Goings and comings

Michael - Thursday

I’ve often wondered why anyone would want the job of leading a country in the first place. If the answer is to allow absolute power to corrupt absolutely, how much money does “absolutely” imply and when you get there why not step down to enjoy it? The answer to that seems to be that “absolutely” means "infinity".

Robert and Grace Mugabe

There have been several goings and comings at the top in southern Africa over the last couple of years, and the processes and outcomes have been rather different. First to go was Zimbabwe strongman Robert Mugabe. He sacked his vice president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, fueling speculation that he was paving the road for his wife, Grace Mugabe, who is much younger, to inherit the kleptocracy. The king is dead, long live the queen. Mnangagwa, however, had other ideas, and the ear of the army, and shortly thereafter took control of the government putting Mugabe under house arrest. Now, coups happen frequently – not only in Africa – but this one had a twist. Zimbabwe was desperate to throw off western sanctions. Western democracies aren’t too keen on coups, even when the outcome is to replace a senile dictator by someone ostensibly better. (This attitude seems recently to have changed somewhat as we see in Venezuela.) However, at that time, it was important for the transfer of power to be seen as a peaceful and according to the democratic principles and constitution of the country.

Emmerson and Robert in happier times

So it became a negotiation, and Mugabe had long ago decided that the only important thing about any issue was the price. He settled for keeping everything he’d stolen plus a pension and a staff of up to 23 and state vehicles, while throwing everyone who’d supported him to the wolves. He duly resigned. Nevertheless, he later challenged the whole process in court. By then Mnangagwa was in full control and the court ruled that all was in order, and Mugabe faded into the background. He’s 95 so Mnangagwa just has to run out the clock. He’ll keep an eye on Grace, but she was never popular in any case. He can get on with the real business. His bank account’s business.

Jacob. Not so happy

Meanwhile, a similar model was playing out in South Africa. Rather to many people’s surprise, the governing ANC decided that Mrs. Zuma wasn’t the right person to replace ex-husband Jacob Zuma as president at the end of his term, and installed Cyril Ramaposa instead. Ramaposa has the big advantage of already being wildly rich, having benefited from black economic empowerment rules in South Africa as well as plain old shrewd hard work. Perhaps people thought he hardly needed to put his hand in the till. Shortly after his elevation to the party leadership, the ANC executive persuaded Zuma to leave. Now he’s been charged with all sorts of things, and it is he who is running out the clock with delays and objections and appeals. But he’s only 77, so this one could be tight. This all was entirely constitutional, and most of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief.

Even more pleasant was the handover of President Ian Khama in Botswana, also almost exactly a year ago. Immensely popular and his party’s strongman, he resigned before his term was up – claiming that ten years as president was enough – and handed over early to his carefully groomed successor to give him time to settle in before the next general election, due this year. He made a farewell tour of the country speaking at kgotlas throughout the country and being showered with praise and gifts. (I hope he has a big farm or he’ll have space problems with the tractor and all the cattle he received.) A fairy-tail ending to a solid presidency.

Ian and Mokgweetsi in happier times

But. The last few years of Khama’s presidency were dominated by internal party squabbles. Since the handover, something has gone wrong between Khama and his chosen successor, Mokgweetsi Masisi. Relations have soured to the point where Khama gives interviews criticizing the new president’s behavior, while the latter challenges Khama’s pension and fires his staff. The trouble with fairy tale endings is that some of them are quite grim. I hope Khama will get to keep that tractor...

But, again, who would want the job in the first place? Take Theresa May. To become prime minister of the UK, she fights tooth and nail, using all her political skills and contacts, to grab a chalice marked POISONED in huge letters. Not only does she grab it enthusiastically, but she downs it in a single gulp and licks her lips. Now things are so bad that she’s become the first prime minister in history to offer to resign not if parliament doesn’t support her, but if it does!

Mustafa in happier times

End of the road

Sometimes you just have to go. Take Mustafa. He had a cushy life in the Karoo National Park, but felt he wasn’t appreciated by the other lions (in particular by the other lionesses), so he went AWOL in the middle of February. Of course, there was a big hue and cry as he made his way across local farms and through towns, helping himself to several sheep along the way. Helicopters, infrared tracking, expert ground trackers – lion pad prints are not that hard to identify – all were eluded with disdain as he became a local celebrity. But the end of the road for him came a couple of weeks ago on a farm near Sutherland about 200 miles away from the Karoo National Park. He was darted and - after spending a night in the Sutherland jail! - taken back home. Hopefully to a warmer reception from the locals. Or maybe he’ll have to fight for that leadership position after all.

The silent now speak

Stanley – Thursday

As you probably know, Jacob Zuma was president of South Africa until recently.  His corruption, arrogance, and lies eventually got more than his political party could tolerate.  The African National Congress (ANC) recalled him, and a new president installed.  Cyril Ramaphosa has brought an optimism in the country not seen for many years.  He is smart, affluent, and hopefully, sensible.  So far, the indications are good and the country is experiencing what is called Rhamaphoria.

Cyril Ramaphosa - President of South Africa

 At the same time, many Whites are in an uproar about a debate taking place within the ANC to expropriate land without compensation - a policy that Ramaphosa endorses, as long as it doesn't disrupt the food supply.  If this were to happen, it would necessitate a change in the constitution, which now stipulates that owners have to be compensated at fair market value.  I think this change is likely to happen.

Many Whites think this is the first step of South Africa becoming like Zimbabwe.

I have become despondent about the reaction to this proposed change in policy.  Facebook and other fora are filled with comments from Whites deploring the possibility.  Many Whites are thinking of emigrating.

Two things are causing my despondency.  First, there is no doubt in my mind, without a more equitable distribution of land ownership, there will be increasing unrest.  At the same time, it is understandable that Whites fear they may lose everything.  What is missing, is a willingness of many Whites to acknowledge the unfairness of the current situation and to be willing to help craft a transition. 

Jonathan Jansen, an astute commentator of the South African situation, had this to say to White South Africans in a recent article in Times Select:

It would really help if you acknowledged the past. From before the Native Land Act of 1913 to the Group Areas Act of 1950 blacks lost their land on a massive scale in favour of whites. We are not even talking about the systematic conquest of native peoples under waves of Dutch and English colonialism. In other words, the fact that whites as a demographic minority own so much of land and impressive housing across the nine provinces, and most blacks live in poverty and ramshackle housing, is not an accident. It is a consequence of a past that favoured whites over blacks. If this simple fact about dispossession eludes you, then stop reading this article; no amount of education will help you. 

Therefore, in the heat of the land reform debate, do not make silly arguments like “my parents worked hard for their land” (everybody does, if they have land) or “I was not there personally” (you benefitted and are better off as a result) or “we bought the land lawfully” (because others could not, given those same laws then). A good dose of humility would help you and advance the debate. It would also enable you to listen to the other side and to respond in a responsible way.

The second cause of my despondency is hypocrisy of so many of the people who are outraged by the land proposals.  If the people who are so vocal now had not been silent when the apartheid government took land from Blacks without compensation, the country may have been in a different place today.  In addition, it is sad to see how many of the comments are tinged with both with racism and a lack of acknowledgement of how much better off the country is now – free press, independent judiciary, millions of new homes for people who previously lived in corrugated iron shacks.

I, by no means, believe everything is rosy – there are huge problems, including the aftermath of rampant corruption under Zuma, unemployment (probably around 35% or so), a poor education system, and so on.  But there is none as big as the land issue.

It has to get resolved.  And it will.

But, as Jansen says, if the Whites don’t listen to the other side of the issue, and if they are not willing to accept that the current situation is both inequitable and unsustainable, they will not like the resolution.

I want to be an ostrich

Stanley – Thursday

I have the great good fortune of being able to live where I want, when I want.  Normally this is summer in Minneapolis, summer in Cape Town, and bits and pieces in other delightful places, such as Denmark (and Delta Airlines).

You may think this allows me to get away from it all.

Wrong!  Not only do I have to deal with the fallout of the US elections, but I have also to deal with the shenanigans in South Africa.  So I actually want to be morphed into one of South Africa’s great birds – the ostrich.  Head-in-the-sand Stan is who I want to be.

South Africans, as with people all around the globe, are very concerned about what effects a Trump presidency will have on their countries in terms of trade, investment, aid, and so on.  So our papers are full of people speculating about what is going to happen.  Of course, most people here are also concerned by the Trump electioneering rhetoric, particularly the disparaging of anyone who isn’t male and white.

But most of the commentary I read misses what I think is actually going to happen. 

Trump’s personality, at least to my viewpoint, has four major components: a bullying CEO mentality, an over-the-top narcissism, a short attention span, and basic ignorance about the world outside Trump Tower. 

The bullying CEO mentality has not prepared him for negotiations where he can’t just use his money to force closure.  His supporters trumpet the benefits of having a president who behaves like a CEO.  However, I think his CEO experience is a great weakness.  He is used to getting his own way no matter what, but in politics at his level, you never gets your own way.  No matter what you think or say, it’s always give and take.  Trump only has experience with one of these.

I think this weakness is already beginning to show in how his transition is not progressing: I think he’s trying to please everyone who supported him, from both right and far right.  He’s trying to play politician, when he ain’t one.  He’s trying to give to all sorts of people and give in to all sorts of ideas.  But he doesn’t understand the art of giving nor the consequences of giving badly. 

In terms of narcissism, one only has to look at the cloud of hangers-on at the moment, at the people whom he has either appointed or is considering appointing: lobbyists being prominent among them.  And what are lobbyists good at?  Flattery!  Trump will have his ego polished and stroked in so many ways, he will be in a state of perpetual egotistical orgasm.  He won’t know which way to turn.  He won’t be able to hold a steady course.  He won’t even know which course he should be holding.

And who may be the biggest flatterer of all?  I think it is Putin.  He must be rubbing his hands in glee at the pickings ahead.

Third, presidential politics is a long-term process, requiring attention and discipline.  Nothing Trump has done so far convinces me that he has either of these.  In fact, I thought he may even drop out of the race because it took too much focus.  Lack of attention gives others the opportunity to take advantage of you.  Lack of discipline is like having a rudderless boat.  It knows not in which direction to head.

Finally, having listened closely to most of what Trump said, I believe he is naïve in terms of the world and ignorant of history.  George Santayana once said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  I would modify this for Trump to “Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it.”

So I think the greatest threats of a Trump presidency are not racist or misogynistic policies or a jingoistic approach to international relations, but rather vacillation, policies based on quicksand, changes of direction, uncertainty, and a rotating door of personnel.  He built his campaign on discord, criticism of the establishment, and hate.  Even he can’t ride those through his presidency.  He will modify everything he’s already promised.  And modify them again.  And again.  No one will know what he or the country stands for or where it is going.

All is not hunky-dory in South Africa either.  We don’t have a President-elect, but rather a President who has passed his sell-by date.

President Jacob Zuma

Jacob Zuma was prominent in the anti-apartheid movement, for which he should be complimented and applauded.  However, whatever skills he learned in those years have not made him a good president.  In fact, probably his greatest two skills are graft and survival.

There is not enough space or time to describe the litany of accusations made against him, some of which he has been found guilty in the highest court of the land.  However, his canny survival skills ensured he surrounded himself with people who owe him something – usually because he has given them something, either position and/or its first cousin – money. 

Other people's money is not important to Zuma.  Here he sleeps during the budget debate.

Actually money is probably the more important motivator.  Lots of it.  Siphoned off from much-needed projects to raise people from the deprivations of apartheid.

However, there are signs of a few teeny-weeny cracks in Zuma’s omnipotence:  his party lost significant numbers of votes in the national municipal elections a few months ago; last December he fired a very competent Minister of Finance and replaced him by someone few had ever heard of.  Such was the outcry that Zuma was forced to fire him and replace him by another competent person.  This little episode caused the local currency, the rand, to plummet, wiping trillions off the markets.

Recently, the new Minister of Finance was accused of fraud by the head of the National Prosecuting Authority, and charges were laid.  The markets tanked once again, and legal experts shook their collective heads and said there was no case.  Even to the ostrich, this was a Zuma set up.  Now those charges have been withdrawn.  The head of the NPA probably will take the fall, but a new puppet will rise.

But throughout the land, even ex-colleagues of Zuma are calling on him to resign.  Of course, he won’t since his pocket is more important than the future of the county.  And the pockets of his supporters will continue to bulge.

Oh yes.  Did I mention that the Security Minister has been implicated in the poaching of rhinos?

Did I mention that an family of Indian businessmen, the Guptas, is widely thought to have had Zuma and many other high-ranking officials in their payroll?  That they were indulging in state capture – they wanted the whole country to be channeling funds towards their various enterprises?

To mention everything bad or suspicious within the ruling party here at the southern tip of Africa would be impossible to chronicle.  A truly sad state of affairs.

For which the USA should perhaps prepare itself.  After all the best presidents come from Africa.  Just take a look at this intriguing clip.

To end on a positive note, I have to say that there is freedom of the press in South Africa.  We know about the corruption because the press digs it out – unlike under the apartheid regime, where reporting on corruption was against the law.  Also, the courts have shown themselves to be strong and impartial – particularly the Constitutional Court, which interprets our wonderful constitution without regard to political pressures or personal biases.

And the best news of all is that the Proteas, South Africa’s national cricket side, thrashed the ever-arrogant Australians twice in two weeks – in Australia.  Even the ostrich pulled its head out of the sand and applauded.

Multi-racial, multi-faith Proteas celebrating

A good election in South Africa, but with wrinkles

Stanley – Thursday

Overall the municipal elections in South Africa last week were very successful.  Or were they?

First, people really paid attention.  Nearly 58% of eligible voters went to the polls (which is more than the last US Presidential election – 54%, and way more than the 2014 US elections – 37%).  From what I read, there was very little intimidation of voters around the polling stations and people were free to vote however they wanted.

Second, for the first time since 1994 (the year democracy came to South Africa), significant numbers of people cast their votes based on the past performance of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) rather than on loyalty to the ANC because of its role in the anti-apartheid struggle.  A few years ago, when I questioned a black friend about why she continued to vote for the ANC when its service delivery was so bad and when its leader was so obviously corrupt, she replied that she would always vote for the ANC as long as Nelson Mandela was alive – that it would be a dishonor to him to do otherwise.  Mandela died in December 2013.

Green: ANC; blue DA; other colours: minority parties

The ANC has been the dominant party since 1994, consistently gathering well over 60% of the popular vote.  It is only in the Western Cape that the major opposition party (the Democratic Alliance – DA) has had any success.  It has dominated the province and has also governed Cape Town, which has the reputation of being the best run city in the country.

In this election, the ANC lost about twelve percent of its support, ending with about 54% of the popular vote.

Why the change?  Three things were major contributors to the losses the ANC suffered.  President Zuma is seen as corrupt, as are many senior officials, like mayors, who drive around in expensive cars while their constituents see no improvement in their impoverished lives; service delivery in ANC controlled areas is abysmal; and the ANC is increasingly seen as arrogant.  Added to this, the two main opposition parties have strengthened their appeal - for very different reasons. The DA under its new appealing leader, Mmusi Maimane, has wooed voters by saying that the areas it controls are well run; the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has mobilized the most disadvantaged voters through the Leninist policies and charisma of its leader, Julius Malema, who is a brilliant orator, but frightening and corrupt.

President Zuma

 

Firebrand Julius Malema

After the election, Cape Town remains in DA hands.  More importantly three other major cities gave the DA the most votes, although not an absolute majority.  These are Nelson Mandela Bay (the old Port Elizabeth), Tshwane (the old Pretoria), and Johannesburg.  Talks are underway as we speak to see what coalitions can be negotiated to run these cities.  Losing these three metropolises was a huge blow to the ANC, particularly Nelson Mandela Bay and Tshwane, where previous ANC majorities were big.

Mmusi Maimane and Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille

I can’t wait so see how the coalitions end up working, because there are no natural allies amongst the three major parties.  I’m hoping that the ruling coalition will end up being between the unlikely partners of the DA and EFF.

Not everything was good about the elections, however.

For example, the election season was not without violence.  It is estimated that twelve candidates for various offices were killed in the run up to the election.  From what I have read, it appears that most of this was intra-party violence rather than between parties.  For example, there was rioting in the Tshwane area after the ANC offered as its candidate for mayor someone from out of town.  The locals wanted a local man to be their candidate, and took to the streets.  One person was killed, and arson and looting ensued.

Rioting in Tshwane

Also, in a bizarre move, the national television company, the SABC, stopped showing any scenes of violence.  The head of the SABC, a close ally of the embattled President Zuma, said it wasn’t in the interests of voters to watch such things.  The opposition immediately challenged the censorship in court, arguing that the SABC was being used by the government to prevent voters from seeing how widespread the disaffection with the ANC was.  A spokesman for the ANC surprisingly also accused SABC of censorship. 

The opposition won and the SABC was told to show the news. 

My take on the whole elections was that it was a significant one, where many voters freed themselves of the shackles of feeling obliged to vote for the ANC.  What the opposition cities do between now and the national elections in 2019 will have a huge impact on whether the ANC takes another hit.  The results will also cause the ANC to take stock and rid itself of its corrupt and self-serving officials.  It would be crazy not to do so.

And now I can focus on another election coming up.  Yuk!

Thuli Madonsela said No

Thulisile Madonsela

It's been a year of depressing news on all sorts of fronts – in fact make that twelve months since the year is still pretty young. Nevertheless, this month has witnessed what I believe to be a major turnaround in South Africa’s fortunes. I’m not talking about the economy or a change in direction of the government or any other sudden positive development. I’m talking about one woman who stood up and said no, and kept saying no despite being denigrated and threatened. And who kept on doing it until she won.

Thuli Madonsela started life as the daughter of immigrants from Swaziland to apartheid South Africa. They were ‘informal traders’ – people who sell things at street markets and make a small profit by buying in bulk from suppliers and splitting up the goods into packages that people can afford. She went to school in Soweto in the years of violence and friction with the South African police, and then studied at the University of Swaziland. She obtained a law degree from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg in 1990. After obtaining her degree, she worked with the trade union movement and the United Democratic Front – essentially the internal wing of the ANC in the last years of apartheid - and she is a long term member of the ANC. In 1996, she was part of the team that drafted the South African Constitution.

In 2014 she made Time magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people in the Leadership category, and last year she was awarded two honorary doctorates by two of the country’s leading universities.  She carries a heavy workload and is a single mother of two; her husband died very young.

Before the first democratic elections, she was offered nomination for an ANC seat as a member of parliament.  She declined because she felt that she could contribute more actively. She has certainly done so.

In October 2009, President Jacob Zuma appointed her as Public Protector, a position established by the Constitution to strengthen constitutional democracy and good governance. It’s independent from the state and has the power to investigate and make recommendations on improper dealings within government, which hamper service-delivery, abuse taxpayers’ money and perpetuate poverty and inequality. No doubt Zuma expected her to be grateful, and restrict her activities to the day to day matters that came to her office.  Big mistake.

Nkandla upgraded

As he signed off on her appointment, Zuma’s mind was elsewhere. He was in the process of a major upgrade to his country home known as Nkandla. I mean a major upgrade – around $25 million at the time. And he didn’t have – or certainly didn’t mean to spend – the money. That was no problem. He was going to make the state pay for it i.e. the taxpayers.

Pretty soon Madonsela was involved in some pretty high profile matters.  She pointed out the corruption of the ANC Youth League leader – Julius Malema – and the fallout from that eventually drove him from the ANC to form his own radical party.  People in high places started to feel uncomfortable with their supposedly tame ANC-appointed Public Protector.

Inevitably, journalists discovered what was going on at Nkandla. Zuma shrugged it off, but questions started to be asked in parliament. Eventually the president explained that what had taken place was a “security upgrade.”  Because of his role as president, he needed additional security and areas for safe assembly and public gatherings. These included an arena as an “evacuation area” and a “fire pool” to store water in case of fire in the thatch-roofed complex.  Hmm.

'Fire' Pool

The 'safety arena'. Looks a lot like a retaining wall. Coincidence, surely!

The case was referred to Madonsela who took her time to do a fair and thorough investigation. Her findings in 2014 were that Zuma and his family had enriched themselves at the taxpayers’ expense and that he should pay back much of the money.  She was immediately vilified as having exceeded her authority, produced inaccurate conclusions, and she was even accused of being an agent for the CIA! (The last was withdrawn after she threatened to sue.) She was also told she had acted outside the constitution. Strange – after all she helped write it.

The president ignored her recommendations and provided his own report which cleared him of all wrong-doing. He has survived many scandals; this one too would pass.

But it didn’t. In a government and civil service fraught with corruption and inefficiency, few things stick in the public’s attention, but this was one of them. The opposition parties wouldn’t let it go away. And eventually, when they were blocked by the ANC majority in parliament, they – and Madonsela - took the matter to the Constitutional Court (South Africa’s equivalent to the Supreme Court).

The Constitutional Court - without Fire Pool

The Court heard the case last week. Judgment is reserved, but it’s all over. Zuma’s council admitted that he was wrong, that the Public Protector did have the authority she had claimed under the constitution, that the Zuma report had no status. 

Will this mark the end of corruption in South Africa? Certainly not. It does mark the end of a culture that the highest in the land are above the law. And it has shaken the government, still reeling from Zuma’s arbitrary firing of the finance minister at the start of the year.  It’s not the end of corruption, but it just may be the end of President Jacob Zuma.

Michael - Thursday