Sunday+Times,+3+articles,+Masondo,+Carolus+-+Marcus,+Roodt



=Zuma saga analysis uses quackery, resulting in a total misdiagnosis=

Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 12 March 2006

 * By David Masondo, National Chairperson of the Young Communist League**



PROFESSOR Njabulo Ndebele’s article, “Why Zuma’s bravado is brutalising the public ” (March 5), must be welcomed in the interest of public debate on the Jacob Zuma saga. Unfortunately, his psychoanalysis using instincts, selective “public morality” and the “harmonious” conception of “the family” as analytical tools completely misdiagnoses the problem.

Ndebele argues that the ANC must unlearn its family ethos because “the responsibility to uphold the rights of the constitutional public points to the unsustainability of the family ethos in the transaction of state businesses”.

Ndebele got it wrong! By positing the Zuma saga as merely a clash between the ANC “family” against the Constitution, Ndebele sets the Constitution against the values of those in and outside the ANC who offer principled support to Zuma.

Ndebele draws an axis of evil, € la George W Bush! Those who support the constitutional values of equality before the law and “innocence unless proven otherwise” are projected as supporting corruption and rape.

Ndebele neither questions the abuse of state institutions by former National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) director Bulelani Ngcuka — who did not “uphold the rights of the constitutional public” by condemning Zuma and uttering racist statements in an off-the-record media briefing — nor does he condemn the unlawful raids on Zuma’s lawyers’ offices.

Is Ndebele not concerned about the SABC cancelling an interview with Zuma due to political pressure, as happened last year? The main issue is about a clash of constitutional morality and the means by which media and state institutions are used to justify the ends. This was also confirmed by the Public Protector who found that Zuma’s rights were violated by the NPA. Where was Ndebele’s “revulsion” when all this happened?

Ndebele conveniently ignores the broader context and genesis of the saga to demean Zuma and his support. The sympathy for Zuma stems from Judge Hilary Squires’ judgment which found him guilty in absentia. Ndebele assumes that the ANC is a harmonious family without internal fissures and contradictions. For him, the internal contradictions should be treated as mere aberrations that require the ANC to “unlearn” its ethos. In his psychology, he cannot imagine one section of the family abusing its siblings, abusing state institutions and media.

Does it not worry Ndebele that some family members are abusing state institutions in breach of the Constitution? They justify the abuse of state power under the guise of fighting corruption. It is strange but not surprising that Ndebele, as a “public morality” custodian, is silent on the danger of abuse of state institutions to settle quarrels in or outside the ANC family.

All principled activists support the fight against corruption. But the means that have been used to deal with allegations of corruption must also be questioned by all those concerned about constitutional morality — regardless of what they think of Zuma, or whether he is presidential material or not.

If the government has to convince us that the end is indeed about fighting corruption, it should reopen the arms deal investigation, not only because the charges against Zuma arise out of the said deal. This is also good for “public morality”. This will also convince the public that there is no cherry-picking on corruption allegations by members of the family in government to protect or victimise others.

The government must also testify in the Zuma corruption trial and stop hiding behind the “respect” for the President’s office, as no one is above the law. We expect learned professors like Ndebele to be counted among those criticising selectivity in investigations.

The right to dignity and respect for all citizens is a key feature of our Constitution. The ends do not justify the violation of this right. The Constitution does not favour the intentions and results of an action over the means by which those ends are achieved. Support for Zuma is predominantly about the manner in which the state and the media have been treating him, which also put those presiding over his cases in a difficult ethical position.

The support by People Opposing Women Abuse for the complainant and all rape complainants must be welcomed. As we fight rape, the state and the public should treat both complainant and alleged perpetrator with respect. The insults directed at both must be condemned.

Regrettably, Ndebele’s intervention is not helpful. Instead, it further degrades and insults Zuma’s integrity by conjuring up unrelated psychological connections between the song Umshini Wami and an “invasive penis”.

He not only insults those who have always asked Zuma to sing this song — long before this saga started — but also vulgarises the freedom song. He takes it out of its context to smear and demean, and essentially finds Zuma guilty by association. This is a very serious insinuation indeed.

As if this were not enough, he also questions the integrity of the entire ANC family that supported Zuma in the National General Council by implying that it uses its instincts to think. As a professor, Ndebele should correct his one-sided position if we are not to believe that he is a member of the “broader family” castigating Zuma while masquerading as impartial guardians of “public morality”.

Masondo is national chairperson of the Young Communist League


 * From: http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=ST6A171744**

=Top women slate Zuma trial=

Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 12 March 2006

 * CLAIRE KEETON**

PROMINENT South African women this week condemned the way the Jacob Zuma rape trial was unfolding and said it was eroding women’s rights.

Forty-eight women who hold powerful positions in the private and public sectors signed a “call to action”. They included Gill Marcus, chair of the Western Areas gold-mining company, former High Commissioner to the UK Cheryl Carolus, ANC Women’s League deputy president Mavivi Myakayaka and Independent Electoral Commission manager Nomsa Masuku.

“We recognise the pivotal role the current rape trial plays in our country and the signal it sends,” they said. “Rights and dignity should not be eroded in legal proceedings that are meant to honour truth and justice.”

The trial showed the gap between the constitutional protection of women and what happened in practice, the women said.

Carolus said it seemed acceptable for a man to have four wives and children with a number of women. “This one man who has unprotected sex can infect up to 10 women ... and women have no right to negotiate for safer sex,” she told the Sunday Times.

Businesswoman Wendy Appelbaum asked: “What message does it send to our children if a man has unprotected sex with a woman who is openly HIV-positive?”

Zuma, who allegedly did not use a condom when he had sex with the accused, is the former head of the SA National Aids Council.

Carolus said she was watching the courtroom proceedings with horror. “If we are silent now, then 10 years later it will be much worse.”

Marcus told the Sunday Times that abnormal behaviour was accepted as normal under “corrosive silence”.

Marcus observed that the proceedings and reporting of the trial appeared to violate women’s constitutional rights. “We are extremely concerned about the nature and tone of the discussion and debate in newspapers.”

• Zuma has told Reuters that he would emerge from his trial with his popularity intact. He also hinted that he still regarded himself as a candidate for president. He told the news agency that his widespread support in the ANC represented a backlash against the “abuse of authority” by some parts of the government.


 * From: http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=ST6A171771**

=Solidarity leader part of Afrikaner’s problem=

Sunday Times, Johannesburg, Letters to the editor, 12 March 2006
THERE is little doubt that race preferences are responsible for the lack of planning at Eskom that has resulted in the power shortages in the Cape. In the circumstances, I was hoping that someone like Flip Buys would call for the scrapping of affirmative action.

Alas, the Solidarity leader’s “about-face” from right-wing activist to politically correct trade unionist is no different from FW de Klerk’s Damascene conversion from National Party stalwart to ANC stooge who sacrificed our future for good publicity from the BBC and the New York Times.

White employees join Solidarity in the first place because they fear racial retribution at parastatals like Eskom, Telkom, Transnet and even some of the bigger private firms. In a sense, the ANC has created a market for Buys’s services by riding roughshod over the little white employee who doesn’t have the means to afford labour lawyers when he gets fired or overlooked for promotion. The average member of Solidarity must hate affirmative action and wish to see it ended forthwith.

Sadly, Buys, in his ignorance and timidity, refuses to defend his members’ rights by opposing race preference in more than a token manner. Instead, he entertains the same nauseating rhetoric as the NNP and the Broederbond (now known as the Afrikanerbond) about “graded affirmative action” and “making the country work”.

This system cannot work as it is founded on the fiction that South Africa is one nation with one culture and one set of values. Afrikaners have only two options: emigration or an own state.

Buys, needless to say, supports neither. He is therefore part of the problem and not the solution.— **Dan Roodt, Dainfern**


 * From: http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=ST6A171741**

1541 words