This is the email I received. I will send updates as I get them from him. If you know a Dumisani Dlamini who was in The Lion King 14 years ago on Broadway in New York please don’t hassitate to mail me on Khayav@gmail.com:
The email:
“This has nothing to do with this video. :’( I’m Amala Dlamini and my dad’s name is Dumisani Dlamini. I’m 14 and I haven’t met him yet. I only have pictures. He has no facebook or messaging source. He was in Sarafina and he performed on the lion king in new york city on broadway. I just want to find him and there’s SO MANY Dlaminis on facebook I don’t even know if they’re related to me. It’s sad. I just want to talk to my daddy. :’( “
Love them anyway
Human nature is a fascinating thing. Beautiful and dirty, strong yet fragile. It engages in the futility of failure and the ecstasy of success. At times we watch what we think is successful only fail – what we deemed a failure succeed. In our pursuit for immediate success and/or glory we fail to look at the marathon that is life. Life counts success only at the end.
We praise those who agree with us and vilify those who do not. We laugh at someone else to feel better about ourselves and ask others to join in, for if others join in, then that justifies, verifies and adds moral weight to the rightness of the morality to “laugh at”. This of course is all good until it is our turn to be laughed at, then all moral justifications we used suddenly do not apply to us. Then people are being cruel, petty and jealous. The truth is some people will find a reason to dislike you even if there isn’t one. To paraphrase Mzwakhe Mbuli, “Love them, anyway.”
This is all part of being human. Most of the time when given a choice to be our better selves we fall into the easy trap of falling into our worse selves because, let’s face it, it is far easier to be unkind than it is to be kind. It is easier to be weak than it is to be strong. This is the reason we chose cruelty over kindness, judging people before we have come to know them. This is the reason people try bring themselves up by bringing others down, in the end, this pulls them down – it is all weakness. Weakness is part of the human condition. I am guilty of it too. We all are. It takes strength to allow oneself to be “touched…by the better angels of our nature,” to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.
Whatever your fellow man is like, whatever his weakness, however he tries to bring himself up by putting you down, love him anyway.
“The pursuit of wealth” Thabo Mbeki lecture (speech) at Nelson Mandela Memorial
This is one of my favourite speeches by Thabo Mbeki as he addressed the dangers of the pursuit of wealth at all costs. The lecture was televised. I recall seeing Tokyo Sexwale smilling and shifting uncomfortably as Mbeki spoke.
I believe I know this as a matter of fact, that the great masses of our country everyday pray that the new South Africa that is being born will be a good, a moral, a humane and a caring South Africa, which, as it matures, will progressively guarantee the happiness of all its citizens.
I say this as I begin this Lecture to warn you about my intentions, which are about trying to convince you that because of the infancy of our brand new society, we have the possibility to act in ways that would, for the foreseeable future, infuse the values of Ubuntu into our very being as a people.
But what is it that constitutes Ubuntu – beyond the standard and yet correct rendition – Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongoe: Umuntu ngumuntu
ngabantu!
The Book of Poverbs in the Holy Bible contains some injunctions that capture a number of elements of what I believe constitute important features of the
Spirit of Ubuntu, which we should strive to implant in the very bosom of the new South Africa that is being born – the food of the soul that would inspire all our people to say that they are proud to be South African!
The Proverbs say:
“Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.
“Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.”
The Book of Proverbs assumes that as human beings, we have the human capacity to do as it says – not to withhold the good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of (our) hand to do it, and not to say NO to our neighbour, come again, and we will give you something tomorrow, even when we can give the necessary help today.
It assumes that we can be encouraged not to devise evil against our neighbours, with whom we otherwise live in harmony.
It assumes that we are capable of responding to the injunction that we should not declare war against anybody without cause, especially those who have not caused us any harm.
It urges that in our actions, we should not seek to emulate the demeanour of our oppressors, nor adopt their evil practices.
I am conscious of the fact that to the cynics, all this sounds truly like the behaviour we would expect and demand of angels. I am also certain that all of us are convinced that, most unfortunately, we would find it difficult to find such angels in our country, who would number more than the fingers on two hands!
It may indeed very well be that, as against coming across those we can honestly describe as good people, we would find it easier to identify not only evil-doers, but also those who intentionally set out to do evil. In this regard, we would not be an exception in terms both of time and space.
3
To illustrate what I am trying to say, I will take the liberty to quote words from the world of drama. I know of none of Shakespeare’s Tragedies, except Richard III, that begins with an open declaration of villainy by the very villain of the play.
This well-known play begins with an oration by the Duke of Gloucester, who later becomes King Richard III, in which he unashamedly declares his evil intentions, in these famous words:
“Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;…
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other…”
This open proclamation of evil intent stands in direct opposition to the directive in the Proverbs, which said, “Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.”
4
Surely, all this tells us the naked truth that the intention to do good, however noble in its purposes, does not guarantee that such good will be done.
Nevertheless we must ask ourselves the question whether this reality of the presence of many Richards III in our midst, dictates that we should, accordingly, avoid setting ourselves the goal to do good!
Many years ago now, Nelson Mandela made bold to say that our country needs an “RDP of the soul”, the Reconstruction and Development if its soul.
He made this call as our country, in the aftermath of our liberation in 1994, was immersed in an effort to understand the elements of the Reconstruction and
Development Programme that had constituted the core of the Election Manifesto of the ANC in our first democratic elections.
That RDP was eminently about changing the material conditions of the lives of our people. It made no reference to matters of the soul, except indirectly. For instance, the RDP document said:
“The RDP integrates (economic) growth, development, reconstruction and redistribution into a unified programme. The key to this link is an infrastructural programme that will provide access to modern and effective services like electricity, water, telecommunications, transport, health, education and training for all our people…This will lead to an increased output in all sectors of the economy, and by modernising our infrastructure and human resource development, we will also enhance export capacity. Success in linking reconstruction and development is essential if we are to achieve peace and security for all.”
All of these were, and remain critically important and eminently correct objectives that we must continue to pursue. Indeed, in every election since 1994, our contending parties have vied for the favours of our people on the basis of statistics that are about all these things.
All revolutions, which, by definition, seek to replace one social order with another, are, in the end, and in essence, concerned with human beings and the improvement of the human condition. This is also true of our Democratic Revolution of 1994.
Assuming this assertion to be true, we must also say that human fulfillment consists of more than “access to modern and effective services like electricity, water, telecommunications, transport, health, education and training for all our people”, to use the words in the RDP document.
As distinct from other species of the animal world, human beings also have spiritual needs. It might perhaps be more accurate and less arrogant to say that these needs are more elevated and have a more defining impact on human beings than they do on other citizens of the animal world.
Thus do all of us, and not merely the religious leaders, speak of the intangible element that is immanent in all human beings – the soul!
Acceptance of this proposition as a fact must necessarily mean that we have to accept the related assertion that, consequently, all human societies also have a soul!
To deny this would demand that we argue in a convincing manner, and therefore with all due logical coherence, that the fact that individual human beings might have a soul does not necessarily mean that the human societies they combine to constitute will themselves, in consequence, also have a soul!
I dare say that this would prove to be an impossible task. Nevertheless, we must accept that, as in the contrast provided by the Proverbs and Richard III, and with regard to the construction of a humane and caring society, we must accept that this entails a struggle, rather than any self-evident and inevitable victory of good over evil.
The question must therefore arise – for those among us who believe that we represent the good, what must we do to succeed in our purposes!
Since no human action takes place outside of established objective reality, and since we want to achieve our objectives, necessarily we must strive to understand the social conditions that would help to determine whether we succeed or fail.
What I have said relates directly to what needed and needs to be done to achieve the objective that Nelson Mandela set the nation, to accomplish the RDP of its soul.
In this regard, I will take the liberty to quote what I said in 1978 in a Lecture delivered in Canada, reflecting on the formation of South African society, which was later reproduced in the ANC journal, “Sechaba”, under the title “The Historical Injustice”.
“The historic compromise of 1910 has therefore this significance that in granting the vanquished Boer equal political and social status with the British victor, it imposed on both the duty to defend the status quo against especially those whom that status quo defined as the dominated. The capitalist class, to whom everything has a cash value, has never considered moral incentives as very dependable. As part of the arrangement, it therefore decided that material incentives must play a prominent part.
“It consequently bought out the whole white population. It offered a price to the white workers and the Afrikaner farmers in exchange for an undertaking that they would shed their blood in defence of capital. Both worker and farmer, like Faustus, took the devil’s offering and, like Faustus, they will have to pay on the appointed day.
“The workers took the offering in monthly cash grants and reserved jobs. The farmers took their share by having black labour, including and especially prison labour directed to the farms. They also took it in the form of huge subsidies and loans to help them maintain a ‘civilised standard of living’.”
Of relevance to our purposes this evening, the critical point conveyed in these paragraphs is that, within the context of the development of capitalism in our country, individual acquisition of material wealth, produced through the oppression and exploitation of the black majority, became the defining social value in the organisation of white society.
Because the white minority was the dominant social force in our country, it entrenched in our society as a whole, including among the oppressed, the deep- seated understanding that personal wealth constituted the only true measure of individual and social success.
As we achieved our freedom in 1994, this had become the dominant social value, affecting the entirety of our population. Inevitably, as an established social norm, this manifested itself even in the democratic state machinery that had, seemingly “seamlessly”, replaced the apartheid state machinery.
I am arguing that the new order, born of the victory in 1994, inherited a well-entrenched value system that placed individual acquisition of wealth at the very centre of the value system of our society as a whole.
In practice this meant that, provided this did not threaten overt social disorder, society assumed a tolerant or permissive attitude towards such crimes as theft and corruption, especially if these related to public property.
The phenomenon we are describing, which we considered as particularly South African, was in fact symptomatic of the capitalist system in all countries. It had been analysed by all serious commentators on the capitalist political-economy, including such early analysts as Adam Smith.
Specifically, in this regard, we are speaking of the observations made by the political-economists that, since the onset of capitalism in England, the values of the capitalist market, of individual profit maximisation, had tended to displace the values of human solidarity.
In despair at this development, R. H. Tawney wrote in his famous book, “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism”:
“To argue, in the manner of Machiavelli, that there is one rule for business and another for private life, is to open the door to an orgy of unscrupulousness before which the mind recoils…(Yet) granted that I should love my neighbour as myself, the questions which, under modern conditions of large-scale (economic) organisation, remain for solution are, Who precisely is my neighbour? And, How exactly am I to make my love for him effective in practice?
“To these questions the conventional religious teaching supplied no answer, for it had not even realised that they could be put…Religion had not yet learned to console itself for the practical difficulty of applying its moral principles, by clasping the comfortable formula that for the transactions of economic life no moral principles exist.”
In his well known book, “The Great Transformation”, in a Chapter headed “Market and Man”, Karl Polanyi went on to say:
“To separate labour from other activities of life and to subject it to the laws of the market was to annihilate all organic forms of existence and to replace them by a different type of organisation, an atomistic and individualist one.
“Such a scheme of destruction was best served by the application of the principle of freedom of contract. In practice this meant that the non- contractual organisations of kinship, neighbourhood, profession, and creed were to be liquidated since they claimed the allegiance of the individual and thus restrained his freedom.
“To represent this principle as one of non- interference, as economic liberals were wont to do, was merely the expression of an ingrained prejudice in favour of a definite kind of interference, namely, such as would destroy non-contractual relations between individuals and prevent the spontaneous reformation.”
In a Foreword to a recent edition of this book, Joseph Stiglitz says: “Polanyi stresses a particular defect in the self-regulating economy that only recently has been brought back into discussion. It involves the relationship between the economy and society, with how economic systems, or reforms, can affect how individuals relate to one another. Again, as the importance of social relations has increasingly become recognised, the vocabulary has changed. We now talk, for instance, about social capital.”
With reference to this Lecture, the central point made by Polanyi is that the capitalist market destroys relations of “kinship, neighbourhood, profession, and creed”, replacing these with the pursuit of personal wealth by citizens who, as he says, have become “atomistic and individualistic.”
Thus, everyday, and during every hour of our time beyond sleep, the demons embedded in our society, that stalk us at every minute, seem always to beckon each one of us towards a realizable dream and nightmare. With every passing second, they advise, with rhythmic and hypnotic regularity – get rich! get rich! get rich!
And thus has it come about that many of us accept that our common natural instinct to escape from poverty is but the other side of the same coin on whose reverse side are written the words – at all costs, get rich!
In these circumstances, personal wealth, and the public communication of the message that we are people of wealth, becomes, at the same time, the means by which we communicate the message that we are worthy citizens of our community, the very exemplars of what defines the product of a liberated
South Africa.
This peculiar striving produces the particular result that manifestations of wealth, defined in specific ways, determine the individuality of each one of us who seeks to achieve happiness and self-fulfilment, given the liberty that the revolution of 1994 brought to all of us.
In these circumstances, the meaning of freedom has come to be defined not by the seemingly ethereal and therefore intangible gift of liberty, but by the designer labels on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the spaciousness of our houses and our yards, their geographic location, the company we keep, and what we do as part of that company.
In the event that what I have said has come across as a meaningless ramble, let me state what I have been saying more directly.
It is perfectly obvious that many in our society, having absorbed the value system of the capitalist market, have come to the conclusion that, for them, personal success and fulfilment means personal enrichment at all costs, and the most theatrical and striking public display of that wealth.
What this means is that many in our society have come to accept that what is socially correct is not the proverbial expression – “manners maketh the man” – but the notion that each one of us is as excellent a human being as our demonstrated wealth suggests!
On previous occasions, I have cited statements made by the well-known financier, George Soros, which directly confront the crisis to social cohesion and human solidarity caused by what I have sought to address – the elevation of the profit motive and the personal acquisition of wealth as the principal and guiding objectives in the construction of modern societies, including our own.
With your permission, and because it is relevant to what I am trying to communicate, I will take the liberty to quote this paragraph once again, believing that it resonates with a particular sense of honesty, because it emanates from one of the iconic figures of late 20th century capitalism.
Among other things, George Soros said that in an earlier epoch, “People were guided by a set of moral principles that found expression in behaviour outside the scope of the market mechanism…
“Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better…People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor…
“The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest…There is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilised society…Cooperation is as much a part of the (economic) system as competition, and the slogan ‘survival of the fittest’ distorts this fact…
“I blame the prevailing attitude, which holds that the unhampered pursuit of self-interest will bring abou tan eventual international equilibrium (in the world economy).”
(All quotations from: George Soros: “The Capitalist
Threat”. The Atlantic Monthly, February 1997.)
The critical concern that George Soros has expressed is what he describes as “market fundamentalism”, the dominance and precedence of the capitalist motive of private profit maximisation, which has evolved into the central objective that informs the construction of modern human society in all its elements.
Nothing can come out of this except the destruction of human society, resulting from the atomisation of society into an agglomeration of individuals who pursue mutually antagonistic materialist goals.
Necessarily, and inevitably, this cannot but negate social cohesion and mutually beneficial human solidarity, and therefore the most fundamental condition of the existence of all human beings, namely, the mutually interdependent human relationships without which the individual human being cannot exist.
I am arguing that, whatever the benefit to any individual member of our nation, including all those present in this hall, we nevertheless share a fundamental objective to defeat the tendency in our society towards the deification of personal wealth as the distinguishing feature of the new citizen of the new South Africa.
With some trepidation, advisedly assuming that there is the allotted proportion of hardened cynics present here this evening, I will nevertheless make bold to quote an ancient text, which reads, in Old English:
“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
“How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: so shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.”
I know that given the level of education of our audience this evening, the overwhelming majority among us will know that I have extracted the passages I have quoted from the Book of Proverbs contained in the St James’ edition of the Holy Bible.
It may be that the scepticism of our age has dulled our collective and individual sensitivity to the messages of this Book of Faith and all the messages that it seeks to convey to all of us.
In this regard, I know that I have not served the purposes of this Book well, by exploiting the possibility it provides, to say to you and everybody else who might be listening – “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise…”
Everyday, the ant, one of the smallest inhabitants of our common animal world, goes about her ways in search of sustenance, depending on nature’s harvest in all seasons, as well as her own little ways, to provide her with meat in the hot summer months.
To consider her ways means that we too, who unknowingly squash to death the miniscule pygmies of the world, as we tread the common earth as giants of the universe, means that we must develop the wisdom that will ensure the survival and cohesion of human society.
It assumes that we have the humility to understand that “a little folding of the hands to sleep”, travel and service in the defence of the nation, might impoverish us by depriving us of our regular meals, but simultaneously make us “happy (as) the man that (finds) wisdom, and the man that (gets) understanding.”
It would be dishonest of me not to assume that what I have cited from the Book of Proverbs will, at best, evoke literary interest, and, at worst, a minor theological controversy.
My own view is that the Proverbs raise important issues that bear on what our nation is trying to do to define the soul of the new South Africa.
I believe they communicate a challenging message about how we should respond to the situation immanent in our society concerning the adulation of personal wealth, and the attendant tendency to pay little practical regard to what each one of us might do to assist our neighbour to achieve the goal of a better life.
I must also accept that many among us might very well think that, like the proverbial King Canute, I am trying to wish away the waves of self-aggrandisement that might be characteristic of global human society.
To return to the Holy Bible, the Book of Genesis says, “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return”. (Genesis 3:19).
This Biblical text suggests that of critical importance to every South African is consideration of the material conditions of life, and therefore the attendant pursuit of personal wealth. After all, what interpretation should be attached to the statementthat “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread”!
Perhaps strangely, this could be said to coincideexactly with a fundamental proposition advanced by the founders of Marxism, expressed by Friederich Engels at the funeral of Karl Marx in the followingwords:
“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.”
Putting all this in more dramatic language, Marx had said: “Man must eat before he can think”! In this regard, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution, said: “Before we perceive, we breathe: we cannot exist without air, food and drink”.
In the context of this Lecture, and what we will say later, we must state that Marx and Engels represented a particular point of view in the evolution of the discipline of philosophy, and were not asserting any love for the private accumulation of wealth. They were “materialists”, who were militantly opposed to another philosophical tendency described as “idealism”.
One of the most famous expressions of this “idealism” was stated by the French scholar and philosopher, Rene Descartes, who wrote, in Latin: “Cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am”, and, in the original French rendition, “Je pense, donc je suis”.)
In the context of our own challenges, this “idealism” must serve to focus our attention on issues other than the tasks of the production and distribution of material wealth.
The philosophers in our ranks will have to engage the old debate of the relationship between mind and matter expressed in the statements, “Man must eat before he can think.”!, and “I think, therefore I am.”
I am certain that our country’s philosopher- theologians will continue to be interested in these discussions. After all, some of the earliest expression of “idealism”, as a philosophical expression, is also contained in the Holy Bible.
In this regard, for instance, St John’s Gospel says: “In the beginning was the Word…”
I am certain that many in this auditorium have been asking themselves the question why I have referred so insistently on the Christian Holy Scriptures. Let me explain.
I believe that it is obvious to all of us that economic news and our economic challenges have come to occupy a central element of our daily diet of information.
Matters relating to such important issues as unemployment and job creation, disbursements from the national budget and expenditures on such items of education, health, welfare and transport, the economic growth rate, the balance between our imports and exports, the value of the Rand, skills development, broad based black economic empowerment, and the development of the “second economy”, have all become part of our daily discourse.
Nevertheless the old intellectual debate between “materialists” and “idealists”, whatever side we take in this regard, must tell us that human life is about more than the economy, and therefore material considerations.
I believe that as a nation we must make a special effort to understand and act on this, because of what I have said already, that personal pursuit of material gain, as the beginning and end of our life purpose, is already beginning to corrode our social and national cohesion.
Clearly, what this means is that when we talk of a better life for all, within the context of a shared sense of national unity and national reconciliation, we must look beyond the undoubtedly correct economic objectives our nation has set itself.
In this context, I must say that, most unfortunately, there is much trouble in the world. Much too regularly all of us are exposed, daily, to news of human-made conflict and death, and the disasters caused by poverty and natural disasters.
In reality I must confess that I have hardly ever heard of conflicts caused merely by low economic growth rates, currency movements and balance of payments problems, except to the extent that these produce a crisis in society.
Currently, none of us can avoid being extremely concerned about what is happening in the Middle East. What is happening in this region constitutes a tinder box that has the potential to set the whole world aflame. As a country and people, we surely know that the highly negative events in the Middle
East are of direct and immediate concern to us.
It seems tragically clear that here we are confronted with an impending catastrophe that is almost out of control. Nothing that has been done and said during this period of high crisis that has produced the necessary agreement which would pull humanity back from the brink of an escalating conflict that can only feed on itself, leading to a further fanning of the terrible fires that already seem to be burning out of control.
In this regard we must pose the question whether, even in the medium term, we are not ineluctably progressing towards the situation when the centre cannot hold. I refer here not only to the serious problems in the Middle East but to the phenomenon of social conflict everywhere else in the world.
As Europe and the world sowed the seeds for the catastrophe later represented by the Second World War as in a Greek tragedy, the eminent Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, like other European thinkers, sounded alarm bells that nobody seemed to hear.
What he said survives today as outstanding poetry. Hopefully, the warning he sounded so many decades ago will be heard today, so that, by our acts of commission and omission, we do not condemn humanity to an age of extreme misery and death that could have been avoided.
In an appeal to the Muses, when all else seems to be failing, I take this opportunity humbly to summon from the grave an extraordinary human mind, to inspire the living to focus on the dangers ahead, and strive to ensure that, emanating from Jerusalem, the acre of the fountain of many faiths, no monstrous beast slouches out of Bethlehem to be born!
Thus do I appeal that all of us, the mighty and the lowly, hear the words of the poet not only with our ears, but also with our minds and our hearts, as he spoke of “The Second Coming”!
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand…
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds…
…but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at
last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I believe that for us to ensure that things do not fall apart, we must, in the first instance, never allow that the market should be the principal determinant of the nature of our society. We should firmly oppose the “market fundamentalism” which George Soros has denounced as the force that has led society to lose its anchor.
Instead, we must place at the centre of our daily activities the pursuit of the goals of social cohesion and human solidarity. We must, therefore, strive to integrate into the national consciousness the value system contained in the world outlook described as Ubuntu.
We must therefore constantly ask ourselves the question – what is it in our country that militates against social cohesion and human solidarity? I believe that none of us present here tonight would have any difficulty in answering this question.
I am therefore certain that we would all agree that to achieve the social cohesion and human solidarity we seek, we must vigorously confront the legacy of poverty, racism and sexism. At the same time, we must persist in our efforts to achieve national reconciliation.
Mere reliance on the market would never help us to achieve these outcomes. Indeed, if we were to rely on the market to produce these results, what would happen would be the exacerbation of the deep- seated problems of poverty, racism and sexism and a retreat from the realisation of the objective of national reconciliation.
Then indeed would we open the door to the demons that W.B. Yeats saw slouching towards Bethlehem to be born – emerging from the situation where the centre could not hold, in which mere anarchy would be loosed upon the world.
We must therefore say that the Biblical injunction is surely correct, that “Man cannot live by bread alone”, and therefore that the mere pursuit of individual wealth can never satisfy the need immanent in all human beings to lead lives of happiness.
The conflicts we see today and have seen in many parts of the world should themselves communicate the daily message to us that the construction of cohesive human society concerns much more than the attainment of high economic growth rates, important as this objective is.
As we agonise over the unnecessary killings of innocent people and the destruction of much- needed infrastructure in Iraq and Palestine, in Lebanon and Israel, we have to ensure that we do not slide into an era when the falcon cannot hear the falconer, when things fall apart and the centre cannot hold.
Indeed, as we, South Africans, grapple with our own challenges, billions of the poor and the marginalised across the globe see the world ever evolving into a more sinister, cold and bitter place: this is the world that is gradually defined by increasing racism, xenophobia, ethnic animosity, religious conflicts, and the scourge of terrorism.
In this context, we have seen the rise of rightwing formations, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance in France, Germany, Holland, Russia and many other European countries. This, in part, is a reaction to the relentless development of complex and varied forms that societies are ineluctably assuming due to the processes of globalisation.
It nevertheless also points to the absence of an integrative thrust – some reconciler – the institutionalised processes that would end the sense of alienation and marginalisation that leads to social conflict.
Indeed even in these developed societies, rising levels of poverty and insecurity have invariably conspired to fertilise the ground from which germinates ignorance about the ‘other’, and portend a bleak future for the prospect of what has been called a dialogue among civilisations.
In many European countries, immigration from the South is seen as an intrusive force that is bound to create ‘impurities’ in local cultures and in many instances, put a burden on available resources. In this regard, I am certain that all of us have been dismayed to see the way in which many in Europe have responded to the African economic migrants, who daily risk their lives to escape the grinding poverty in our own African countries.
Fortunately, in our case, I would say that our nation has begun to exhibit many critical common features deriving from a unified vision of a society based on non-racialism, non-sexism, shared prosperity, and peace and stability. Yet, at the same time, we still display strong traits of our divided past, with the debate about our future quite often coalescing along definite racial lines.
Despite this, and despite the advances we have made in our 12 years of freedom, we must also recognise the reality that we still have a long way to go before we can say we have eradicated the embedded impulses that militate against social cohesion, human solidarity and national reconciliation.
We should never allow ourselves the dangerous luxury of complacency, believing that we are immune to the conflicts that we see and have seen in so many parts of the world.
At the very same time as a ray of hope shone over our country and continent with the liberation of our country in 1994, and as you, Madiba, declared to the world that “the sun shall never set on so glorious a day”, our fellow Africans, the Rwandese people, engulfed in a horrific genocide, lamented in unison that: ‘the angels have left us’.
In a Foreword to the book of the same name, Archbishop Tutu said: “When we come face to face with ghastly atrocities we are appalled and want to ask: ‘But what happened to these people that they have acted in this manner? What happened to their humanity that they should become inhumane?’
“…Yes we hang our heads in shame as we witness our extraordinary capacity to be vicious, cruel and almost devoid of humanness.”
The imperative we face is that we should never permit that our country should witness the actions devoid of humanness of which Archbishop Tutu spoke, some of which were a feature of our long years of colonialism and apartheid.
Indeed, in a world that still suffers from the blight of intolerance, wars, antagonistic conflicts, racism, tribalism and marginalisation, national reconciliation and reconciliation among the nations, will remain a challenge that must occupy the entire human race continuously.
In our case we should say that we are fortunate that we had a Nelson Mandela who made bold to give us the task to attend to the “RDP of the soul”, and lent his considerable weight to the achievement of the goal of national reconciliation and the achievement of the goal of a better life for all our people.
Ten years ago, Madiba travelled to the Republic of Congo to assist the people of the then Zaire, and now the Democratic Republic of Congo, to make peace among themselves. In this regard, he was conscious of the task we share as Africans to end the conflicts on our Continent, many of which are driven by the failure to effect the RDP of the African soul, to uphold the principles of Ubuntu, consciously to strive for social cohesion, human solidarity and national reconciliation.
Tomorrow the people of the DRC will go to the polls to elect their President and Members of the National Assembly. Everything points to the happy outcome that these democratic elections, the first in more that 40 years, will produce a result that truly reflects the will of the people of the DRC.
We must therefore say that we have arrived at a proud moment of hope for the DRC and Africa, and wish the sister people of the DRC unqualified success.
Yes, the Middle East is engulfed in flames that are devouring many people in this region, and cause enormous pain to ourselves as well. But this we can also say, difficult as it may be for some fully to accept, what the people of the DRC have done and will do, is also helping to define a world of hope, radically different from the universe of despair which seems to imprison the sister peoples of the Middle East.
I can think of no better birthday present for Madiba than tomorrow’s elections in the DRC, and no better tribute to the initiative he took 10 years ago to plead with the leaders of the Congolese people that together, as Africans, we must build a society based on the noble precept that – Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongoe: Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu!
Once again, happy birthday Madiba!
Thank you.
ANCYL should heed Mbeki’s warning – politicians and the persuit of wealth
In the last week we have been reading newspaper reports about Julius Malema’s two houses which are worth a cool R4.6 million and cars worth R1.2 million on a reported monthly salary of R20 000. Since he is a politician people are curious to find out how he was able to accumulate this wealth. He is not a member of parliament and is not obliged to disclose. According to Sunday newspaper reports such as the Sunday Times, City Press and others, he is able to pay for his lifestyle because of a stake he has in certain companies which have been awarded government tenders worth R140 millions.
We should not question the fact that he has been able to accumulate his wealth, what should be questioned is the manner in which the tenders were awarded. Was the tendering process fair? This is not to say that his companies did not deserve them, rather, was the process legitimate? Those are the question that need asking. Like anyone else he has the right to make money. If there is nothing wrong with the manner in which the contracts were awarded then we can sit back and applaud his business acumen, if however there is something not so kosher we have every right to know and demand answers.
We should not however jump to conclusions that they were awarded improperly simply because we don’t like the guy, or assume that he can’t accumulate wealth simply because he got a G at Woodwork.
Having said that, I would like to point out to an address by then president Thabo Mbeki at the Nelson Mandela Lecture, 29 July 2006, where he discussed the dangers of the new money chasing society we have become accustomed to. It has to be said that this is a system he helped create even if it was unintentional on his part. I quote from the next paragraph his prophetic warning…
He says, “Thus, everyday, and during every hour of our time beyond sleep, the demons embedded in our society, that stalk us at every minute, seem always to beckon each one of us towards a realizable dream and nightmare. With every passing second, they advise, with rhythmic and hypnotic regularity – get rich! get rich! get rich!
“And thus has it come about that many of us accept that our common natural instinct to escape from poverty is but the other side of the same coin on whose reverse side are written the words – at all costs, get rich!
In these circumstances, personal wealth, and the public communication of the message that we are people of wealth, becomes, at the same time, the means by which we communicate the message that we are worthy citizens of our community, the very exemplars of what defines the product of a liberated
South Africa.
This peculiar striving produces the particular result that manifestations of wealth, defined in specific ways, determine the individuality of each one of us who seeks to achieve happiness and self-fulfilment, given the liberty that the revolution of 1994 brought to all of us.
In these circumstances, the meaning of freedom has come to be defined not by the seemingly ethereal and therefore intangible gift of liberty, but by the designer labels on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the spaciousness of our houses and our yards, their geographic location, the company we keep, and what we do as part of that company.
In the event that what I have said has come across as a meaningless ramble, let me state what I have been saying more directly.
It is perfectly obvious that many in our society, having absorbed the value system of the capitalist market, have come to the conclusion that, for them, personal success and fulfilment means personal enrichment at all costs, and the most theatrical and striking public display of that wealth.
What this means is that many in our society have come to accept that what is socially correct is not the proverbial expression – “manners maketh the man” – but the notion that each one of us is as excellent a human being as our demonstrated wealth suggests!”
To read the complete speech click here http://khayav.com/2010/02/22/the-pursuit-of-wealth-thabo-mbeki-lecture-speech-at-nelson-mandela-memorial/
Excuse me while I blame apartheid*
By Khaya Dlanga
Many white people see no just cause in blacks blaming apartheid for anything. It ended almost 14 years already; get over it already, they say. Often it is said with indignation, if not irritation, as though to say, how dare they!
Those who insist we stop talking about it tell us it’s in the past, so we should forget about it. Perhaps it would be easy to forget if we didn’t bear the scars of the past. For some it’s not mere scars; some walk around with deep sores that are still healing — slowly. Every now and then, the sore is disturbed and the healing process is reversed.
It is easy for the “perpetrator” (I use that word liberally here) to say: “Forget about it,” because he does not want to be reminded of his sins. At the same time it is also too easy for the victim to keep playing the victim card instead of getting on with it. There is a middle ground somewhere between these conflicting feelings.
When we blame the legacy of apartheid, most white people take it as a personal attack on them for having benefited from the system. Or they accuse blacks of refusing to take responsibility for whatever is going wrong in the country. This is not the case. It is an attack on the system. We are not asking you to feel guilty. If anyone needs to get over anything, it is white people who walk around carrying guilt. This guilt might paralyse them, or even make them unwitting racists. Or, even worse, cause them to overcompensate, thus wiping away any sincerity in their efforts to balance the past.
To be honest, had I been white during the height of apartheid I don’t know if I would have had the moral fortitude to stand up against the National Party government. Perhaps I would have condemned it in the comfort and privacy of my mind.
The legacy of apartheid is very real. Let us not pretend that people don’t have a legitimate reason for blaming it for their current condition, as some excuse for their lack of progress. It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of black people were denied a good education; some were even denied an education. The government of the day did not bother to build schools for them.
Where there is education, opportunity soon follows, and without it blacks were caught in a vicious cycle of stagnation. They saw no real progress for themselves. Instead of passing on wealth from generation to generation, their descendents inherited poverty and a very visible reality that they were not allowed to prosper in the land of their birth.
To dismiss these realities as mere laziness on the part of the black person is a clear lack of understanding of the position the formerly oppressed find themselves in today. The black person is still playing catch up.
We in the black community are lacking decent education, even with the new government. The teachers who teach most black students did not get a fantastic education themselves. With these steep hills to climb, it is a miracle that so many children who went through those schools have managed to extricate themselves from the web of hopelessness.
Jobless blacks in the townships and in the rural areas do not expect the government to do anything for them. What they want are opportunities so that they can improve their lives — not handouts. Many of them don’t see these opportunities, so they create some for themselves even in the bleak conditions in which find themselves. Young men create car-wash businesses and young women hair saloons, to name just the most obvious examples.
On the other hand, blacks look at white misbehaviour through the prism of race without seeing the core of the problem. When we only look at it that way, we don’t try to solve the issue.
The black community must not confuse with racism the young white man’s anger. He cannot understand why he has to be at the back of the queue when he seeks employment. Let’s say that he is too young even to remember apartheid. Shall we now punish him for benefiting from a system that was not of his choosing? Is it his fault that he just happened to have been born into it? Whether he would have grown up to be a perpetrator of the evils of the previous system or not is immaterial. What matters is that the system ended before he could be a conscious and active participant in it. What do we do now?
Having said all I have, I would like to point out that I am not as naive as to believe that racism does not exist. Sadly it is does. We saw manifestations of it recently at the University of the Free State.
Whether we admit it or not, we are all victims of apartheid. But we cannot be victims forever. We may have been victims, but we don’t have to think and act like them. The only way we can raise above it is when we first seek to understand. However, this must not excuse bad black or white behaviour.
*first published March 28 on thoughtleader.co.za
Is Zuma weak or just being used? *
By Khaya Dlanga
I don’t know about you, but I prefer my leaders smart. I don’t want their intellectual capacity to be open for debate.
Even if a leader is a jackass, I want to be able to say: “Sure, he’s a jackass, but he sure is smart,” like many people thought of good ol’ Mbeki. I don’t want my leader to be making George Bush-like misstatements when he speaks in public. It fills me with a great deal of comfort when I know that my leader is significantly smarter and wiser than I am. I’ll be the first to admit that that bar is not very high, so I’m not asking for much.
I know that some people will think that I’m questioning Zuma’s intelligence. I would have to be an idiot (not that I am not) to think that he is on the slow side. You don’t become the second-most-powerful man in the land by being stupid.
I just get the sense that his top supporters don’t respect him. Or they just think that they are smarter than he is. All they respect is what they can get because of him. I can’t shake the feeling that they will discard him like used toilet paper; once they are rid of him, they will go on the hunt for some other poor soul who is hungry and desperate enough for power, for whatever reason. Unfortunately many will claim much love for him, but I suspect they would rather nurse their expensive Johnnie Walkers while he burns, since he would have achieved his purpose. For them.
I had a conversation with a former chairperson of a certain region of a certain trade union a few months ago. I will name this individual Mr Someone as he told me in no uncertain terms not to reveal his name when I told him that I was going to write a blog regarding our conversation.
It was not until I saw headlines with the Congress of South African Trade Unions contradicting statements made by Zuma that I paid attention to the conversation I had those months ago with Mr Someone.
Mr Someone shared with me the reason the leaders of the trade unions were so passionate about Zuma. He made a call to a regional chairperson, Mr Somebody, of a large trade union while he was with me. After their conversation ended, Mr Someone revealed to me that the reason the likes of Mr Somebody supported Zuma so passionately was because he was someone the trade unions could control. They did not have that luxury with Mbeki and they punished him for it. He trusted his intellect far too much for their liking.
At times I wonder who calls the shots in the ANC. Is it Phosa or Gwede? I never wonder if it’s Zuma. Perhaps he is too busy preparing for the trial. Since the conference I have never felt that Zuma is leading the ANC. I don’t buy the collective argument. My suspicion is that the leadership of the ANC does not think that he would make a good president. If anyone is a lame-duck president, it’s Jacob Zuma.
We see the lack of power in small humiliations, so small that they go unnoticed. In the future they might become more blatant. Time will tell. He is made to retract a statement here and another one there. He is forced to say he was misquoted. Can you imagine that happening to Mbeki?
If all this is true, then it fair to say that Jacob Zuma does not lead; he is being led.
Zuma is becoming a sad and tragic figure. No one can deny that he is a likable and charming man. These two virtues do not a leader make.
He fought so hard for power that when he got it, he discovered he had it in name only. He is told how to wield it. We know that he would argue and say he is a consensus leader. The truth is that Mandela was such a leader, but we knew he had power; we never doubted it. The same can be said about Tambo. Mbeki was a different story, apparently. If this is Zuma’s way of rebelling against Mbeki’s style of leadership, then he is taking it too far. He just seems weak. Perhaps that is what Mr Somebody meant when he said that Zuma is someone that can be controlled.
This is what I expect from my leader:
I want to know what my leader stands for. I don’t want to hear him say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow.
I don’t want a leader who stands just for his own survival. I want a leader who will make sure that I, along with 46-million odd South Africans, don’t just survive but thrive.
I don’t want a leader who follows the public mood, but one who shapes it.
I want a leader who will tell me what I need to hear, not what I want to hear.
I don’t want a leader who thinks that he can get away with answering tough questions by laughing. He should be arrogant enough to say, “I refuse to answer this question,” or, “This interview is over, Mr Journalist Person. Your question crossed the line.”
Zuma, man up! Be the president we know you can be. Stop trying to appease every interest group out there and take your power back!
*first published March 12th, on www.thoughtleader.co.za
Should Thabo Mbeki launch a new party? *
By Khaya Dlanga
I read an interesting yet short article by Karima Brown on Business Day online. The following paragraphs caught my eye:
“Could firebrand African National Congress Youth League president Julius Malema have an even bigger effect on South African politics than he dreams of?
“His demand that President Thabo Mbeki be stripped of his ANC membership could well be the Damascene moment that induces the birth of a powerful new opposition to the ANC. For months it has been whispered that Mbeki and his camp have been exploring the formation of a new party after his defeat by Jacob Zuma in Polokwane. Polls have been conducted, research commissioned, meetings held and stories spread.”
It would have been unwise and bordering on political and strategic retardation to strip Mbeki of his ANC membership. It would have been going very far — so far that it would have been beyond too far. ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe dismissed these calls as mere rumours while on the television programme Interface.
Had the rumours been true, it would have been the best thing to have happened to Mbeki because that would have given him carte blanche to form his own party. Many like-minded people would have flocked to him; many of them with money. His party wouldn’t have won a majority, but the ANC wouldn’t have gained a two-thirds majority either, nor would it even have received 50% of the vote.
They need him in the ANC: not for his sake, but for the sake of the party to make life easier for the organisation. An opposition led by the former president would give the ANC a rather impossible migraine.
Now he has to toe the party line, and show that he is a dedicated and loyal member of the ANC who will do anything asked of him. After Zuma is sworn in as president, what will happen to him? Will the ANC discard him because he has achieved for it what it wanted? Without Mbeki, the ANC’s majority will be greatly reduced.
The ANC needs him more than it is willing to admit. Is it possible that he does not need the party as much?
There was a part of me that hoped that the ANC would be foolish enough to strip him of his membership. Not because I was hoping that he would be humiliated — on the contrary, I thought that it would be a great idea for him to head up a powerful opposition to the current ANC, which I have started to see as quickly devolving into an anarchist organisation. Of course that was my immediate emotional reaction at the time of his dismissal. His address to the nation did much to calm this line of thinking. He said: “I remain a member of the ANC, and therefore respect its decision. It is for this reason that I have taken the decision to resign as president of the republic.”
He is far too loyal to the ANC to leave it.
There are some level-headed moderates within the leadership structures of the ANC: the likes of Kgalema Motlanthe, Pallo Jordan and others — unfortunately we never hear them. We only ever hear those who shout from the rooftops that they would kill for Zuma. Mind you, not in defence of their nation or an ideology, but for a mere man. I don’t think I’ve ever even heard someone say they’d kill for Mandela, and there is a man worth dying for.
I have mixed feelings about the whole series of unfortunate events that has led us to this point. This is a painful moment for our nation. People are emotional. They are hurting. Let the victors not gloat for they have led one of their own to the slaughter. And like a lamb, he willingly walked there.
The ANC insists that the firing of Mbeki is not revenge. I don’t think that the public buys that. This is all so transparent. The purpose of Mbeki’s removal is to pave a path for Jacob Zuma’s ascension to the pinnacle. Plain and simple. No sugar-coating necessary. When power speaks nonsense to us, we should reply with truth.
Mbeki is too much of a loyal ANC man even to consider starting a new political party. But should he remain loyal to a party that he thinks has lost its way?
On the one hand, one can argue that it is better for him to stay in the ANC and try to reform it from within. If he forms a new political party, he will be accused of sulking.
One thing we have learnt from the events since Polokwane is that the ANC is reformable. Just because people with a different ideology now overrun it does not mean that it will remain this way forever. Evolution will happen in time.
Now we have to wait and see. What will the new elites do with their newfound power? Will it make them drunk and cause them to do the very same things of which they have accused Mbeki? Are they going to try to block the possible prosecution of the ANC president, Jacob Zuma? Should we as the public (or, as those in power like to refer to us, the masses, as though we are some objectionable vile disease) turn a blind eye from that hypocrisy?
If the new elites decide to drop all charges, then we have to make the assumption that the new executive too is unjust. If this is the case, then the ANC deserves to be punished at the polls by reducing its majority. It goes without saying that the ANC will win the next election. By squashing the appeal, then, they will not give Zuma his day in court, as he had so frequently demanded in the past.
We can only sit back and admire the president’s supporters’ reactions. There have been no shouts of “There will be blood on the streets if Thabo Mbeki is removed from office.” No threats of mayhem or a revolution. No “100% Xhosa-boy” T-shirts. No effigies of Zuma burnt to ashes. No tyres burning on the roads. No shops looted. His response was dignified. Presidential. His supporters have respected the decision made by the ANC. He stepped down with humility and asked for unity. He addressed the nation. We listened. The nation was calm during a very uneasy period.
After Polokwane, the world’s top ratings agencies said: “South Africa’s prudent monetary policy framework would stay in place with room for some flexibility on spending. We do not see a sharp change in policies.”
If we have strong fundaments, then, to quote the guy that I’d like to leave me his estate when he dies, Warren Buffet: “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.”
I think that is the important thing about South Africa. We should protect our institutions and the Constitution for this reason. They should be so strong that when and if a fool does take over at some point, we don’t fall apart. For now, I don’t think we will fall apart. There is too much at stake. The new leadership is not bent on destroying the country.
To quote the president as he announced his resignation to the nation: “Our strength as a people is not tested during the best of times. We should never be despondent because the weather is bad. Nor should we turn triumphalist because the sun is shining.”
The new comrade elites would serve themselves well to heed these words. Now that the sun is shining for them, what will they do?
Now is not the time for personal vendettas.
Mbeki was far from a perfect president, but he has been the best we have ever had. Can we do better than Mbeki? Yes, we can. That is what we always hope for, that each successive generation will give us better leaders. My only hope is that we get better leadership sooner rather than later.
South Africa is a better country than it has been for the past few years.
khayav@gmail.com
* Originally published on 22 September, www.thoughtleader.co.za/khayadlanga
Should Zuma give way for a Motlanthe presidency after the 2009 elections?*
If Zuma were to get up and address the nation and tell us that he has no intentions of running for the presidency of the country, he would do much to repair his chequered reputation. Such an announcement would probably be one of the single greatest acts of self-sacrifice this nation has ever seen. It would be a great turn around. He would redeem himself in many people’s eyes.
But then again, who am I kidding? Nothing of the sort would ever happen; not in a million years. If Jacob Zuma were to be asked today if he would be willing to stand down in the name of party unity he would give us the predictable rehearsed classic response, “I serve at the pleasure of the ANC. If the ANC says that they want me to serve as president of the country, I will serve. If it says it wants me to sweep the floors I will. It is not for me to say I don’t want to be president or I want that position.” I would bet a billion rand that’s what he would say if asked. Ok, maybe not those precise words but you get my drift.
It is my understanding that no one puts a gun against anyone’s head and forces someone to a position they don’t want in the ANC. Sometimes our leaders treat us as though we are idiots. We may be dumb, but we certainly aren’t as dumb as they think.
In a clever attempt to have it both ways, Zuma could also announce to the nation that he is making that consideration when in fact he isn’t. The Youth League, Cosatu and others would then shout from the rooftops and he would “cave”. He would then say that there are too many calls for him to run — he simply cannot ignore those calls; he has to serve the people. I expect that he would also point to the example set by Nelson Mandela who, before the elections, is reported to have told the NEC that he did not want to be president of the country because he felt he was too old. He also argued that there were younger and more capable hands to lead the country. The only difference is that there were no divisions within the ANC at the time. The ANC urged him to stand because the world trusted him and he would also ease any white fears. Basically, it was best for the country for him to be president.
Referring to the Mandela example, is it the best thing for the country to have a Zuma presidency? In fact, let me pose a less noble question. Is it the best thing for the ANC? I doubt that it is best for the ANC for him to run and these are my very unscientific reasons:
1. If he runs, the ANC will most certainly have a reduced majority at the polls next year as a direct result of the manner in which Thabo Mbeki has been treated. It was not the most politically astute move to make a few months before the general elections.
2. The DA will most certainly win the Western Cape thanks to the divisions in the ANC and the coloured vote going to the DA once again.
3. I am convinced that the UDM will see an increase in enthusiasm for it, particularly in the Eastern Cape. Personally, I believe Bantubonke Holomisa has been making sense for a very long time but nobody has been listening.
4. Much of the young, black middle class feels like political orphans at the moment and will either abandon the ANC and will not vote, or they will look for a new home.
Did the ANC really consider all of these possibilities before the ousting of Thabo Mbeki? Did they really have the interests of the ANC at heart or did they just have the interests of one man? Or were the Zumarites so drunk with victory after Judge Nicholson’s judgment that they threw reason out the window?
The advantage of having Kgalema Motlanthe as president is that he would be his own man. He owes no one. The ANC would remain largely intact if he were to run for the presidency. Most of those who feel like they are political orphans now that Thabo Mbeki has been fired would come back home. The ANC wouldn’t suffer as much in the elections next year.
Unfortunately the ANC is led by a group of hot heads who would never consider Kgalema Motlanthe as the option for party and country. They want what they want and they will do whatever it takes to get it. Get rid of the Scorpions, get rid of unwanted premiers, get rid of Thabo Mbeki and maybe the next thing is to drop all charges against Jacob Zuma. And finally, President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma.
If Zuma were to stand down it would probably be one of the greatest selfless acts we have ever witnessed as a nation. Not just because he would forego power, but he would forego a couple of extra pages in the history books as South Africa’s third democratically elected president.
If Zuma takes this course of action, he would also free himself from the political debts he owes. His creditors would tell him in no uncertain terms that a debtor cannot tell his creditors how he wants to pay them. He simply has to abide by the terms and conditions that have been set out before him, or there will be consequences. He might be forced to constantly make decisions he doesn’t want to make as president because he owes so many people. Zuma is between a rock and stainless steel.
To be fair, none of us know what it’s like to be Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma. We can only imagine the torments he goes through. Now he can see a light at the end of the tunnel. But once he emerges into the light, will he be his own master?
Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma both damaged the ANC. They should ride into the sunset and allow others to repair the mess they have created. I suspect both men believe the other is responsible for this mess. They should leave the stage for Kgalema Motlanthe.
The question is: is Zuma man enough to give up what no man would give up? Can he truly give up what he has been working towards for such a long time? Can he give it up when it is within reach? When he has it in the palm of his hand? If I were him I don’t know if I would be able to. And that is the truth. Perhaps we should understand why he wouldn’t give up. But I don’t think we should excuse him for not letting go.
*first published September 25 2008, www.thoughtleader.co.za/khayadlanga
I’ve written this blog on my iPhone 3g
I decided to write a blog (as the title suggests) on my iPhone to see what it would be like. I must say it’s not as irritating as I thought it would be to use this keyboard. The cool thing is that it corrects your spelling as you go along in case you strike the wrong keys.
I don’t know how many wrong keys I’ve hit so (ok, that was irritating, as I was trying to write the “so” it kept writing “do”. But that was my fault because I kept hitting the wrong key) far.
But this is not bad if you want to write a short blog. It’s taken me 7 minutes to scribe this much. I’m sorry to tell you this but as I write, I’m on the toilet, pants on ankles. Not to worry kids, I always wash my hands.
What women should know
This is a cormmecial I worked on with a number of people who work at MetropolitanRepublic.
Is the current ANC counter revolutionary?*
By Khaya Dlanga
There are some pretty uncomfortable questions we ought to ask of the African National Congress, for its own sake and ours as a nation. Regardless of what people think of the ANC, our fates are bound to it. It is for this reason that everyone must show interest in its dealings. We cannot follow sheepishly what the leadership tells us is gospel truth — especially when it is manufactured to suit those who seek to lead us. No one should hope for the implosion of the ANC, for its demise means we too shall perish. The perfect example is ZANUPF of Zimbabwe.
The desire to see a better African National Congress requires that we defend and criticise it when and if the need arises. It is a mistake to behave as though it is perfect — that its leaders can do no wrong. It is precisely because it is run by flesh and blood beings that it is imperfect, just like any organisation or company.
We have witnessed our leaders’ fallibilities time and time again, which explains why the people have become cynical of politics and have rightly lost faith in their leaders.
Whenever a shining light presents itself, all attempts to extinguish it are made. Like the voice of ANC deputy president Kgalema Motlanthe. When he said that the judiciary should remain independent, ANCYL spokesperson Floyd Shivambu was quoted saying that Motlanthe’s “Going around affirming the independence of the criminal justice system on the case of the ANC president is worrisome.” How is affirming the independence of the judiciary worrisome? Does that statement even make sense? If the statement by the YL’s spokesperson were a joke, it would be a really fun one. Sadly, we are not laughing.
A member of the National Working Committee was quoted by the City Press as saying “Motlanthe creates the impression that all of us are a mad mob and that he is the only saviour, the sole voice of reason, and that he is better than all of us.” This says a lot about some people in there. They seem to recognise (with great reluctance I might add) that they are indeed a mob, and know that there is indeed a lone voice of reason. Instead of applauding it, the mob besieges it and tries to drown it out, not with logic, but with loud voices.
If I am not mistaken, rule 3.7 on the Character of the ANC in its constitution says the following: “The principles of freedom of speech and free circulation of ideas and information will operate within the ANC.”
When a senior member, the deputy president of the ANC, is dragged through the mud for exercising his rights as observed by the constitution, can we truly say that the principles of freedom of speech and the free circulation of ideas operate within the ANC? If this is contrary to what the ANC is meant to represent then can we not say that the ANC is losing its way?
Was it not the ANC that set in motion our constitution? Was it not the ANC that voted and made sure that we have an independent judiciary at the dawn of our democracy? Some have even said that we risk anarchy if Jacob Zuma goes to trial. It is better we have anarchy defending the independence of the judiciary than have a bench full of lackeys.
If Motlanthe’s goal is indeed the presidency, as some have claimed, then this would be a very bad way of playing his cards. He knows who will put him at the helm – the very people he is criticising. Perhaps he has come to realise that the country and the party are too important for him to remain silent while he watches people squabble over a leader — not ideology. He knows that voicing his true thoughts could cost him the presidency or influence should ANC President Jacob Zuma go to jail. It is for this reason that I applaud him for speaking out even though it is politically inconvenient for him. Lincoln once said, “Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”
We have lost our appetite of fighting real battles. We have become accustomed to frivolity. And so, as we search for a meaning as a nation, we find meaning in money, getting drunk and getting laid. Sometimes people do all three at the same time. These are the examples that have been set before us by our leaders.
As much as I respect our leaders (some with great reluctance I have to admit), I respect what the ANC should be more. Since it is not what it should be and since it is further away from what it should be than it was five or even ten years ago, then we can say that it is inching away from its revolutionary mandate.
Our leaders have not lived up to their responsibilities to this great organisation.
We have become accustomed to the daily tragic comedy that has become a way of life for our politics. And we watch bemused, as though watching a very bad episode of Generations.
The ANC of Chief Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela was never about battling one another for power. Maybe they had bigger things to worry about than fight so publicly and so dirty amongst themselves. Maybe they were too busy fighting apartheid. Maybe they were too busy fighting for their freedom. Maybe they had higher ideals than to squabble about power, position and prestige.
Not all the current leaders are men of questionable character, reputation or intention. But just because a man’s character and his intentions don’t seem to be questionable does not mean he must not be questioned. This is to protect us from him and him from power. Because power, as we see every day, corrupts.
We should not and must not treat the ANC as though it were a perfect organisation, led by men and woman who are all perfect, and with nothing but perfect objectives. Some may have good intentions – for themselves. It is at this point that we need to make sure that members and leaders don’t confuse the good intentions they have for themselves as good intentions for the party or the state.
I suppose even questioning the current ANC leaders as counter revolutionary could be viewed as counter revolutionary. It is a never-ending cycle. It might be no different from a parishioner of the Roman Catholic Church calling the Pope and his Cardinals heretics.
The ANC seems to be at ease with its current disorderly conduct; it is time we made it uncomfortable so that we, the people, can be at ease with the future of nation. Right now, we are not. Our leaders are supposed to give us confidence for the future. So far they are failing. Dismally.
*first published on thoughtleader.co.za 2nd September 2008
Fear, hypocrisy and the abuse of Mandela in the ANC*
I read a rather hypocritical article penned by former Limpopo premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi in the Sunday Times where he decried the treatment of former president Nelson Mandela during an ANC national executive committee (NEC) meeting in 2002.
Mr Ramatlhodi was present in that meeting. In the article he details how NEC members called Madiba divisive for having told the NEC that certain of its members had approached him to let him know that dissent was not allowed in the ANC. Madiba was then asked to name the people who made those claims. In his attempt to protect these individuals, he refused to name them — for this he was called a liar. Some even said he wanted to rule from the grave. He was taken to task for this, as we say in Xhosa, bakhwela bezehlela kuye.
Ramatlhodi details how speaker after speaker went after Madiba while Terror Lekota chaired the meeting. He was so insulted that that he never attended another NEC meeting, according to Ramatlhodi.
To quote Ramatlhodi: “The tragedy of the episode is that senior leaders, who today are vocal about the recall of Mbeki as president, were there when Madiba was being violated in the most brutal manner by junior leaders of the movement.
“None of them had the courage to stand up and defend an innocent old man, our former president and icon of our struggle. They must have been genuinely afraid of Mbeki, a president who has somehow turned out to be the ANC itself. He has become larger than the movement. They were scared; I was scared.
“It was, indeed, a very sad day for those of us who were unfortunate to be there as witnesses.”
Obviously, it was not sad enough six years ago for him to speak out; he only realised six years later how sad a day it was. Now that it is politically convenient to speak out, he does.
It’s easy to show courage when you are part of a majority and part of the winning team. True courage is standing for what you believe even when you know in your heart that you have a 100% chance of losing everything you’ve worked for. I have no respect for one who only speaks out when it is easy to do so. He should have spoken out when it wasn’t.
If Ramatlhodi was such a man of honour, why then was he silent? Why did he not stand up for Madiba then? We can only deduce that his silence meant that he agreed with every single word that was said to Madiba.
In his open letter to Terror Lekota, Minister Jeff Radebe savaged Lekota for having presided over that meeting and for having allowed Madiba to be treated in the manner he was. If Ramatlhodi and Jeff Radebe were so concerned at the treatment of Nelson Mandela, why did it take them six years to speak out?
Indeed, if Terror Lekota presided over a period in the ANC where dissent was not permitted, then why should we trust this new party? How different are they going to be from the ANC?
But back to Ramatlhodi: Should we suddenly applaud him for taking a moral stance now? We should all be equally appalled at the manner in which Madiba was verbally attacked by the NEC members. I don’t know who was at the meeting, but we know who the members were: Terror Lekota, Jacob Zuma, Trevor Manuel, Thabo Mbeki, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, Sam Shilowa and many more. None of them said a word in defence of Madiba. Not one according to Ramatlhodi. How dare now they use his name now to get what they want!
This whole saga clearly shows us that no one is innocent. No one has clean hands.
This is clearly an attempt by the ANC to use Nelson Mandela’s name in order to shore up support for itself. What can we make of these leaders who seem to have a moral compass of convenience?
There is no courage in speaking out when it is safe to do so. There is no honour in defending a man’s honour only when it benefits you. Ramatlhodi and Jeff Radebe should have demonstrated their moral fortitude when Madiba was viciously attacked in that meeting, precisely because it was not the politically safe thing to do then. Their political careers were more important than standing up for what was right apparently.
What I have never been able to understand was how Thabo Mbeki, as one man, was able to stifle debate. The men and women who were there, who sat and allowed that to happen from day one, can only blame their lack of courage.
What is the point of speaking out when the majority is speaking out? Courage is not when you speak out when it is safe or beneficial for you to do so.
We need to have leaders who are able to do so especially when it is unsafe to speak out. Right now they are in short supply.
khayav@gmail.com
* first published 20 October 2008 on thoughtleader.co.za/khayadlanga
Government fatcat falls off chair! LMAO
Please nice and kind people, do check out the rest of my blog. khayav.com
Hate it. Love it.
Juluis Malema should shut the f*** up, maybe not.*
I am not one prone to the indiscriminate use of profanity. In fact, those who know me well will tell you that I rarely descend to this sort of level. But Julius’ ability to spew out the most outlandish statements has reduced my I.Q to levels I didn’t think possible. This is my excuse for the title of this blog. The problem with listening to some of the things that he says leaves one even stupider for having heard them. For that, he should not be forgiven. The things he says not only defy logic, but stupidity. He over compensates for his lack of intellectual curiosity with his bellicose statements, which he mistakes for coherence.
Once again, on 11 February 2009 Mr Malema did what he does best (perhaps the worst), he opened his mouth. He insulted the minister of education, Naledi Pandor, a member of his own political party, accusing her of having a fake accent. His statement could also be understood to mean that any black person who happens to have gone to a private school or a so-called Model C school all his life is using nothing but a fake accent. The only genuine accent apparently is the one he has.
Both the minister and the president of the ANCYL are eloquent individuals. However Malema is eloquent in buffoonery. As a supporter of COPE I hope and pray that he uses his substandard rhetorical abilities more frequently.
Last year he tried to insult COPE’s first deputy president, Mbhazima Shilowa, by calling him a security guard, recalling his humble beginnings. As though to say there is something wrong with being a security guard. To demonstrate his lack of foresight, he did not stop to think that his statement could be insulting to the very constituency his political party is meant to speak to. If I were a security guard why would I vote for a party that seemingly has no respect for my profession?
The sort of dangerous and frightening statements he is reported to have said on October 27, 2208 could lead this nation to genocide. To quote The Times on line, “Under Mbeki, the resources of the country were distributed to certain individuals and a certain tribe,” he said, alluding to Mbeki’s Xhosa heritage. “Not everyone benefited. But under [ANC president Jacob] Zuma we expect everyone to benefit.”
This sort of blanket statement said without an iota of evidence has the ability to incite the people of this nation into an unnecessary blood bath. Of all the things we have had the misfortune of hearing from Malema, this has to be the most dangerous, therefore it should be the most unacceptable. All senior members of the ANC should have condemned this incitement of tribalism in the strongest possible terms instead of closing ranks around him, which is their reflexive reaction.
If, as he so claimed, that only a certain tribe benefited when Thabo Mbeki was president, can he explain to us why the Eastern Cape is still the poorest province in the country? The richest black man in the country by his thinking should be from the Eastern Cape or the Western Cape for that matter. In fact, the wealthiest black people in this country should be from the Cape provinces.
If he is talking about the leadership within his party he should apply some logic, something he seems to be in short supply of. I shall help him along and give him a bit of a history lesson about his party.
Historically, the Eastern Cape is the ANC’s biggest province by membership, and has been for the longest time. (Of course COPE is changing the political landscape in leaps and bounds now.) Naturally, the vast majority of people elected into leadership positions would be from that part of the world by virtue of the Eastern Cape having the greatest number of the party’s supporters. Add the Western Cape to that number. For years, large sections of KwaZulu-Natal voted IFP. Thus the vote from that part of the world was split between the ANC and the IFP. The consequence of this is that the leadership has shown a slightly disproportionate Cape slant. One does not need to be a brain surgeon to make these deductions. In fact, one does not even need a matric.
No one has single-handedly driven young black intelligentsia from the ANC to COPE with greater ferocity than young Julius Malema. I don’t understand how and why he is allowed to carry on speaking (but as a COPE supporter I hope he is allowed to speak more often. He is our greatest election tool). The more Jacob Zuma, Matthew Phosa, Cyril Ramaphosa, Pallo Jordan and Gwede Mntashe allow him to speak, the more supporters COPE gets.
In October 2009, he was on Kaya FM. I was astonished by ANCYL president’s assertions that being a youth somehow earned him the right to be impetuous, belligerent and disrespectful. I must politely disagree (although I must admit I am tempted to disagree impolitely) with the man. Youth does not give one a free pass for foolhardiness, disrespect and impulsiveness just as maturity in years does not give one the automatic right to wisdom, level-headedness and patience.
The ANC has descended into anti intellectualism and ideological incoherence with the likes of Julius Malema. Every single young person in this country ought to be embarrassed by him. We should allow him to carry on speaking, and as young people we will speak at the ballots by voting COPE.
On behalf of COPE, I would strongly recommend that he continues to open his mouth.
*this was published last year but I deicided to updated it, thanks to Juluis’s latest outbusrst.
The ANC does not own liberation history
Allow me to make a bold claim: it was not the ANC that brought us liberation. It was a vehicle that the people used to bring themselves to freedom. Just like the newfound Cope cannot claim to be the defender of the Constitution. The people are merely using it as a vehicle to defend the constitution.
I have been somewhat disturbed by some things that I have heard from certain leaders of the ANC of late. Words such as: “Cope is stealing our history, it is stealing our leaders.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but does the history of the struggle for freedom not belong to all South Africans? To claim ownership is to belittle the contribution of those who belong not only to South African history textbooks, but also to the pages of world history. Freedom belongs to no party.
The moment the ANC feels that it has the right to the history of the struggle, it won’t be too long before it tells us that we, the citizens of this country owe it, and as a result must accept anything it does to the country because without it we would not be free. We cannot, and must not allow ourselves to be held hostage by the ANC. Or any party of that matter. Whatever we may owe as a people, we owe to the red, blue, black, white, green and yellow colours of the flag.
The people who contributed to the Freedom Charter were not necessarily ANC card-carrying members. They were South Africans from all walks of life who wanted to be free. Some even contributed despite their white privilege because they desired that all people enjoy the freedoms they also enjoyed.
When Nelson Mandela and others languished in prison for so many years, it was not just for members of the ANC, but for all South Africans. They did not only struggle for black South Africans, but for those white South Africans who were imprisoned by their own prejudices. Yes, they fought for the racists too.
If history belongs to a certain party then that means Oliver Thambo, Nelson Mandela, Chief Albert Luthuli, Beyers Naude, Walter Sisulu, Ruth First, Winnie Madikizela Mandela and many others should not be taught in schools, but rather to those whose parents belong to a certain party.
To allow people to carry on talking in this manner about the heroes of the struggle is to make them smaller than they are. Then we can say that the ANC does not appreciate what it helped bring. We shall all be eternally grateful to the ANC, and we cannot belittle what it did. However, by claiming ownership of the struggle, it belittles itself.
Robert Sobukwe does not belong to the PAC, nor does Steven Bantu Biko belong to the Black Consciousness Movement.
Therefore, the people of this nation have no loyalty to any party – owe no favours to anyone. But their allegiance belongs to the country that many bled and died for.
Once again, let us cherish the history of this nation by not making it belong to a group.
Should Mbeki publicly endorse Cope but remain an ANC member?
Imagine a scenario where former president Thabo Mbeki decides to announce his endorsement and intentions to vote for Cope but decides to remain a member of the ANC. I cannot imagine a situation that could rattle the feathers of some of the over inflated egos at Luthuli House more. Some of those egos are “too big, too wide, too strong, won’t fit they’re too much and they talk like this but they can’t even back it up.” “Quoting” Beyonce while discussing politics seems a tad out of place. Perhaps I should make a better analogy. Let me point to the most widely followed election in recent memory. The US elections.
(Just an aside here. I was commenting on someone’s status on Facebook about something they had said regarding the ANC. In my comment I quoted Dr Martin Luther King; someone then commented saying, “Trust Cope to quote Martin Luther King who, at the time, was speaking about equality during the 1960s. What relevance does Dr King have to our democracy,” as if there was something wrong with quoting people from other countries. I’m afraid if that person sees this blog post I will be taken to task for making references to America.)
Two weeks before the American general elections in 2008 a very well respected Republican sat before Tom Brokaw, the host of MSNBC’s much-respected Meet the Press TV programme. This particular Republican, according to opinion polls, had been the most respected American for years. In fact, had his wife not forbidden him from running in 2000, would most certainly have been the Republican nominee for president, meaning that he would have ended up president of the United States instead of George Walker (Dubya) Bush. He would have been America’s first black president.
This Republican gentleman and former National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, General Colin Luther Powell endorsed Barack Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, for the presidency of the United States. During his endorsement he mentioned that he was and still is a member of the Republican Party but felt that Obama would make a better president than his fellow party man, John McCain. Although he endorsed an individual, it was essentially an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s platform.
General Powell made that endorsement fully aware of the impact it might have on the fence sitters. Here was an established, highly respected man going out of his way to make known his intentions of voting for a member of a different party to that of his own. Although he allowed himself to be used to bring falsified evidence before the United Nations, which led to the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the endorsement was a way of correcting that error.
He was not hounded out of the Republican Party after his announcement. Of course they were not happy with the endorsement. It was his right to express his preferences. Some tried to spin it by saying he was only endorsing Obama because he is black. Maybe it is time our country matured enough to allow people to express their preferences without fear or favour.
Unfortunately I don’t see Luthuli House viewing Mbeki’s endorsement of Cope as his democratic right. He would most likely be called a traitor at first. Then names and a host of animals that can be found in a zoo. The endorsement would then be ridiculed. They would say that he wants to rule from the grave. They would accuse him of bitterness. They would say that people aren’t going to switch from the ANC and vote for Cope simply because Mbeki decided to do so. The funny thing is they would spend an awful lot of time telling us how insignificant the endorsement was. They would also appear on every SABC station telling us how it would not make a dent in the ANC’s support base, which would make you how wonder: is it really inconsequential? Fikile Mbalula would say that he was right all along; Mbeki was behind Cope all along. Then Julius would call for him to be disciplined or call for his expulsion.
I had the rare opportunity of seeing Julius Malema and Fikile Mbalula at a wedding I too had the privilege of attending some time last year. While all the guests were having tea before the reception, they stood together and talked, like two lonely figures. No one really walked up to them, to talk to them. Then later at the reception the master of ceremonies made the following pronouncement, “I see Mr Malema is also here.” There was much laughter. Make of the laughter what you will. But I digress, as usual. Excuse the ADD.
Should senior members of the ANC who might be sympathetic to Cope publicly announce their intentions to vote for Cope even though they remain members of the ANC? Should they come out and say that they are doing so in order to strengthen democracy and not necessarily weaken the ANC? Will a stronger opposition not in fact strengthen them? Maybe not in terms of numbers, but in strengthening the democratic processes within the party?
Members of the ANC should have the freedom to endorse and to state their intentions of voting for Cope even though they are still senior members of the ANC without the fear of being suspended.
If the rumours are true that the ANC is busy denying – President Motlanthe’s intentions of refusing the position of deputy president should Zuma become president, then it is difficult not to view his discomfort of serving as deputy to Zuma as a vote of no confidence in his presidency.
If, in the next few weeks and months, people decide to go public and announce that they will vote Cope but will remain members of the ANC, then the ruling party should understand one thing — these people do not love the ANC any less. It’s just that they love their country more.
Women and the Jesus excuse. Good Lord I hate it!
There is nothing more annoying than asking a girl out and she gives you the, “I’m sorry I can’t go out with you because I’ve found Jesus,” line. As if Jesus was lost. And now that she has found him, he needs her to look after him until he is nursed back to health. Worse, they say I’m trying to get my relationship with Jesus in order first. I think that an honest, “Dude, I don’t want to go out with you,” will do. It bruises the ego but at least it’s honest. Besides, the male ego is resilient and optimistic. It’s too big. It’s too wide. It’s too strong. It won’t fit. It’s too much. Basically a really big ego.
A friend of mine who shall remain Khaya (yes, laugh) once got the Jesus line. Being the eternal optimist he said to the dear lady, “At least I lost to a better man. He’s perfect, how can I compete?” So I, (I mean Khaya.) Let’s try this again. So Khaya didn’t take this as being turned down. But he knew he knew he had the wool pulled over his eyes. One day however, Khaya went back to her and told her to say what she didn’t want to say. He said, “You know what, I want you to say it because I’m not going to say it for you.” He didn’t want someone try to protect his feelings. (Not that he actually has any. OK, just kidding).
“You can do it.” He coached her. After much encouragement she eventually said it. “It’s not going to happen.” She said it like she didn’t want to say it. My dear friend Khaya leaped to his feet and said, “You see, it’s not so hard. I’m not dead, I’m not crying and Jesus still loves you!” He almost gave her gold star.
Ladies, stay away from using Jesus as an excuse. Sure he’ll forgive you but that line is worse than the favourite guy pick up line, “Don’t I know you from somewhere?” and that’s unforgivable.
Mandela’s endorsement and Tokyo’s hypocrisy
A friend (cyber friend might be more appropriate) of mine made an interesting comment on facebook about Tokyo Sexwale who accused COPE of using old people to get votes. I quote, “I thought Tokyo said they don’t use old people to win votes!”
A few days ago the ANC marched and paraded Nelson Mandela before a crowd, newspapers and television cameras crowing about his endorsement. Perhaps I should quote Tokyo’s criticism of Cope, “”Our mothers are taken, house to house, they are also paraded on TV, these people are performing witchcraft with our mothers… They are liars. You can’t have respect for people who use older people in that fashion.” Does this mean we shouldn’t have respect for the ANC for using an old man who couldn’t even read his own endorsement because he is so frail, weak and tired?
Madiba was well within his rights to endorse the ANC. There was nothing wrong or right with him endorsing the party of his choosing. He was excersing his right to do what he thought was right.
Of course when mamu Epainette Mbeki, the former president’s mother came out to endorse COPE, Tokyo said using old people to get votes was witchcraft. Naturally, he hasn’t called out Jacob Zuma or the ANC for that matter for using an old person to get votes. His silence as the self appointed defender of the elderly is of course not surprising.
Tokyo should not have higher standards for other parties than he has for his own. It is a sad day when we speak of our politicians and say, “What did you expect?” That is what many have come to expect of this once respected man. ANC members have whispered to me and called him an opportunist that can’t be trusted. They have said he will go with whatever side he believes will win. They no longer recognise the comrade they fought with in the 80’s and early 90’s. As his wealth has escalated, his character as a politician has diminished. No one doubts his business acumen, it is his political opportunism that leaves one wondering. Is this just a case of man gaining the world but losing his soul in process?
Should we embrace religion in our politics?
Many are of the opinion that religion has no place in politics. This is an understandable position to take considering the abuses that have been committed in the name of religion, whether it be Islam, Judaism or Christianity. We are too aware of how the Bible was used to justify racism right here in South Africa. None of us are blind to the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, especially that of Christianity. However there needs to be a distinction between religion and those who use it to attain power.
I will try (poorly) to defend religion from its very unflattering past. It is best that I use Christianity as an example since I am more familiar with it. In the interests of full disclosure, I must reveal that I am a practising Christian. I am not unmindful of the fact that this revelation may open me up to some derision. It’s almost unkosher to “come out” and admit this. Perhaps a few years from now we will have closet Christians “coming out” and making public declarations of their long held beliefs. Who knows, we might even have Christian Pride Parades along with the gays. (Is it even politically correct to say “gays” these days?) But I digress.
I submit that it is unfair to incriminate religion itself for any wrongs that have been and are being committed in its name. It would be incorrect to blame Islam for the September 11 attacks, just as it would be to level accusations at Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition. There is a vast difference between a religion and its deliberate distortion. People don’t seem to see a distinction between religion and its intentional corruption by power hungry egomaniacs that use it as a means to an end. That end is very often to achieve political power and dominion over people. Religion itself is always blameless — those who abused its teachings for personal gain are not.
We can no more blame Christianity than we can blame capitalism for the factory owners in China who force children to labour in their factories hour upon hour like slaves. In the instance of the factory owner we can blame greed, not capitalism. Just like we cannot point fingers at Stalin’s atheism or communism for his brutality. Only the lusts for power, greed or just good old madness are to blame.
I am by no means suggesting that a theocracy is the solution to our radar-less leadership. That would be last thing we need. Theocracies often end up being oppressive regimes in their noble but misguided intentions of providing some sort of moral compass for citizens. Simply stated, morality cannot be legislated, only one’s heart can do that. We can put laws against certain basic moral laws like murder and theft, but can we really put one in prison for telling a lie or for having sex before marriage? Obviously not.
If our leaders followed the precepts of the good books, I doubt our land would be in the state it is in. Of course I expect comments that will say what about the verses that call on us to stone sinners, since that too is a religious command. I would say that is the Old Testament. But this is not what I am writing about.
The laws that we put in place, including our highly regarded constitution, which was put in place by some of the brightest legal minds in our country, have no control over conscience — the conscience is the domain of the divine. It is that thing that causes us sleepless nights when we know we have done wrong, even if the written laws claim otherwise. Running away from one’s conscience is virtually impossible. This is where the moral code comes in.
Not to say that it is impossible to be moral while not practicing religion. I will be the first to admit that some areligious people are extremely moral, as some religious are not. In fact, one of my very best friends calls himself an atheist and he is nicer than I am. Much nicer.
Religion, if practiced as it ought to be, without selfish motivation, will mould better civil servants, leaders and by large a more humane society. The Bible warns against “them that make wicked laws: and when they write, write injustice; to rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor of my people, that widows maybe their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.” Isaiah 10:1. Where there is corruption this is precisely what happens. It robs from the poor, the widows and the fatherless.
I am sure all major religions share the same basic tenets. In fact, these are the basic teachings of Ubuntu. If one believes that what one is doing is a higher calling than self-enrichment, then they will serve the people, not just a political party or a position. When their conscience calls them to speak out against an injustice they will, regardless of whom speaking out may offend. It is far better to offend a powerful person than it is to go against one’s conscience.
Recently, we have seen on the news that South Africa is suffering something of a moral crisis. This is where religion comes in. People don’t have faith in their leaders anymore; there is a general feeling that there is a moral deficit amongst our leaders. Our leaders lead by example. As much as we would like to think that we are not sheep, unfortunately the vast majority of people are, for it is far safer to follow without question.
The need to distance our politics from religion by any means necessary has created a chasm between governing and the morality of our leaders.
Many of our great leaders were motivated and sustained by their religious faith in their fight against injustice. The great late president of the African National Congress, Chief Albert Luthuli, was a man of the cloth, and I quote from the ANC website, “As a practising Christian, Chief Luthuli genuinely and sincerely believed in the well-being, happiness and dignity of all human beings. Because of his convictions, he sacrificed all prospects of personal gains and comforts and dedicated his life to the cause and service of his fellowmen.”
Oliver Tambo too was a religious man. He did not leave his religion at the door when he fought for his people. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr amongst others were never shy to use religious language to argue the justness of their cause. Of course there are people who corrupt religious language to justify ill intent.
Gandhi too was a religious man, a Hindi that was also deeply influenced by the words of Christ.
A missionary who went by the name E. Stanley Jones once met with Gandhi and asked, “Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?”
Ghandi replied, “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
This is the problem with our politics also. So many of our leaders proclaim to fight for a just and prosperous South Africa, but what we see instead are the very same leaders become prosperous while the rest of our countrymen become poorer. Their words are often noble and their actions questionable.
Perhaps, before we can cry out for better leaders, we ought to become better citizens. And that means we must abhor corruption where we see it, speak out against injustice, reject leaders that lead us astray for if we follow them we go over the cliff. The sad reality is that they never go off the cliff, the rest of us do.
Let us be great citizens, only then will we get great leaders.
I will end off with this quote from India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, “If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the country.”
Let’s debate.
African adopts white child (Credit crunch
The credit crunch has taken it’s toll on struggling bankers in America. Now Africans are adopting white kids from America.
I think I’d be great friends with Julius Malema. Seriously.
And I mean it. I think he is a pretty pleasant and probably funny guy too. I can’t help but imagine exchanging slaps on the back and doubling back in laughter as we have chats about whatever it is that young men talk about. As much as I take issue with some of the things he has said and what he stands for politically, that does not mean that I wouldn’t or shouldn’t get along with him personally.
There is no doubt that some people might take issue with what I just said. Particularly those who see Malema as a fumbling idiot who does not know when to shut up. That would be understandable considering some of the things I have written about him. As people, we tend to have no separation between the public figure and the fact that he is also an average guy who likes to have a drink and talk about girls. Those of us who are not public figures all have friends we disagree with on almost everything – but we don’t stop being friends simply because we disagree. We need to be able to separate the personality from their politics.
I imagine some of my friends would give me odd looks if I told them that I went go-carting with Julius Malema and Jacob Zuma (not that I have, don’t start spreading rumours now). “How could you hang out with them after all the things they have said?” Well, I would remind those people that in my friendship circles I have friends who are pastors and atheists, friends who are womanisers and friends who have had the same and only girlfriend for the past five years. In our dealings with the complexities of human engagement, we all have these contradictions in our friendship circles. Why then can we not have friends who hold differing political views without being enemies? But that does not mean we can’t be honest in our disagreements with them.
One’s political position does not define who they are; it defines what they stand for politically. We are not our politics. We are people before we have a political position.
Thabo Mbeki is probably not the easiest person in the world to get along with, but that does not mean that one should dislike his politics simply because one does not like him as a person. I imagine being a friend with him requires a lot of work, he must not see you as just a waste of his time if you are to be his friend. I also suspect that once he has brought you into his inner circle you would have great laughs, and probably an intellectually meaningful relationship.
We should not vote for people simply because we like them. Nor should we not vote for them because we don’t like their personalities. Competence, character and ability seem to run a distant second when people vote, which is most unfortunate. How else can we justify the fact that most voters don’t trust Zuma but somehow he still garners more votes according to opinion polls? I understand that someone is going to comment and say that it’s not him, it’s because of the party.
Like I said, I’d have a drink with Julius, I’d tease him about his political views because I know he is set in his ways. I don’t see him changing them. He would probably tease me about mine too. Much hilarity would ensue I imagine. Naturally I’d have more to laugh about. I’d talk about showers and fake accents amongst other things. I don’t know, maybe I’m just idealistic.
There are many people I agree with on almost every issue yet I cannot stand. Just as there are people who agree with me but just cannot stand me. Understandably, if I were someone else I wouldn’t stand myself either.
Just to make things clear, I’m not ANCist or anything, some of my best friends are in the ANC. I think I’m beginning to sound like a Malema, Bush and Zuma apologist. Having said what I have, I am still voting COPE and I hope you all do.
If you disagree with me, know that you are an enemy
When I wrote the post about making friends with Julius Malema I was making a larger point on agreeing to disagree.
I am disturbed by the manner in which we conduct debate in this country. Disagreeing with a politician or someone in a powerful position earns one unflattering labels. When anybody raises views contrary to our own, we react emotionally and go on the attack. We don’t sit back to consider the possibility that the opposing view might have some value, even if we don’t agree with it. If you happen to work for a government institution and happen to support COPE for example, the days of your employment might be numbered. Our consciences are being bullied – the stomach is used as a weapon.
In our disagreements we are disagreeable. We seem to hold the view that he who disagrees with me must be an enemy. This is how COPE has been treated by the ruling party since it’s inception. And so we employ words most vile, demeaning and, if at all possible, humiliating. We saw examples of this when President Thabo Mbeki wrote his letters attacking the likes of Archbishop Desmond Tutu a few years ago. Of course the president had the best things to say about the archbishop as soon as they shared the view that Jacob Zuma could not be president. Those of you who have read any of my blogs know that I think highly of our former president, just because hold him in high regard ] does not mean I found everything he did or said agreeable. As citizens we should not be afraid of criticizing our leaders, nor fail to praise them when it is deserved. Not only do you owe it to yourselves but your country and the ideals of democracy and free speech.
I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, who said during his first inaugural address, perhaps addressing the man he defeated: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” It is my hope that as we debate and comment on the state of the nation, we will be virtuous enough to heed Lincoln’s call for these bonds of affection that should not be broken in the heat of debate. The truth is many of those who left the ANC for COPE are friends with people in the ruling party. So I urge you, whatever side of the fence you are on, let not the bonds affection be broken by the pettiness of politics.
COPE’s presidential candidate Mvume Dandala put this very well during a radio interview when he said, “When you are building an alternative voice you are not trying to create enemies, but to get more people involved in making the country work better.” I hope the members of the ruling party understand this.
In politics, I have come to realize, the virtue of humility seems to have no place; it is seen as a weakness, and arrogance as a strength — how far off the truth that is. He who shouts the loudest is smartest and the strongest. It is sad indeed.
If we carry on this way, it won’t be long before we get to a point where questioning views held by those in leadership positions are regarded as unpatriotic. We have seen this happen in the United States; anyone who spoke up against the war in Iraq was called unpatriotic. We are coming dangerously close. Some comrades in the mass democratic movement have began to use the term “counter-revolutionary” with liberal ease in order to stifle debate. The possible firing of Dr Barney Pityana will set a dangerous precedent. Opposing views are not allowed, or you will be left in the wilderness – that seems to be the message.
As a consequence, men and women of this country will cease to heed their consciences, but rather worship at the altar of the state tender. A friend of mine who disagrees with the ruling party on almost every level cannot and will not admit this in public because he said, “My conscience will not feed me, tenders will.” His life depends on tenders. People like this support the ruling party without any sense of irony. The altar of the tender is that powerful. Can we blame him or judge him for this? We cannot. But what we should try to do to people like this is to convince them that “coming out” preserves the greater good.
Many of us are patriots who love this nation. We say what we think is wrong as one would tell someone one loves dearly, because love dictates that one doesn’t shut up if one thinks that the loved one is driving down a cliff at high speed — even at low speed, for that matter.
Unfortunately some of us have misguided ways of demonstrating their affection for this, the southern-most country on the African continent. It reminds me of an abusive husband who belittles his wife by telling her that she is nothing without him. The cruel lover says this in order to control her. (In our case control is in the form of government jobs and contracts.) When she does leave and manages to succeed, the jealous ex-husband has only unflattering things to say about her.
Since many of us profess to love South Africa, I want to know the following:
How would we treat her if she were a lover?
How would we help her reach her goals?
Would we gloat if she failed and say, ‘We knew you couldn’t do it’?
We need to ask ourselves: How would we treat South Africa if she happened to be our true love?
I am saddened that we strive to feed our obese egos instead of finding ways to improve debate. The more we focus on our fragile egos, the less we focus on how we can help improve the nation.
We have to look deep into ourselves. No one is innocent. Not COPE, not the ANC, or any of the other parties. Our hands aren’t clean. I am a sum of all who agree with me. Those who disagree with me build my character. They are the ones I have to thank for helping me think the way I do.
What will destroy this country is an army of uniformity when it comes to its thinkers. We will die a painful, intellectual death if people perpetuate a certain school of thought because they want to preserve jobs, or because they are too afraid that they might not be able to find employment because they might have expressed an opinion contrary to that of some powerful figure.
We have forgotten the principles on which the country was founded. Instead we spend our days fighting petty battles. We have become a nation of the petty and arrogant. We slice and dice one another. Our internal battles have become so intense that we are slowly forgetting that we are still trying to fight for our position in the global arena. We have become so inward-looking that we have forgotten that we are competing in a global field. Since president Thabo Mbeki left the scene, our global standing has shrunk at an incredible pace. To this day, AU still sends president Thabo Mbeki to the UN to represent it. Those outside our borders see his value. Jesus Christ was right, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.”
Our inward-looking extends to the economy we’re trying to grow. We make it virtually impossible for foreigners to work here. One of the reasons America became such a force to be reckoned with is because it embraced immigrants with open arms. Immigrants come with different ideas. According to Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, 25% off all high-tech businesses in the US and 50% of all venture-backed companies were started by immigrants.
Dubai is one of the world’s fastest-growing economies because it has no qualms about getting foreign skills. It knows that to be the best, one must get the best. In his book, Florida points out that economies that open up to diverse peoples, immigrants and the likes are much more likely to be innovative and grow because they embrace different ways of thinking.
I am not unmindful of the fact that some will call me idealistic in my thinking. That is the beauty of youth. I am not old enough to know my limits. The reason I have hope for this country is because there are many more young people than older people. We don’t see a reason why we should doubt and limit ourselves.
Please, you are welcome to disagree with me.
Zuma: Mpshe and NPA show some balls!
Mr. Mpshe needs to be reminded of a little fact about South Africans this week – we are not a people born of cowards, nor men who place personal ambitions above what needs to be done for the people. We are born of men who stood up when it was more comfortable and beneficial to sit down. We are a people born of the same stuff that made Mandela sacrifice his freedom for 27 years; we are born of women who gave birth to Steve Biko who died bravely writing what he liked and what we have come to love. Biko showed the might of the nib of a pen facing off against the barrel of a gun. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We are born of the nameless heroes who died fighting so that we could be free one day. This is what we are made of. Men and women who sacrificed despite the immense power and pressures that could have persuaded lesser men and women to do otherwise.
According to news reports we have been told that the NPA (National Prosecutions Authority) will seek to have the corruption charges against the man who could be president, Jacob Zuma, dropped. One must understand the position and the pressures that face the director of the NPA, Mr. Mpshe. There is the easy way out, drop the charges. By dropping them all that will happen will be wide ranging condemnation from opposition parties, the press and civil society. That’s all. If he decides to go ahead he will be pressured by the ANC in every way imaginable. They might even find dirt on him. Now is not the time for cowardice.
History often calls on those in positions of responsibility to choose to do what’s difficult or unpopular. Allowing Zuma to walk will be a popular decision with the electorate. But is it the right thing to do? The men and women of the NPA have history knocking on their doors. What are they willing to do? Mr. Mpshe, in the words of former American vice president, Al Gore, “Sometimes you have to be willing … to pick the hard right over the easy wrong.” We are told that it is not in the national interests to have Jacob Zuma going to court. It is precisely because it is not in the interests of the nation that he should go to court, so that we can judge for ourselves.
What is the hard right? The hard right is to investigate both Zuma and Mbeki if there is reason to investigate the former president. To drop these charges without having these so called tapes heard in court cannot serve our democracy well. We are being told that the former president has done something wrong, yet he has not been afforded the opportunity to defend himself. By dropping them, by implication, that tells us that there is evidence of wrong doing on Mbeki’s part. Are they going to be charge him yet Zuma hasn’t had his day in court? If there is evidence of interference on Thabo Mbeki’s part that does not mean that there was no wrong doing on Zama’s part either. Investigate both I say.
I suggest that Mr. Mpshe read A Man for All Seasons, a play by Robert Bolt. In it, Sir Thomas More is led to the gallows for refusing to bend to King Henry VIII’s wish to divorce his wife because she could not bear him a son. This is a man who believed in himself and his conscience despite the “national interests” concerns of the king not having a son. In our case, the king is Zuma.
More is a strong advocate for the rule of law in the play, even if it leads to his own execution. When his future son-in-law implores him to arrest a man whose perjury will eventually lead to More’s path to the gallows. More tells him that the man has broken no laws, he even tells him that the devil himself deserves his chance before the courts, “And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!” More’s son-in-law is shocked at the idea of affording the Devil the benefit of law, but More is unwavering.
Then he goes on to lecture his future son-in-law, “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
So, do we really think we can stand upright in the winds that would blow the laws? The laws are there for our protection, that is why it should be and must be applied to all equally without fear or favour. To claim that we are not going to apply the laws because it is not in the “national interest” to do so is to show fear and favour. As the Devil should have his day in court to prove his innocence before his accusers, so must Jacob Zuma. Not forgetting that the law says innocent until proven guilty. The Devil in this case would be innocent excerpt before the eyes of the accusers who have evidence against him. Zuma too is innocent until proven guilty. But he must be afforded the opportunity to prove his innocence before his accusers.
Lest we forget, Jacob Zuma asked for his day in court, yet he has left no legal avenue unturned in order to avoid this day he has been screaming about. Let’s give it to him. He has threatened to spill the beans if he goes to court. Well, if he has bean to spill, let him spill them. And let those who are trained in the art of catching beans catch them. We want everyone responsible to be brought to book. The law should be applied without fear or favour. Mr Zuma, spill the beans! It is in the interests of the nation for you to do so. By saying nothing, you are still participating in the corruption of our government. It means you are aware of wrongdoing but have been willing to sit silently. You sir should not blackmail us.
How can the NPA accept as evidence, illegally obtained information? The wiretapping of a sitting president without the authorization of a judge? Where did these tapes come from? Who authorized the illegal wiretapping of a sitting president? Is that not treason? Why is there no outcry? If a president can be subjected to such blatant abuse of power, what chance do ordinary people like me have? We should have much fear for ourselves.
So far all we have are rumors, hearsay and we have no proof to judge whether the tapes are authentic or not. It is difficult to take these tapes seriously after the so-called “hoax emails” that made the rounds a while back that were wildly circulated amongst the Friends of Jacob Zuma. Then there was “proof” that Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid spy. There were no credible witnesses, no credible evidence and no credible facts to support a claim that was clearly designed to intimidate and pressure the former Director of Public Prosecutions. If there has been a conspiracy, it is the one that has been led against Bulelani Ngcuka. Marc Maharaj, and his friends failed to come up with any evidence proving that he was in fact a spy. Then the ANC misled the nation calling a press conference, assuring us, and fooling us into thinking that they were going to address an issue of national importance. National importance turned to be of national importance for the ANC to announce the defection of a little known Cope figure.
Granted, at times, especially in cases like the Zuma case – it is often difficult to tell the difference between prosecution and persecution. When one is prosecuted it is an easy and often necessary form of defense to shout persecution, painting oneself as a victim. Jacob Zuma is too powerful to persecute.
If there is a conspiracy against Zuma it should be proven in a court of law. The defense always states that conspiracies by nature are difficult to prove. Well, don’t make claims you can’t prove or defend. We don’t have any evidence, all we have are innuendos. If former president Thabo Mbeki is implicated, he must have his day in court, like Zuma. What are these national interests they speak of? Are Jacob Zuma’s and Shabir Schaiks interests now considered that highly? The arrogance of the ANC has taken an unprecedented step, where party and personal interests are dressed up as national interests. They can no longer distinguish what is of national interest, this is a clear indication that the ANC believes that it is South Africa. This country is not and does not belong to a political party. It is no wonder Thabo Mbeki was removed in the way he was.
Our nation cannot afford to have a prosecutions authority that is perceived to cave under political, powerful or from the pressures of the privileged. South Africa is becoming accustomed to the insulation of its elite from the law, yet leaves its ordinary down trodden citizenry, the very people it claims to represent to under representation by the law.
We cannot profess to be a truly democratic society when those who are sworn to protect it do everything in their power to subvert it for their own means.
By caving, Mr Mpshe, you are telling us, the children and future leaders, our brothers and sisters that it is acceptable to be a coward. I do not know what it is like to be in your position Mr Mpshe, nor do I wish to be. But you accepted it and you knew what you were getting yourself into, your country needs you, don’t choose the easy path.
To act as if there is nothing you and anyone else can do, as if this has been preordained, written in the stars, is not just giving up on yourself, you are giving up on your country, sir.
It is not written. It is not preordained that Zuma must walk away from these charges. To quote Cassius, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” What happens to Zuma now is not in the stars. It is up to the facts before you Mr. Mpshe. It is your lips that will speak, your mind that will be applied – and it is your hand that will sign the document that decides this country’s fate. Just because you know that you are fighting a losing battle against the ANC does not mean you should cease to throw punches. Throwing in the towel is not an option. We are not a nation of quitters Mr. Mpshe.
The very notion that some individuals have more freedoms and liberties than others is not, should not and must not be accepted. Yet millions of us are willing to sit on our hands and applaud an insult to democracy, civil liberty and the basic tenant that “All are equal before the law.”
We have become victims of our liberation, hostages to our own freedom and slaves to those who think that we owe them for our liberation. I owe my liberty to man and no political party. It belongs to me. None of us owe it to anyone. This slavery to the ANC must come to an end.
We cannot profess to be a truly democratic country when the already, powerful, the already privileged have added privileges before the law. Nor can we boast to have the best constitution in the world when it is not honored. Mr. Mpshe, show us you have balls.
khayav.com
khayav@gmail.com
Zuma: Why people will still vote for the ANC
South Africans remind me of a girl with an abusive boyfriend. He beats (excuse my Xhosa) the shit out of her. Every now and then he tells her “I won’t beat you again, I love you”. They cuddle up and cosy up. Then he beats her up again. The girl knows the relationship is not ideal, it is not the best relationship but keeps making excuses for him and his behaviour. “But he loves me” she keeps telling her friends through broken teeth and ribs.
Then she says: “Anyway before I met him I was down and out and in the dumps. I had nothing. I was a nobody. He made me who I am. He took me in, helped me get a good job and a better education. He introduced me to celebrities, Moet, cigars and all the glitz and glamour. He cares for me even though he gave me a blue eye yesterday and will probably give me another tomorrow. To be fair I owe him.”
She believes in her heart of hearts that she cannot find anyone better. “I am used to him” she tells friends who tell her to get out of the relationship. “I don’t want to get used to someone new all over again.” Then she continues to stay in the abusive relationship where she used to be the significant other and is now the insignificant other. The many trips to the hospital do nothing to dissuade her. Like a perfect gentleman he goes to the hospital to pick her up when she leaves the hospital because he cares. She never lays charges. She is convinced that he still cares because he was sweet enough to pick her up from the hospital.
“He only beats me because he loves me” she tells her friends. Of course by the time she wakes up it’s too late. This is what’s happening to South Africa right now. But we can change this, we only need to want to change the situation bad enough.
How badly do you want to get out of this relationship with the ANC?
My friend the facebook novice
A friend of mine whom I happen to work with finally decided to join the real world – by registering on facebook a couple of months back. A number of us showed him the ropes around this new and wonderfully wonderful world.
One day he budges into my office, completely out of breath and foaming at the mouth. I am so startled that I spill coffee all over myself. Ok, not entirely true because I don’t drink coffee. The point is I would have had I been a coffee drinker. He can’t control his excitement at all. I tell him to take a moment to breath before he says what he has come to tell me. I even go to the water cooler to get him some water. He gulps the water and spills some of it all over himself. I realize that trying to calm him down is an exercise in futility.
He places his hands on my desk and leans over and opens his mouth, there is a hint of a smile. He bursts, “Facebook wants to know what I’m doing right now!” He tells me. Actually he doesn’t tell me, he shouts. He clearly thinks this is directed only at him. I try really hard not to laugh. But I do. Hard. And loud. A few months later I’m still laughing at the thought.
I beat up a cripple once
Does that make me evil? Before you judge me let me explain myself. The punk was asking for it and I gave it to him, reluctantly I might add.
I grew up in the rural areas kids, I’m sure you can tell by my lack of sophistication. Anyway, I had an altercation with a local village boy who was slightly older. I think he had polio because he wore leg braces and his right leg was a whole lot shorter than the other. As a result one of his shoes had a really thick and heavy sole. The weight on his right shoe caused him to drag it around. I never understood why the weaker and shorter leg had all that extra work to do than the perfectly healthy one. It is a metaphor for life I guess, the less fortunate carry all the load. It seemed like it was being punished for not being strong enough.
When he walked, he sort of half dragged his leg. With every step he took, he looked as if he was on the verge of tripping and falling because of the severity of the limp. I have to describe what he was like so you know that this was not a fight that should have happened.
As I have said, I don’t recall what the fight was about but it happened. I remember him walking towards me with clenched fists, limping severely. There was a group of say, 10 other boys my age. I kept saying to him, “Look, I can’t fight you and I don’t want to fight you.” But he kept coming after me. Well, I didn’t want to lose face in front of all these village boys, I knew that I would lose respect and I would be known as the boy who ran away from a cripple. The consequences of that is that every boy in the village would think he could take his chances with me.
So I stood my ground. He threw a fist at me and missed. It was easy to duck because, well, he was slow and his leg caused him to telegraph each swing of his fists. While I ducked I would say, “Dude,” (obviously in Xhosa) “I don’t want to fight you.” I got tired of ducking and diving. I decided to end this thing once and for all. I punched him in the face and he fell. I remember feeling so bad that I helped him up. He gets up and swings again, I swing back and he falls down again. I help him up again he still swings! The audacity! I punch him one more time and once again, he collapses into a heap and this time I don’t help him and I tell him I don’t want to fight him and then I walked away. Does this make me evil?
Why I’m a$king for a raise
A few years ago I wrote my then employers the following note asking for a raise (during a recession). I got it.
Before I go into the reasons I would like to thank you for taking time from your busy day to read these lines on this particularly trivial issue. Ok, it’s not as insignificant to me as I am making it seem, I’m sure you can tell by the mere fact that I have decided to write about it. Ha ha ha! Excuse me for laughing out of turn, I am a tad bit nervous. The second thing I would like to do is apologise for the uninspired headline. Please don’t start wondering why I think I should get a raise based on this poor display of what I am paid to do. This is just to convince you that giving me a raise is not such a bad idea.
Anyway, here goes.
1. I am still single. This situation it seems won’t change until I am mobile. Naturally a bulging wallet (which it is not at this point) will help rectify this situation.
2. I am short. Being short and car-less really puts me at an added disadvantage.
3. Having a car will go a long way in helping me achieve one of my goals, that of acquiring a wife. Did I say “acquire”? I’m sorry. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I need to acquire cows for you know what. These cows aren’t cheap these days you know. (For those of you who aren’t South African I need to explain the cow story. We pay cows, now it’s money, to brides parents. This is done in order to establish a relationship with the future in laws. It’s a long story)
4. I have also started to notice a rather disturbing trend. My sneakers are starting to wear out. Obviously this means I need to buy new ones. As you know, everywhere is within walking distance if you have the right shoes, ha ha ha! Oh boy, there goes that nervous laugh again!
5. Have you noticed the price of everything lately? Outrageous! Not only do we have to pay for the food but for the shopping bag as well!
6. I know what you are thinking. You think I am selfish, all I think about is myself. But I am not. I won’t be spending my larger cheque solely on myself. I will make sure that some of the loot goes to the taxman, tipping waitresses (particularly the pretty ones) and car guards (assuming of course this is made possible).
7. No, I will not give any to the street kids. I am not plagued by feelings of white guilt because I’m not! Instead I will give a generous percentage to charity. And there is one particular charitable organisation I have in mind, the National Lottery. They do a great job in distributing money to all sorts of charitable causes like turning ordinary Joe Soaps into millionaires. A truly noble cause.
8. Yes, it’s true, money can’t buy me happiness, but it will buy me a whole lot of shallow satisfaction!
I hope you will find my arguments compelling and persuasive enough to consider them and of course, to discuss the issue with me. Till we talk. Oh, by the way, I art directed this myself.
This message is brought to you by the Society for the Enrichment of Khaya.
Why I endorsed COPE
As an official egomaniac I thought that it was incumbent upon me to make my position clear given the current state of our nation. The desire to write this endorsement is also driven by the false notion that people might take what I have to say seriously. As the title suggests, I fully endorse the Congress of the People (Cope).
I have defended the ANC on numerous occasions on the “internets”, particularly on the video-sharing website known as YouTube. I defended it not because I always thought it was right, but because I felt that was my duty to defend the ruling party whenever I heard people misrepresent it and indirectly, the country. My defense of the ANC and the government got me into some heated exchanges with some fellow South Africans. I have even taken heat from right wing racists. (I’ve always wondered why are there no left wing radical racists? Just a thought). In fact, some racists would use the race card on me! They would call me racist because I chose to defend the African National Congress. I digress.
I have even gone as far as to say that if Jacob Zuma does become the president of the Republic it wouldn’t be the end of the world because the world’s leading ratings agencies like Moody’s and others said that there would be no major policy shifts if Zuma takes over. I said these things after Polokwane. As uncertain as I was of a Zuma presidency at the time, I thought it prudent to give the man and the new leadership a chance after his camp was elected into office.
I went on to quote Warren Buffet who once said, “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.” I made the example that South Africa has a strong constitution and an independent judiciary. So even if a fool runs the country it will be fine because of the structures in place. I was also fully aware of the fact that some people would deliberately twist my words and imply that I called Jacob Zuma a fool.
I have even gone as far as to say that white people needed to join the ANC and stop moaning so that they can change it if they don’t like it. If you complain from the sidelines, nothing will change I said. I was taken to task for making these suggestions. But these suggestions stimulated the kind of debate I had hoped they would on YouTube.
I said all those things because I believed them at time. Indeed the ANC will change to what it was meant to be, perhaps even better than what it was meant to be, but it won’t happen next year or tomorrow. The ANC won’t just change. When it finally decides to change it will be too late. It will be because it will be forced to. The most dynamic organisations are the ones that change before they have to.
I joined the Youth League because I believed that it was better to be involved than to complain about Fikile Mbalula. If I was part of the YL then I could make my voice heard and ensure that the next Youth League president was of a better quality than him. It was my strong belief that being part of the ANC was the only way one could have a voice and change it from the direction I believed it was headed. Unfortunately this did not happen.
I will give an account of an ANCYL meeting I attended where the chairperson of my then branch opened up a discussion on some outlandish statement that Julius Malema had made. He asked if anyone had anything to say. As I was a new member I thought I’d wait until someone said something before I expressed my views. No hand went up for about a minute. “If no one has something to say I have something to say.” I said. I suggested that my branch write a letter to him and let it be known that we distance ourselves from what he had said, we thought it was unbecoming of a disciplined member of the organization. After I spoke all hands went up without hesitation. They did not agree with me because our branch would lose benefits, it would be targeted as an undesirable branch that goes against the president. What I found puzzling was that no one contradicted the merits of my case against Julius Malema, they were worried about the benefits the branch and the members stood to lose.
Only one other person stood up to agree with me. Then I stated that one of the key tenants of our branch was moral regeneration. How moral were we being if we agreed that Julius Malema was wrong but we are too worried about losing benefits? What is more moral I asked, the fear of losing benefits or standing for what we claim to believe in on paper? What is moral about giving in to fear I asked. I lost the battle.
Needless to say, this incident and others convinced me that people were afraid of disagreeing with the higher ups for fear of retribution. I could no longer be part of a political party that had sowed such fear amongst its own.
As you can imagine, it was with great pain and reluctance that I decided to leave.
The reason I endorse Cope is because of a Martin Luther King quote Barack Obama often used during his campaign. He would say, “I am running because of what Dr King referred to as ‘the fierce urgency of now.’” Obama never quoted the whole passage; he always quoted those five words, “the fierce urgency of now.”
Allow me to quote Dr King’s entire passage: “We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood-it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect.”
I don’t want my generation to be in that invisible book that says we were not vigilant and that we were neglectful when we saw that we were headed towards a cliff.
As Dr King so eloquently put it, “There is such a thing as being too late.” Zimbabwe is a case in point. When the people of Zimbabwe decided to stand up, it was too late.
I believe that we cannot wait for another five years for the ANC to change. The world is in a global financial crisis. We cannot afford to wait when the poor get poorer. We cannot afford to wait another five years for justice to be served differently depending on one’s political standing. We cannot afford to wait another five years for the ruling party to remove the president from office at a whim. We cannot afford to have the entire machinery of the ruling party dedicated to making sure that an individual never gets his day in court. We cannot afford to wait when our judges are being called counter revolutionaries. We cannot afford to be too late.
Lest we forget that the future president of this country lacks judgment. He knowingly had sex with an HIV positive woman – without a condom. I cannot entrust the future of my country to someone who makes such reckless decisions, nor to men and women who decided that he should be the one to head the ANC. Make no mistake about it, I still think that he is a humble, likeable guy, but that is not enough for my vote. I have to be responsible with my mark on Wednesday.
Now, some of us have decided to vote for the ruling party because we know it will win. It’s human nature. No one wants to feel like a loser. Some are just voting for bragging rights so that, come Wednesday or Thursday, they can say they won. Again, it’s human nature, we can’t blame them for that. People by nature are followers we have a herd mentality. We want to feel like we are part of the winning team. But I would rather lose with a clear conscience than win with a guilty one.
I want to be able to say to my children that when the time came for me to stand up, I did. And not only did I stand, I walked and ran. Because standing is not enough; acting is what counts.
I support Cope’s call of having a president elected by the people. Right now, the people are under the impression that they elect a president when in fact it is parliament that does.
I endorse Cope because it will be accountable to the people. The leadership will not tell the people what to do; it is the people that will tell the leadership what to do. The people lead the movement.
I support Cope because of its instance that there should be a separation between party and state. We have seen that the ruling party sees itself as the state by how it has pressured the NPA into dropping charges against the president of the ruling party. This is the main reason that Cope has a separate presidential candidate and party president. The party president will go around the country making sure that those Cope leaders who are in parliament are actually delivering what they were sent there to do. It’ not just about being in touch with people when their vote is needed.
I support Cope because it believes that the highest of the high and the lowest of the low should get equal treatment before the law.
I support Cope because it believes in affirmative action without reservation. Cope wants to make sure that the policies written on paper are implemented more effectively. It believes that blacks should not just be filtered into junior positions, but should be mentored and equipped with skills so that they can fill senior management positions faster. It calls for the end of employing unqualified people for positions when there are many blacks who have the necessary skills for those jobs and to quote my friend Anele Mdoda, “This eliminates ‘oh you were hired, just because you black’ attitude that many face on daily basis when they actually are competent and excel at their jobs.”
I support Cope because it believes that a party that is truly interested in serving the people will not threaten them by saying that they will lose grants if they don’t vote for it.
I support Cope because it will be South Africa’s first truly diverse political party, where all members of our country will be represented in their numbers. The enthusiasm for Cope spans racial, religious and class lines.
One of the things that impressed me the most about Cope was when one of its youth leaders said something off colour about the president of the ruling party. An apology was issued. There were no excuses, no attempt to spin what had been said, there was no going to a laager to defend the indefensible. Cope did not wait for other political parties to speak out before an apology was issued. We cannot say the same thing of the ruling party. We waited for months for an apology for some of the statements that were made by its youth leader. Even the apology was a non-apology; they went on to blame the media. One of the things I’ve learnt is never ruin an apology with an excuse.
Cope is not perfect. No political party is. It would be a mistake to believe that there is. Even churches cannot claim that. But what I hope Cope will do, is at least to try to make this country move forward, look ahead and not backwards. I know that it will give the people of this nation hope that there are better days ahead for us as a nation.
These are just some of the reasons I endorse Cope.
http://twitter.com/khayadlanga
My traumatic voting experience
I walk into the voting station and a surge of emotion overcomes me, maybe it’s adrenaline or my mind is beginning to realize what I’m about to do, I don’t know, I’m not a shrink.
I tell the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) official who had my Identity Document (ID) to handle it with care because it’s in pieces, literally. I even tried to staple the pages together at some point because I wanted to prevent the pages from falling off, but some of the staples have fallen off. The black and white photo in the green ID does not look anything like the owner. In the photo I like a criminal, a wanted man, in fact it looks like a mug shot. Before I even present it to the IEC official I tell her that I promise the man inside there that doesn’t look like me, is in fact me. She opens the ID, looks at me and does not believe that it’s me. Then she says she can tell by the eyes, she laughs and shows the unfortunate ID photo to another official, who laughs at the state of the ID then at me. I’m unperturbed, I experience this mockery every time I go to a bank.
In fact I experienced it outside while in the queue when my so called friends laughed (yes, you Xolisa, Anele, Fix, Simone and Sizwe) their rear ends off, first at the state of my ID which has seen many a washing machine trips, then at my photo. They mocked me by playing cards with its pages. Fix even had the audacity to impersonate the host of an ancient TV program, “Ngomgqibelo Kamukibelo”. She pretended that the pages were money. She counted as she handed me the pages of my ID one by one by shouting, and all of them in unison, “One hundred! Two hundred! Three Hundred!” Not funny.
Inside the voting stations I can feel anxiety go through me and I try to distract myself by talking to the bored and tired elections officials. They direct me to the lady that’s going to put ink on my thumb to prove that I had in fact voted. I notice that she looks tired and irritable, I mention this to her and she tells me she’d been there since 6 in the morning. As she paints my thumb with the purple ink I tell her that I am disappointed with her job because, “I thought you were going to write, ‘I love Khaya.’” She laughs and retorts by saying “Maybe next time.” At least I leave her smiling. My heart is pounding and I feel a little shaky.
I move on to the next table where I am given my ballot paper. I take it and I make some stupid comment, as I am prone to do. The guy laughs, then I proclaim my nervousness and the official tells me to go do my duty for my country, I oblige. I arrive at the booth and unfold my ballot and see the million and one party name on the ballot paper and realize that a number of trees no longer exist so we could vote.
After unfolding my ballot, just before I make my cross, I put my hands on my face for a couple of seconds and say a little prayer, my heart is beating from what I can imagine is adrenaline. I look down and I see the ANC, DA and Cope. Those are the only parties I see for some reason. I take a deep breath. I can’t believe I’m about to vote for anyone but the ANC. I reach out for the pen inside the booth and lift it towards me. I put my hands on my face again and ask God to help me be guided by reason and not emotion. After all I will not be voting for the party of Nelson Mandela, Albert Luthuli, Walter Sisulu, Oliver Tambo and many other heroes. I did not anticipate the profound trauma I would feel.
The moments before putting the cross are traumatic. Eventually I make my mark next to Cope. It feels good but I am emotioned out. Earlier, a cousin of mine had told us that voting felt very emotional for him, especially realizing that he was not voting for the ANC. I just thought that he was being a girl. I took no heed to what he experienced.
I can imagine that some people who may have intended to put their cross next to Cope must have been so overwhelmed with emotion that they just marked by the green, gold and black flag.
Finally I will myself out of the voting booth after what seems like unaphakade (an eternity). I walk to the ballot box. I try to get over my emotional state by joking with the elections official who has been given the mundane but crucial task of making sure that we insert our ballots in the cardboard ballot box. As I place my ballot in the box stuffed with ballot papers, I smile as though posing for a camera. I pose for a second anticipating a camera flash. I ask the election official, “Dude, where are the cameras and the news folk?” He laughs and tells me that maybe they didn’t know I was going to cast my vote over there.
In the car, my friends ask me if I was ok because I was very quite. I tell them I am. I am on my phone updating my twitter (follow me on http://twitter.com/khayadlanga). That was not the reason for my silence though, I was just coming to terms with what had happened in the voting booth. A lot was going through me. It was not easy not voting for something I had loved for so long. It felt like a break up. But voting for Cope felt right and amazing. Voting for this 125-day-old baby. She is a child that I have to look after now, take care of and make sure I never have to abandon her, or she me.
Funny t shirt. From Christ, Gandhi, Mandela to Zuma.

I was out clubbing when I saw some guys wearing this.
My friend, the bad storyteller.
I have a friend, let’s call him friend A. Yes, I know that comes to you as a surprise but I do have a friend. The fact that I have to pay him a fee to rent his friendship is besides the point, the point is I am like you. I have someone I call buddy.
Unfortunately there is one thing that troubles me about him. He is a horribly atrocious storyteller. I thought I was bad, but man, A sucks! If there were an Olympics for worst storyteller in the world he would win gold. No contest. Allow me to tell you one of his stories – word for word.
Once upon a time, my good friend A and another friend (who shall remain friend B for the purposes of this story) were chatting about random stuff. Anyway, to cut a long narrative short, A interrupts us and says, “Guys, did you watch the news last night?”
“No,” we say.
“Well, there is this rich guy in France.” Pause. “He’s in trouble.”
Silence.
More silence.
Even more silence.
I suddenly come to the realisation that that’s all there is to the story. “There is this rich guy in France. He is in trouble.” That’s it. No more.
“Is that it?!” I ask with incredulous irritations. He nods.
One thing I gotta give him though is that he sure tells a memorable pointless story. After all these years, six years to be precise, I still remember it. “There is this rich guy in France.” Pause. “He is in trouble.”
I promise, it’s his real name

I went to a restaurant some time last year. I saw one of the waiter’s name tags and I asked to take a pic of his name because I was afraid no one would believe me. So there.
Women want men to lie to them
I wrote this a while back for True Love Babe when they were still around. It was going to be a regular column (until they went defunct) based on a fictitious relationship between two fictitious characters I named Anonymous Boyfriend and Anonymous Girlfriend. All the columns would be written from the perspective of Anonymous Boyfriend
I feel it is my fundamental duty as a man to lie. Before you bite my head off allow me to explain myself.
I was sitting in front of my TV wishing I had a bigger one (bigger TV that is) with Anonymous Girlfriend a few days ago. She was leaning against my chest when she asked me a peculiar question. “Do you find other women attractive?” When I first heard the question I wasn’t sure whether it was an innocent question or not. And so I avoided answering it by saying, “Sure I find Beyonce attractive.” I knew that answer would not get me in trouble because she’d laugh. I was wrong. She didn’t laugh. Instead she leaned away from me and looked into my eyes and said, “You know what I mean.”
As soon as those words left her lips my mind went to the races. I wondered about many things. Was this a trap? If I say yes I find other women attractive will I be signing my own death warrant? And if I say no I don’t find other women attractive surely she will know that I am lying, mainly because Anonymous Girlfriend always knows when I am being economical with the truth. What to do, what do to do? I could only think of one man who could extricate himself from this position without getting into any sort of trouble. That man would be King Solomon. Unfortunately he is no longer with us, which meant that I could not consult him for desperately needed advice. It was at that point that I prayed and asked for guidance and wisdom from above in order to navigate this treacherous terrain.
“Lord,” I prayed, “won’t you grant me the wisdom to lie to Anonymous Girlfriend. Won’t you give me the strength to tell her that I don’t find other women attractive? I know that I shouldn’t be asking you to help me lie because well, you say in your book lying is a bad thing. Please, won’t you do me this favour just this one time? Won’t you help me by blinding her to my lie?” All this happened in my mind in about half a second. Perhaps she noticed my hesitation because she said, “Be honest. You don’t have to lie, being attracted to other people is perfectly normal.” I couldn’t believe my ears upon hearing that. I was free to tell truth. “Yes, I find other women attractive.” There was a brief silence. I became uncomfortable.
Then she asked me another question about her best friend, “Do you find Anonymous Best Friend attractive?”
Perhaps I should go into a bit more detail about Anonymous Girlfriend’s best friend. She is hot. Really, really hot. Did I say hot? I think I did. Since I had been given the freedom to tell the truth I felt comfortable. Now, don’t get me wrong, Anonymous Girlfriend is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. She is gorgeous. Since I had been given carte blanche I was honest. “Oh yes, I think she’s really hot.” I said trying to sound nonchalant but I think the words came out of my mouth more enthusiastically than I intended. To this day I have no idea what happened next because Anonymous Girlfriend let go off my hand, grabbed her bag, her car keys, opened the door, walked out. All I was left with was the sound of the door banging behind her. What the hell just happened I asked my puzzled self. I walked after her and told that she said to tell the truth. Silence.
“But you said it’s normal for people to find others attractive.” Silence.
She got into her car and drove off. She might have even tried to run me over. But I exaggerate. The point I’m making here is that she was upset.
As she drove off, it was at that point that I had a revelation from the depths of my spirit, “I should have lied. I should have said she is an ugly fat pig.” I thought to myself. Even if she had been able to tell that I lied perhaps that would have been the best thing for me to do. What Anonymous girlfriend failed to hear in her moment of irrationally (of which there are plenty) is that I never said that Anonymous Best Friend was more attractive than her. I just said that she was pretty.
I have come to the following conclusion then. Even when women say that they want us to tell them the truth about certain things, they don’t really want it. They hope we tell a lie. Even if they know. I have heard many dudes tell the same story I just told. They are implored to tell the truth only to be punished for saying, “Yes honey, I think those jeans do make you look fat” even though the girl in question had requested honesty. The common reply is, “So you’re calling me fat?” There is no winning.
If there are any men reading this right now I would like you to join with me and bow your head in prayer. Let us pray. “Give us strength and foresight; O Lord to know when we are asked tricked questions that might get us into unnecessary trouble. You know Lord we can’t lie on our own. So we ask that you grant us the skill of lying when the need arises. And finally Lord, I pray for myself now. Lord, in case Anonymous Girlfriend sees this won’t you make her believe me when I say someone else wrote this? Amen.”
This toilet sign seems cruel, but funny

I saw this very funny toilet sign at Design Quaters, Fourways a few months back. As I am prone to do, I took a pic. Looks like they are laughing at the disabled guy. Not nice guys. Why are you laughing the guy in a wheelchair? lol
Mandela and Hitler assume an uncanny identical pose

I was at a friend’s house when I saw a book with Hitler on the cover. The first thing that struck me was how similar his pose was to Mandela’s when he went to visit is old cell on Robbin Island. I decided to combine the pictures in order to contrast what each one of them represents. Both men evoke strong emotions.
I know that some people may find it offensive that I’d put the two together in the same picture. The message I’m trying to bring here is that you can both be visionaries, but it all depends on whether that vision is to build bridges or to destroy them. We all know who wins.
There used to be YOU in YouTube
YouTube used to be a community where people from across the world made videos and communicated. But big money came in and killed the community. It’s a bit a big chain store killing the small local shops that used to be in a community. I understand the need for YouTube to make money, but should it be at the expense of a community?
Polite friends
We were friends
Maybe not
Maybe more
Maybe less
Maybe between friendship and what would never be
Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words
Feelings lingered
Dangled
Unsaid
Unspoken
Obvious secrets
Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words
We smiled
Some secret
Invisible kisses
Never shared
But wished for
Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words
On Saturdays we saw movies
But really saw each other
We held hands
That were never held
Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words
“I adore you” we would say
Three polite words
Burying three bolder words
That would never be said
Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words
You sat on my desk
You wore my shades
You sent me poetry
You wrote me a poem
“I wear you like an etching in my blood
For you will always be with me”
Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words
I’ve become a born-again South African.
I have finally decided to break my self-imposed silence on our recent elections.
The first thing I would like to do is congratulate our new president, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma. Whatever one thinks of the man, you have to admire how he managed to clear every single obstacle in his way. I know that many people have mixed feelings about him. Whatever you feel for the man, it is imperative we support him because if we don’t we won’t be able to solve the unemployment problem.
It is for this reason that I believe we need to look forward to his success as president. If he fails, we fail. If he is a disaster, we become one. If he succeeds, you succeed. Wishing him to fail will be counter-productive to the goals we have as a country. We have to put the country above whatever personal feelings we may have towards him. Our support does not mean we blindly follow every decision he makes.
As some of you may or may not know, and in the interests of full disclosure, I would like to point out that I campaigned for and voted for Cope.
It is a mistake for Cope supporters to wish that the president or his government fail. Our success as a party should not be built on the failures of the ANC but rather on our ability to communicate a superior message and an improved articulation of our positions. To wish that the government fails so that we can succeed is self-defeating. It puts party before country. We cannot afford that. When Barack Obama took over, one of America’s most famous conservative radio talk-show hosts, Rush Limbaugh, said he wanted Obama to fail. Of course, if Obama does fail Limbaugh will not suffer because he is a multi-millionaire but those people who lose their homes will feel the failure.
During these past few months I have become a born-again South African. We live in a truly beautiful, surprising, resilient country. My faith in this country was renewed by the debates I saw, the interest young people showed in politics for the first time. We live in a new South Africa again. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it is being perfected every day by those who know they have a responsibility to the country, by those who know their success depends on the political success of the country.
There is something remarkable about how the ANC achieved its overwhelming victory. And I am not talking about the huge percentage it got. I’m talking about the small percentage it did not.
Think about it. They needed less than 1% to achieve a two-thirds majority. So, what is so remarkable about that you may ask? They could have cheated so easily just to get that, yet they chose not to. That is evidence that we live in a true democracy. This small, yet great, temptation was resisted. This achievement must be commended. We just have to be grateful our votes weren’t counted by M-Net. On the flipside one can also say why congratulate them on doing the right thing? As Chris Rock once said: “Some men like to brag about never having been to jail. Well, you’re not supposed to go to jail!”
So what’s next? We cannot talk about what’s next before we have talked about what has been. The future is always connected to the past. We should not talk about the future while we forget about the past. It is often said, “forget the past”. “No,” I say. To remember the past is to pay tribute to the future. The past may shape us but we decide who we become. Maybe the real question is what kind of a people are we deciding to become? We are either shackled by the past or freed from it. We are either shaped by it or we use it to shape the future. The choice ladies and gentlemen is ours. First as individuals, then as a people. The destiny of this country is not written for us. We chose the kind of future we want. And the people chose a Zuma future.
As a people we need to realise that we come from different pasts but what we all want is the same future — a better one. I would like to drive through Khayelitsha without being assaulted by shacks all dressed up in poverty and nowhere to go. Many of the residents there see a bleak future for themselves, a vicious, poverty-stricken future, with no way to escape, except through crime, drugs and violence. The social consequences of this endemic poverty are too depressing to enumerate. We don’t want that to happen. We want to see all South Africans employed. And we as South Africans can have solutions to these problems, they are not going to take a generation to solve, but we can’t just close our eyes and pretend there is no problem.
If there is one man living in a shack, then I am not yet free. If there is a farm worker who still endures being called a “kaffir” by his bass on a daily basis then I am not yet free. If there is a white farmer killed simply because he is white then I am not yet free. We are not free. If I bribe a traffic officer for my freedom, then I am not free. All of us are still striving towards freedom.
We have to hold our government accountable. We must question them without fear or favour. We need a youthful, respectful academic militancy. We need to cultivate the celebration of intellectualism. There has been a rise of anti-intellectualism in our political discourse. Anti-intellectualism is something new, we cannot accept it and to abandon it is to insult the Sol Plaatjies, Oliver Tambos and Steve Bikos who celebrated intellect.
For us to turn this into an extraordinary country will take a few ordinary people to take ordinary steps. If we all do what we are supposed to do, what we must do, we can turn this into an extraordinary country. Small things like not jumping a red robot. Refusing to bribe a traffic officer, refusing to bribe that home affairs official, demanding good, not great, just good service at the restaurant. Doing our best at work. Starting a business instead of being employed. All these small ordinary actions will turn us into an extraordinary country. If we have high ethical standards for ourselves, then we have every right to have high expectations of our leaders. But as long as we continue to cut corners, lie, cheat and bribe, we deserve the leaders we get.
So, what is next? The truth is we don’t truly know what is next. None of us are prophets. The important thing is we all know what needs to be done. But what’s even more important is doing what needs to be done. What young people need to do is turn us into a generation that future South Africans will talk about, we should be a tribute to the 1976 generation that fought despite insurmountable odds. The odds we face today are nothing like the ones they did. Maybe we are not desperate enough to see a great South Africa. Maybe we are too comfortable to change anything. Maybe we are not restless enough. Natives of South Africa, be restless, the country needs you to be.
Old South African flag flag must be banned
As I celebrated the emphatic victory of the Blue Bulls over the Chiefs on Saturday, a bad taste was left in my mouth when I saw an old South African flag waving in stadium. That flag is right up there with the use of the word Kaffir as far as I’m concerned. If you wave that flag in front of me that’s what you are calling me. Having said that, I also know that not everyone who was there was glad that happened.
Did I enjoy the victory still? Yes. Did I celebrate? Yes. Was I proud of a South African team? Yes. But that does not take away from the fact that the flag dampened the mood over the occasion. In one second, it took us to the past. It has no future in the new South Africa.
The only place that flag must be in is a museum. I know that it still flies over the Castle of Good Hope in Cape Town, that is understandable, it is history. We cannot pretend that flag never existed, but we cannot hide the waving of the flag behind Freedom of Expression. Like any freedom we enjoy, Freedom of Expression has limits. A freedom with no limits leads to anarchy.
Chapter 2, section 16 on our Bill of Rights says the following about the Freedom of Expression:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
1. freedom of the press and other media;
2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
1. propaganda for war;
2. incitement of imminent violence; or
3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
That flag will incite violence in the right place and at the right time. It also advocates hatred based on race and ethnicity. Banning that flag does not only protect those who are subjected to what it advocates, but those who advocate the hate it symbolizes too. Imagine what would happen to that guy if he were to wave that flag in a Kaiser Chiefs VS Orlando Pirates match. I am all for Freedom of Expression, but it can’t go unchecked. It must have limits.
I believed then just as I do now that the people who were around the flag carrier should have removed it from whoever was waving it by force. Remaining silent and doing nothing about the flag might be viewed as an endorsement of what it represents even if those who were around the flag carrier were repulsed by the man’s actions. In the words of Martin Luther King Junior, “In order for evil to triumph, good people do nothing.” We all know what it stands for. It stands for the subhumanising of people of colour, racism, oppression, torture and everything that was wrong and immoral about the previous regime.
We could make the mistake of reacting out of emotion and claim that all white rugby supporters are racist and therefore supported the flag waver. The truth is we know better than that.
If the Germans can ban the waving of the Nazi flag I don’t understand why we cannot do the same.
President Obama kills fly (Obama is a Ninja)
If you thought he couldn’t hurt a fly, you have anther think coming.
We had him, Dr Maya Angelou’s poem for Michael Jackson
Eternal Moonwalk
This has to be the best tribute to Michael Jackson at them moment. Loving it. All you have to do is post a video of yourself mooning walking to www.eternalmoonwal.com and it will be joined to other vids.
If you can’t have a Louis Vuitton branded Bag, have Louis Vuitton branded house

We live in a country. As one normaly does. But it is an interesting country. Not every country is. This person decided that if they can’t have a Louis Vuitton bag, then they will live in a Louis Vuitton branded house instead. This is how an inaccessible brand becomes accessible. A Louis Vuitton bag probably costs more than this house. I love this.
The Terrible Love Triangle: Men, Women and Money*
Don’t blame her if she’s only interested in your money – not if you’re the one defining yourself by your possessions
Hey you, sitting in front of a computer. Yes, you. How did I know you were reading this on a computer? I’m psychic. Anyhow, moving right along to more important issues, like women. And money. More specifically, women, men and money. It’s a terrible triangle. You know how it is – a man will chase after money in order to chase women. Then he gets women who love his money, but just tolerate him. He can’t be jealous of his money, because money is an innate object that evokes all sorts of reactions from people. This reminds me of an ad that Samuel L. Jackson did for a bank – in it he talks about money, and asks: “Is money evil? If money was a chicken, would the chicken be evil?” Money is not evil – it is what we use it for that can be evil.
One of the great tragedies of life is that our first instinct is to refuse to listen to our instinct – instead we listen to our fragile and often limp egos (otherwise also known as the male genitalia). Any man who thinks with his you-know-what deserves whatever comes his way. Don’t get me wrong, there are times when it is appropriate to think with it, but 98% of the time men use it to think, it’s not.
Most of the time we deserve the kind of women we end up with. The messages we send out gets us who we end up with. Many guys will meet a beautiful girl in a club, wearing the shortest skirt, and think she must be easy. Meanwhile, she’s on the look out for a dude who will splash out the most money on her for the night.
If you think that by flashing your wallet you will get a great woman, the one you really need, then you have a broken wallet and heart coming. You will label all women as selfish, greedy female dogs (my mother taught me not to cuss). We get the women we deserve. Show her your brain, not your wallet. Your heart, not your credit card. If she can’t accept your brain, then she doesn’t deserve your wallet. That’s the way it should be. If you show her the wallet, then she is in love with it not you. If you get treated like an ATM machine, it’s not her fault, it’s yours for allowing your junior member below the belt to do all your thinking for you.
Once at a club that I shall not name, I met a gentleman by the bar – I will call him BEE Guy, because that’s what he looked like. BEE Guy was relatively young and well put together. He started a conversation with me, and told me about the obvious: all the beautiful women who were at the club. I agreed with him, and just nodded every now and then, because I couldn’t hear what he was saying over the loud music. At some point he lent closer and said: “You know, picking them up would be so much easier if we were allowed to drive in here in our cars.” I was shocked by what I heard. Obviously BEE Guy couldn’t count on his charms or charisma. All he could rely on was his money. What defined him was his stuff. Money. Car. And more stuff.
Allow me to quote the obscenely wealthy old white guy George Soros – he is someone who can speak on the subject of money and the importance we place upon it with far greater authority than I can. I quote: “Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better … People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor.”
We define character by how much we have and the kind of cars we drive, in order to get a certain kind of woman, to impress people you don’t even like! What’s the point? If you lured a women with your wallet instead of your personality, if she likes your stuff more than she likes you, she not a … err … female dog, she’s doing what you taught her to do. A real man will be confident in who he is, not what he has. If he happens to have money, power and everything else, that’s a bonus.
*originally appeared on http://www.destinyman.com/blogs/khaya6239/archive/2009/07/07/the-terrible-love-triangle-men-women-and-money.aspx
SABC News was too scared to broadcast my response
Many years ago when I lived in Cape Town I dabbled as a comedian. Don’t laugh, I’m not trying to be funny. I’m serious. To cut a long narrative short, Comedian Desmond Dube had a show on SABC 2. I forget what it was called, but I know that it was very popular. He created some controversy this one time (not at band camp) when he said in one of his sketches, “Shangaans are very ugly. In fact they’re so ugly it’s better to be a baboon than to be Shangaan.” I’m sure it was taken out of context too, but that is the phrase that was paraded around.
A storm broke out when a parliamentarian was so incensed that she raised the issue in parliament. Her angry speech made it on to the news. For reasons beyond my comprehension I got a call from SABC news, they wanted my opinion on the matter they said. I told them there were better comedians than me to comment on the matter. “Yes we tried them, but they’re not available,” came the reply from the line. Then I said, “Sure, come over.”
They went to my office and I was made to pretend I was tying something on my laptop, you know that shot they like. There’s another shot they like, they’ll ask you to walk towards your office while they shoot.
Two days later than they said they’d arrive, they finally arrived with their cameras (mind you, it was only my third day in my new job). The producer asked, “So what do you make of what Desmond Dube said the other day? And what do you make of the parliamentarian’s reaction?” I said, “Well, I know Desmond. He certainly didn’t mean what he said. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I mean how could he mean it? Just take a look at Desmond. He could be Shangaan.” The SABC was too chicken to broadcast that part of the interview.
Settling for imperfection*
The problem with imperfect people looking for perfect partners is that there is no such thing as a perfect person – only one that is perfect for you
Human nature is a funny thing. Not funny as in slap my thigh, ha ha ha – the kind of funny that causes you to shake your head in a mild sense of bemusement and disbelief. I’m sure you agree with me, because you too are an actor in this play called life. Some of us are involved in anyone of a certain class of romantic movies. Our relationships resemble a romantic comedy, a tragic romance or a dramatic comedy – the list is endless, but you get my drift.
Everyone wants an ideal relationship, but hardly anyone knows how to act when they get one. That is the conundrum of the human condition. We know what we want, but when we get it, we don’t want it. No one has taught us how to want what we wish for. When God finally answers our passionate prayers, suddenly, we tell him it’s not what we were really asking for.
When you get what you want, you best want it when you get it. This is as true for love as it is for life. Want what you have.
Of course, wanting the ideal woman does not mean you should have unreasonable expectations. The ideal woman can never be ideal. You must know that she will not have everything you want. To get the perfect woman, you too must be a perfect man. And you know just as well as I do that you are far from it. In fact, some men aren’t even trying to be perfect, even though they are looking for Miss Perfect. Not that there is anything unusual about it – but it should be. People generally have higher standards for others than they do for themselves. The world would be in a much better shape if it were the other way round.
To quote from a song by the greatest entertainer to have graced this planet (and the moon), Michael Jackson: “I’m starting with the man in the mirror. I’m asking him to change his ways. And no message could’ve been any clearer. If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change.”
The great wordsmith William Shakespeare put it in timeless eloquence when he put the following words in Cassius’s lips, in his play Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Can you imagine how much trouble we could save ourselves if we looked at every single problem with a person through that prism? Of course, there are people out there who are just wrong – take Bruno for example.
I digress.
Since this person is everything you want, we have to agree that there is nothing wrong with them. Then, if we find reason to fault them, we should question ourselves. What is wrong with me? What do I need to fix in me? “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
Maybe we don’t really want the perfect person. Think about the Michael Jackson lyrics. The mirror. What do we know about a mirror? A mirror is perfect. It reflects everything. Nothing is hidden. It shows everything for what it is. Perhaps that is the problem with getting what we want. The perfection. If you are not perfect, the mirror will tell you. Naturally some people will take the reflection in accordance to their level of maturity or insecurities. Those insecurities cause us to find wrong where there is none. What do I mean by this? Allow me: I have had conversations with women who have what they have always dreamed of in a man. “He is everything I want,” they say, and then the pregnant pause. We all know what the pause will give birth to – a “But.” How can there be a “but” if he is what you want? Perhaps it is reasonable to assume that the reason people say “but” is because they are not ready to get what they want. What they want might be too mature for them. Or they are not ready to learn about themselves, or to improve who they are. They are just satisfied with no personal internal progress. The greatest expression of love we can show is to be honest with ourselves.
These people will usually find fault in the other people, but never themselves. “We never fight. He calls me everyday. He gets me flowers. The lovemaking is great. He is honest. He makes me laugh.” The truth is, they are just not ready for what they want. Maybe it is the realisation that they might not deserve the person they are with, thus they find reasons to fault them for being everything they want. But who is to say who deserves who?
It reminds me of an episode of Californication where a young girl says to her mother about her dad: “Mom, love him for who he is, not for who he could be.” If your partner loves you with all your flaws, then you should be happy that you are loved for who you are, not who you could be.
We should not seek perfect people, because they don’t exist. If they do, we will find fault in them anyway. Let’s just find other imperfect people to be perfect with. If they accept you for who you are, even with your greater faults, then I suppose that makes them perfect. And if you accept them with all their faults, then I suppose that makes you perfect too.
*first appeared on destiny
How ‘cowardice’ helped Bolt become the fastest man in the world
We have to admit that Bolt is fast. I promise not to be lead into the temptation of cheap puns regarding his name, even expensive ones for that matter. He broke the world record. Again. His own. I couldn’t help wondering. I lie. I didn’t wonder because I am too lazy to, I am sure my laziness is the explanation for the noticeable midsection I seem to be developing lately. When examined closely one would think I was pregnant. Indeed the stomach is pregnant, with laziness.
How is it possible for a human being to be as fast as that man? 9.58? My golly! That is fast! Do you think he would sink if he attempted to run on water? I don’t think so. I suspect that he can’t fight to save his life. If you can’t fight them or beat them, run so fast that they can’t catch. I cannot see how else his career in running would have begun. This is the only way his speed makes any sense to me. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
I wish I could have been able to run as fast as a kid, instead I was forced to fend for myself and beat up numerous boys in the process (let’s pretend I was a hero here, this is good for my chance with the ladies) including a young fellow that was crippled by polio. Don’t judge me. That’s a story for another day.
While we’re still at it, Ferrari is in need of some serious help. Maybe now that Schumacher won’t be racing because of his neck, Ferrari should hire Bolt to run in his place. A friend of mine on twitter @anele twittered this gem before the race: “Okay so Bolt is about to run the 100 metres, escorted by seven guys.”
She couldn’t have predicted it better.
khayav@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/khayadlanga
Africa, the motherland
We must not ridicule nor confuse genuine emotional responses with ignorance when African Americans first land here. The ignorant ones are those amongst us who so readily dismiss this response without a moment’s pause to consider or understand the reason for the reaction. (For a while, I was in this number. I too used to laugh. I am no better than the ones who still do.) Simply calling African Americans who do that when they get here is proof of our own ignorance. We who laugh are the ignorant ones. I don’t think we understand the overwhelming emotions that African Americans go through when they come to Africa. I was at the stadium last night when American songstress Keri Hilson said, “it’s good to be in the motherland”. There was much giggling, some even said they knew she’d pull the motherland line. That is said from a place of ignorance and a failure to empathise.
Instead of ridiculing people when they express this, we ought to feel nothing but humility, that we were blessed. It is a blessing that our ancestors were not removed by force to be sold as slaves. A form of slavery where men and women did not give birth to families, but instead bred slaves, much like one would breed cattle, where one’s children were nothing but a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. Families and people from the same villages were separated so they could not pass on stories about their native land to one another. Clearly we don’t understand. We may never have been slaves, but our lack of empathy and lack of understanding might as well be slavery — of our own making and choosing.
In the 80s, when the late great American comedian Richard Pryor decided to leave it all behind for a while and live in Africa, he went to Zimbabwe. I remember watching (it was DVD obviously) him do stand-up about his experience. He said, I may not be quoting him word for word but he said something like, “I went to Zimbabwe. I know how white people feel in America now,” he paused, “relaxed”. We have no idea what it’s like to be black in America.
Yes the kissing of the ground and saying I’m in the motherland may be old. It may be so for us. But it’s not old for the person who steps out of a plane and lands here for the first time. For them, that feeling, that overwhelming emotion is new and needs to be vocalised. Let us criticise ourselves before we criticise.
I have had several conversations with African Americans and when they find out how developed Africa is they say: “American television never shows positive images of Africa. All we see are children with flies, wars, nothing positive.” Granted, some have admitted to me and beat themselves over the fact that they didn’t find out more for themselves about the state of the continent and not just rely on the media.
As much as some of us blame them for having this image of Africa, some of us have one of two images of the African American: the ghetto-living, hoochie mama with her projects, gangster boyfriend. Then there is the image of the high-living rapper, basketball player or football player. We don’t stop to think that there may be those who live in suburbs. This too for us has been the image of the African American. Let’s look at ourselves before we judge them.
In other words, they make assumptions about us, we make assumptions about them too. So neither side has the right to feel superior. We are all wrong for not trying to find out more.
We can either chose to live in our ignorance or try to understand why they feel the way they do when they get here. In fact I would suggest that not just African Americans should feel that way about the motherland. Everyone should. After all, this is where humanity started, if you believe in evolution that is. Some of the world’s oldest human fossils are found right here in Jozi in fact. They are right, this is the motherland. Now leave them alone.
South Africans, ah but your land is beautiful!
I attempt to give an imaginary person who wants to visit South Africa an idea of what South Africa is like.
Thank you so much David from Uzbekistan for your questions about my country. I must say, your name is pretty normal, not that it wouldn’t be normal if it were Uzbekistani-sounding, not that I know what it sounds like. Let me stop while I’m behind. I am going to answer some of your questions. Here goes.
1: I live in the biggest city in this country, Johannesburg, otherwise known as eGoli, City of Gold. One of the only cities in the world that was built on gold. Literally. It also happens to be the world’s biggest man-made forest.
2: To answer your question: yes, there are many beautiful women in South Africa. Whenever I’ve left the country I always run into men talking about the beauty of South African women. I couldn’t agree with these people more, sometimes when I find myself walking around and see all the beautiful women we’ve been blessed with, I feel like I died and woke up in South Africa.
3: I love my country except for the days Julius Malema says something err … colourful.
4: The best thing about South Africa? Wow! How can you ask me that? There are so many best things about South Africa (including myself of course). I’d have to say besides the obvious things like the landscape, the wild life (some of my relatives could be mistaken for wild life by the way but don’t tell them). I’d have to say it’s the people. They are amazing. We have some of the friendliest people, so very nice. Some of them though are so nice and polite that they get too shy to ask you for stuff, so they might just take your wallet without asking you. It’s just that they are so very shy. Avoid those ones though.
5: The most interesting thing about this country is that its prisons have a propensity for creating greatness. How you may wonder. During the second Anglo-Boer War, the great Englishman Winston Churchill was arrested but escaped his captors, he would go on to write a successful book about his escapades. Then there was the Mahatma Gandhi who was also imprisoned in South Africa, incidentally he would go on to become a thorn in Winston Churchill’s side, but that’s a story for another day. And of course, our very own Madiba, Nelson Mandela. Our prisons do create greatness indeed. Oh, don’t start thinking that you should go steal a television or something. Things might not turn out so well for you. One thing’s for sure though, they certainly don’t make the same quality inmate as they did in the old days.
6: Oh yes, I do believe we will do extremely well in the World Cup. I know a lot of people are profoundly sceptical. We should get rid of this unattractive sense of pessimism when it comes to our national team. I am very pro-Bafana Bafana, (that would be the nickname of our team). Many worry that we don’t have a lot of strikers. They seem to overlook the fact that we have a lot of trade unions and they have a lot of strikers. Perhaps they should be deployed, so to speak, in the national team.
7: Oh, yes! We have produced many famous people! Some of them famous, some infamous. Our most famous citizen is Nelson Mandela. We have three living Noble Peace Prize winners, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and FW de Klerk. But we’ve had four in total, the other one being Chief Albert Luthuli. I think that this puts pressure on us to make sure that we don’t mess up and start attacking other countries. Let us not forget our Oscar-winning Charlize Theron and Lebo M who won a Grammy for composing music for The Lion King. We also have two Nobel winners for literature. I must stop now, the list is too long and I don’t have time to name our famous people.
All in all I don’t think there is any country in the world quite like ours. I remember seeing many years ago, when I was in high school, a book in a bookstore with the title: Ah, But Your Land is Beautiful by Alan Paton. Those words are so simple yet so elegantly describe this country. Ah but my land is beautiful. I wouldn’t exchange for all the gold in Fort Knox.
*This article originally appeared in Juice magazine, Mango airline’s in-flight magazine.
The president is public property
Julius Malema said that President Jacob Zuma is “our father”, I must admit, I half expected him to complete the statement by saying “who art in heaven”. Let’s face it, the president has never done anything wrong in the history of his existence according to the Youth League and the ANC. St Zuma is saintlier than Mandela. A man who repeatedly said he wasn’t a saint, let alone a messiah. Zuma on the other hand, very few see him as one, yet the ANC likes to present him as one. I know he has never claimed to be one. The ANC seems to have sanctified and raised him to the level of a deity. Maybe we should expect to see government offices adorned with his face in stained glass windows beaming upon us. He is infallible. Every indefensible action is defended. The public and the press are publicly ridiculed for questioning the questionable. He is beyond reproach. Again, not according to him but by those who surround him. The president has said nothing to refute implied sanctification.
When he married his third wife I did not see what the big deal was all about. Let the man have his three mothers-in-law I said. It was his democratic right. Some of us applauded him for his honesty, he sees a woman he likes, he marries her. That was admirable. That was until we found out that he had fathered a 20th child according to reports, out of wedlock. Many people have children out of wedlock. There are such people within my family.
Then the ANC tells us we are being disrespectful for asking questions. Excuse me? They tell us it is a private matter. This does not work for us. Since the taxpayers pay for his wives. When Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States and upon arriving in Washington before his inauguration, he said, “the truth is, I suppose I am now public property”. I know fully well that many will give the easy and lazy answer “this is not America”. Of course it’s not. The fact of the matter is that he was put in office by the public. The public foots his bills. The public pays for his spouses. Therefore the public has the right to know, especially considering what an expensive affair this will be for it. As much as the ANC would like to keep him an ANC matter, he is more than a simple ANC matter, he belongs to us, the public. Whether some of the public like him or not, he is theirs. He is a property of the state. We are concerned for his health, his well-being and how he represents us before the world’s stage.
According to News24: “The state will contribute an amount equal to 17% of his salary to a pension fund and will pay two thirds of his medical-aid contribution covering his family. He will also be insured by the state for accident and life cover. When he travels on official business, he may be accompanied by his spouses — (the handbook makes allowance for spouses in a polygamous marriage) and those dependent children who cannot remain at home are entitled to accommodation and subsistence at the expense of the state. The same arrangement applies to travel abroad.” If this is what we pay for then we have the right to know. There is nothing disrespectful about wanting find out what one is paying for.
Everyone celebrates when a child is born. It is a beautiful and good thing and adds incalculable joy to the parents. Having read the president’s statement I get the feeling that he is blaming us for having had unprotected sex with a woman who is not his wife. All of a sudden, if we talk about this issue we are questioning the right of the child to exist. Not at all, we are questioning the apology you made after the rape trial (in which he was exonerated) when you apologised for having had unprotected sex. Of course we appreciate the fact that he is taking responsibility for the child, but then again, he is supposed to take responsibility.
The birth of this child is only a reflection of a lot of men in South Africa. Men who are married and father children with other women. My own father fathered a child with another woman even though he was married to my mother. Clearly, the president is a reflection of what is happening within our society. One would expect that he would try to change this, if not, at least pretend to. Having unprotected sex with a woman who is not his wife is not sending out a positive signal to the rest of our men — particularly after he apologised a few years ago for even more dangerous behaviour, unprotected sex with a woman he knew was HIV-positive at the time. Unfortunately when it comes to his partners and sex this will follow him forever — just like Zapiro’s shower. He is a clear indication of what is wrong and broken with many men in our country. Young men have few positive role models and the president is not helping. By all intents and purposes, even though he has three wives, one can’t shake the feeling that he still cheats on his three wives. That’s what this implied.
It is a pity that we rarely debate policy positions. It’s as though he were a celebrity of sorts, not a head of state. One wonders if the press should be blamed or he should be blamed for putting himself in positions where he is treated like a celebrity. He is in danger of being a celebrity president, where his contribution to the liberation of the country is but a footnote in the books of history. Does the president want to be known for everything else other than the instrumental achievements before the 2000nds? Will he be asked about his child out of wedlock and having unprotected sex after he apologised for it when he is in Davos again? Why can’t the ANC demand discipline from the president?
The best thing about the ANC is the worst thing about it. Loyalty. Loyalty at all costs it seems. The ANC’s relativism when it comes to defending its leaders is disturbing. Senior leaders are always defended even though it is clear that they are in the wrong. I’m not suggesting that people should be thrown under the bus, recognise that something is wrong, correct it and move on. The sooner you do so in public the sooner the irrelevant headlines will disappear.
This begs the question, where does loyalty lie? Is it to party first, then to nation? Or is it because the party is so powerful that the perception is that the ANC is in fact the nation? If that is the view, doesn’t the party fall into the trap of arrogance and a sense that it can do no wrong because it is the sole party that is in fact looking after the needs of the people? The ANC needs to stop running like it is still in exile, still a banned organisation. The symptoms of a secret organisation are still alive.
The problem I have with ANC is the same one Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu had while Nelson Mandela was president. He’d said that the ANC had “stopped the gravy train long enough for it to get on it” a few months into the Mandela presidency. Madiba reprimanded him on TV for this. A few weeks later Tutu was on the phone with him and said “for goodness sake, how come you can shout at me like that in public”, Mandela laughed according to Tutu.
In conclusion, I would like to agree wholeheartedly with Tutu’s words when he said: “There are those of them who don’t actually recognise people who are basically on their side, who are critical, not because we want to see them fail. It is precisely the opposite. It is to say we want to see you succeed and that is why we mention these things … there are those who are becoming … I would say dangerously hypersensitive.”
Inspiring quote by Thabo Mbeki upon his resignation
“Those who complete the course will do so only because they do not, as fatigue sets in, convince themselves that the road ahead is still too long, the inclines too steep, the loneliness impossible to bear and the prize itself of doubtful value.”
President Thabo Mbeki, a line from his resignation address to the nation.
Nelson Mandela: Fascinating anecdotes from people who knew him
Adelaide Tambo, Oliver Tambo said Nelson Mandela would be the president of South Africa – while Chielf Luthili was still alive.
“Nelson had made a speech–a speech that sometimes appears on television–where he is wearing a black jacket and saying that we can’t forever take the oppression meted out by the regime … our young people were getting tired of nonviolence.
And Oliver said to me, ‘This is the president of South Africa.’
Now, that is going very far back. Chief Luthuli was still alive.”
Gearoge Bizos was a constant visitor during Mandela’s years in Prison
“Colonel Aucamp would at times pace up and down outside the room in which we were consulting, locked in with our clients. And Nelson went up to Aucamp, and said, ‘You know these lawyers give me homework … and the table that I have in my cell is a rickety one. Could I please have another table because I am under pressure to do this.’
He spoke politely, and the response of Aucamp was bombastic: ‘Mandela, you are no longer a lawyer in your office to give orders. You are a prisoner. And we will do what we have to. You can’t order us about.’
Nelson looked at him and he said, ‘Have you finished, Colonel?’ He said,’Yes.’ He turned round, looked at the man with a key, who opened the grille door, and he came back, sat down, said nothing. Just continued with the consultation with us as if nothing had happened.
They took a break for lunch. And he came back, with a little smile that you often see and says, ‘Guess what, there’s a brand new table in my cell.’ “
Richard Stengel who collaborated with Nelson Mandela on his autobiography
“There’s a story, it’s not related to prison, but I am going to tell it anyway. We were once on this airplane flight down in Natal, and it was a prop plane. I think there were six seats in it, and there were maybe four of us on the plane. And as soon as he gets on an airplane he picks up a newspaper. He adores newspapers. He didn’t have them for so many years and he revels in the touch of them, and he reads every stupid story. And so we were sitting on the airplane, the plane was up, and he is reading his newspaper, and we’re about, I don’t know, halfway there … I was sitting right across from him, and he pointed out the window … and I saw, to my great horror, that the propeller had stopped going around. And he said very, very calmly, ‘Richard, you might want to inform the pilot that the propeller isn’t working.’ I said, ‘Yes, Madiba.’ I walked to the front of the plane, and the pilot was well aware of it and he said, ‘Go back and sit down. We’ve called the airport. They have the ambulances out there, and they’re going to coat the runway with foam or whatever they do.’
I went back and I told Madiba that, and he just, in that very solemn way, mouth sort of down, listened, and said, ‘Yes.’ And then picked up his newspaper and started reading. I was terrified, and the way I calmed myself was I looked at him. And he was as calm as could be. Like the prisoners on Robben Island must have looked at him when they felt scared, and he just looked as calm as could be.
The plane landed, no problem. He never changed his expression or anything like that. He put his newspaper down, and we came into the airport, and as we got into the airport and we sort of had a moment alone, he turned to me and he said, ‘Man, I was scared up there.’ It was such a revelation because that’s what courage is. Courage is not, not being scared. Courage is being terrified and not showing it. So I was enheartened. I was given courage by looking at him, because he was pretending not to be scared, and that’s what he did for his whole life. The more you pretend that you’re not scared, the more not scared you become. The more you inhabit that role, and that’s what happened in Robben Island.”
Joe Matthews
“I remember once when we were detained at No. 4 prison in Johannesburg after our arrest in 1956, and I was sitting next to him and he observed Chief Luthuli who was staring in the distance. Thinking, obviously.
And Mandela said to me, ‘Do you see that man? That is the mark of a great man. A man who can think and consider things. Now we call that in Xhosa … a man who stares into the horizon, thinking and so on.’
He obviously respected that kind of thing, and he actually said, ‘That’s the mark of a great man,’ that posture by Luthuli …
If you read the accounts of him on Robben Island, you will find people remarking on him having those kind of moments of reflection. He does do that deliberately to think and almost in the sense of the yoga kind of transcendental meditation type of thing.”
Wolfie Kadesh on Mandela’s stubborn nature
“… I brought him into the flat … We had a long discussion. I had to persuade him that it was a good place … nobody amongst the special branch or government would ever dream … because of their mentality towards blacks and whites, that a black man would be living in a white area …
Then we had a discussion and an argument about who is going to sleep where. I had a tiny flat … and I had a bed and I had a camp stretcher in a cupboard. So when I brought out the camp stretcher, I said to him, ‘Well, I’ll sleep on the camp stretcher. You sleep on the bed because you are six foot something, I am five foot something. So the stretcher is just right for me.’ No, he wasn’t going to have that. He hadn’t come there to put me out, and we had a bit of a talk about that and … it was arranged, and I would sleep on the bed.
We had tea and all the rest of it, and then time came to sleep. So he said, ‘You don’t mind, but I’m going to run around.’ He told me that he woke up very early in the morning, about 4:00 in the townships, and that he always went for these long runs. So I said, ‘No man, here you’re in a white area. You can’t get up at 4:00 or 5:00 running around here. They patrol …’ He said, ‘I am going to run. You’ll see, don’t worry. Let’s go to sleep.
About 5:00 in the morning, I woke up and heard these camp stretchers squeak … I looked and I saw him sitting on the end of the stretcher, putting on long-johns, and then the suits … that athletes use … and I said to him, ‘Well, what’s going on here?’ He said, ‘I am going to start running’ … I said, ‘Well, I am not going to give you the key to go out. You can’t go running around.’ Then he got up, in his tracksuit, and he started running on the spot
So that was his running. I thought, ‘Oh well, if you want to run on the spot, good luck to you. I am going to sleep.’ About a half an hour afterwards I woke up again, and he’s still running on the spot … sweating and heaving and it went on for about an hour, this performance, and each time I just turned over and went to sleep again. At the end of it all, I noticed he did a few frog jumps across the flat, jumping up … he had his hands out like this, and he jumped so that he could kick his hands underneath … that took at least an hour. So I said, ‘That’s all right, you can do this but not me.’ He says, ‘No, tomorrow … you are going to join me.’”
Nelson Mandela losing his temper
“Mandela I have seen on only one occasion actually lose his rag as it were. And that was when a warder … a chap by the name of Huysamen, really lambasted us. I can’t recall the details, but it was about abuse of study privileges, this, that and the other, which was completely untrue. They were trying to orchestrate something or the other.
Nelson got so fed up with this chap at one point he actually went to him and said, ‘Look, you don’t dare talk to us like that.’ And went for him. Really gave him hell, you know. ‘Your day will come, and you will this, that and the other.’
I was standing next to him, and this chap sort of marched away with his tail between his legs. And there was a terrible awkward silence and real tension and nobody really knew what was going to happen.
So I then asked Mandela afterwards, ‘What happened there? Why did you do that?’ And I’ll never forget it, he said to me, ‘That was very deliberate.’ And I must say, I didn’t initially believe him. But when I thought about it, he is so deliberate. I thought it is quite possible that he really did orchestrate this thing you see. But I must say, it was as true to life as you can possibly think.”
Fikile Bam, Nelson Mandela confronting a warder on prison
“There is one other instance, which I remember very well. There had been a newly appointed head of the prison … he really wanted to turn the prison around. He said that the prison was too soft and too comfortable and he said [it had] become a university rather than a prison, and he was going to take off our study privileges and was going to do all sorts of things. He was quite rude, his name was Badenhorst.
… At about the same time, three judges came to see us in prison … and they came to our group and naturally went to talk to Nelson, and to find out from him what the conditions were like … They had come in the company of the commanding officer, Badenhorst, and they were asking [Mandela] about prison conditions. And he, as usual, was setting out a whole list of complaints to the judges, and complaining, particularly, about the treatment Badenhorst had brought about, in the presence of Badenhorst.
Badenhorst was a very fiery and temperamental person and he couldn’t wait, even while Nelson was speaking, and he shouted at him, ‘Nelson, you forget one thing, that these people are going to leave, and the two of us are going to remain here together.’ And the judges carried that message with them. And soon after Badenhorst was transferred from Robben Island.
So he had this way about him that he really did not fear people at all. And he had a lot of confidence in himself as a person. He never regarded himself as being beneath anyone, even while he was wearing shorts as a prisoner. “
Jessie Duarte, how Nelson Mandela always made his own bed almost offending the Chinese
“He always made his own bed, no matter where we traveled. I remember we were in Shanghai, in a very fancy hotel, and the Chinese hospitality requires that the person who cleans your room and provides you with your food, does exactly that. If you do it for yourself, it could even be regarded as an insult.
So in Shanghai I tried to say to him, ‘Please don’t make your own bed, because there’s this custom here.’ And he said, ‘Call them, bring them to me.’
So I did. I asked the hotel manager to bring the ladies who would be cleaning the room, so that he could explain why he himself has to make his own bed, and that they not feel insulted. He didn’t ever want to hurt people’s feelings. He never really cared about what great big people think of him, but he did care about what small people thought of him. That used to amaze me. He didn’t mind if he insulted a very important person, or said something to them that was unkind, because he said they could fend and fight for themselves. But he would never insult someone who did not have power.”
Redi Direko is competely wrong
I like Redi Direko and I respect her highly but boy is she wrong. In a column she penned today in the Sowetan she makes a number assertions about Facebook that are of course, in my arrogant opinion, completely ill-informed. I use the word ill-informed because she has been rather matter-of-fact about something she is not a part of – as if she understands it as someone who is in fact part of it. I’m not saying that one can’t have an informed opinion about a subject simply because one doesn’t participate in it. All I am saying is that a person who is in it is far more informed than an observer. If she had been on Facebook for a while and then decided to delete her profile, she would have arrived at a different conclusion than the one she has arrived at. There are nuances that an observer will miss because that’s all they do, observe.
Having said that, I prefer Twitter to Facebook even though I am on both platforms. What Redi fails to understand is that social media has in fact confounded those experts who believed that there would be less human interaction because of the explosion of social media. On the contrary, it has in fact increased it. I’m not talking about the obvious use of it as an information tool. It is used as a tool for the like-minded to meet up and for friends to gather. According to research people interact more with one another because of social media, not less.
I know more about my friends than I did, I am more connected to them than ever before. I meet with them on a much more frequent basis than before. If anything, this new tool strengthens and tests friendships.
Every time some new technology makes it’s way we get told by naysayers about the dangers of this new medium. When computers started making headway into the business world, paper manufactures worried that less paper would be used, meaning they’d make less money, the opposite happened -we use more paper. There were even suggestions that they would reduce working hours and therefore result in fewer workers, once again the opposite happened, we saw an increase in the number of workers, instead of cutting down number of workers, more workers were created because of the computer.
Technology has surprisingly connected us and made us more human, not less. #asyouwere








3 comments