We+are+not+afraid,+Buti+Manamela,+The+Bottomline




 * From The Bottomline, Issue 30, Vol 4: 29 November 2007**

=We are not AFRAID!=


 * Buti Manamela, YCL National Secretary**

The Financial Mail dressed the front cover of its current edition with a picture of Jacob Zuma, Deputy President of the ANC. The picture was accompanied by a subtext, which read “Be Afraid (The Problem with a Jacob Zuma Presidency)” supposedly to alert the “markets” about what lies beneath a Zuma Presidency.

The FM, like many in its caliber, had written off Zuma from election as president of the ANC because of trumped up charges and by believing in the demonization of this saint man.

However, when he seems likely to become President given last weekend’s nomination process by structures of the ANC, they have now decided to join Bishop Tutu to become the voice of conscience warning South Africans and the world about the “problems of a Jacob Zuma Presidency”.

The eight pages dedicated to Zuma smacks of condescending insults towards our culture. They also paint, in a lofty manner, the intellect of the ANC structures, of Zuma and also of the alliance.

The Financial Mail is merely scared of its self-created ghosts, equaling Zuma as conservative, unintelligent (when it comes to economics), a populist (when it comes to social issues) and a hero merely as a result of victimization.

To what does Jacob Zuma (together with the ANC and those who have supported him throughout) owe this unwarranted attack?


 * Some reasons come to mind.**

Our current leadership, vividly presented in the pages of the current edition of the FM, is a foundation for this wrath. Currently, only few people are accustomed to the day-to-day running of the state. Certain decisions are taken by very few people, and are to a certain extend a compromise of ANC policy when it comes to, say, the economy.

Carol Paton, the FM journalist responsible for most of the articles dedicated to Zuma, asserts that business is not mainly concerned about Zuma’s clash with the law, but about his “strong” (and possibly left) support base. This, Paton declares, is contrary to Mbeki, who seemed to steer off ANC policy.

Therefore, the major concern of the market should be that Zuma might allow a democratic process within the Party to unfold in order to arrive at a “consensus” when it comes to policy. Should we be afraid of this, or should we rather be afraid of a scenario where policy is as a result of the wishes of individuals?

The FM prides itself as the defenders of democracy. However, when it comes to allowing people to express their views relating to developments in the country, this should not be the case. It is quite petty that when Zuma encourages the community of Mitchells Plain to engage with the death penalty discourse he receives rebuke. Are we so habituated to undemocratic ways that we are even prepared to shut those who encourage a public discourse?

It is becoming clear that the only way for business to have confidence in Zuma is for him to promise not to listen to those who elected him, but to develop his own policies or rely on some “smart” economists to help in policy development.

It seems as though Zuma, or anybody, will be accepted and praised by the market and business as long as they disregard their “strong support base”.

Some of the fears that the US has expressed towards Hugo Chavez has been the fact that he has too much “support base”. The US may not have the problem with him or his economic policies (to some extent), but have problems with the fact that when they attempt to remove him from office or to scandalize him, he manages to succeed because of this “strong radical support”.

The problem that the FM has with Zuma is not only that his support base may defend him if he is being scandalized, but that he “will be indebted to those who supported him”.

If it were the market and business that supported Zuma, then there would not have been any problems. But it is mainly the working class and the poor of this country (and not only the six faces published in the FM of Vavi, Nzimande, Munsamy, Reddy, Shaik and Mkhize).

These are the most vulnerable of our society and have more expectations from him because of the conditions that they find themselves in.

In this regard, for Zuma to satisfy their needs part of the things he will have to do will be to “do away with the budget surplus policy in order to ensure that there is money to satisfy their developmental and social needs”. Zuma will do away with “prudence, which was the hallmark of Mbeki and Manuel’s management of the economy” retorts the FM.

The problem with the FM, the market and business is that they have been so accustomed to palace politics and indebtedness to individuals other than to organisations. They see this as a scare because elected leaders are bound to be pressurized by these.

It is not surprising that whilst they are able to get guarantees currently, even without consultation within the party, they expect that Zuma to do the same. He is expected to surround himself with individuals who will advise him irrespective of party resolutions and perspectives. He will satisfy the will of these individuals and pay allegiance to them in order to earn the respect and protection of the FM.

“The prospect of Zuma presidency is one risk that may trigger capital flight,” proclaims the FM. Clearly, this is meant to say to the delegates at the forthcoming ANC Conference that they have made a huge mistake by nominating Zuma. The purpose is to ensure that they either change their minds or face the risk of “capital flight”. Many of the people who have nominated Zuma for ANC presidency have been scourged by poverty, unemployment and HIV/AIDS even in the presence of this capital. It may not make a major difference for them if this capital flies.

This statement is also a very clear intention on the part of FM and the so-called market to interfere into politics. The accepted logic is that whoever emerges as president of the ANC is more likely to become president of the country in 2009. For the FM to warn people from exercising their democratic right now by scaring them through a supposed capital flight is merely an act of anti-democracy.

Most of the media houses have continued to label Zuma as having no policy, and the FM falls into the trap of trying to fill in this gap on behalf of Zuma. This is not a mistake on their part. The SACP has characterised a faction in the form of the “1996 class project” as being dominant and manipulative of what should be ANC policy in government. The aforesaid sections of the media expect that Zuma should behave in the same fashion. This tendency seeks to equate, as one comrade remarked, the politics of the ANC to those of the West where individuals are elected on the basis of their policies rather than what their organisations propagates. Such individuals hold no respect to the will of organisations or people. These are regarded merely as voting cattle whose purpose are to ascend leaders, and then disregarded thereafter. I will be disappointed if Zuma assumes this character of surrounding himself with individuals who will merely propagate their views in disrespect of the majority.

The attitude taken by the FM of seeing people in a disdainful manner, preferring to borrow the right to elect leadership and questioning the intellect of organisations and leaders they elect is not new. It is the same attitude that pressurizes leaders to disregard the will of those who elected them in order to satisfy a “mythologized “people” in the form of the market. We will continue to fight against this attitude wherever it rears its ugly head because we are very “Afraid” of its consequences.


 * That’s the Bottomline, cos the YCL said so!**


 * Buti Manamela**


 * National Secretary**

1346 words