Saturday, June 07, 2008
What conclusions can one draw from mounting evidence that the ANC is steeped in corruption?
When the ANC adopted the principle of the armed struggle, like the USA under Bush at Guantanamo, or the Nazi functionaries at the Wannsee Conference, they abandoned 'ordinary' concepts of morality and legality and resorted to the Law of Moral Entitlement.
It is a context in which graft, murder and torture - even democide - become conceivable and eventually acceptable, because it is done in the name of the greater good - racial purity, human progress, freedom, democracy or some such noble cause.
Most people would probably say that during the Second World War this higher ethic was appropriate. It is debatable.
Some people would agree that such an ethic is also acceptable in a war of liberation. Gandhi would have disagreed, but it is arguable.
Once a liberation movement becomes a government, it often finds it impossible to change its liberationist mind-set and accept 'ordinary' ideas of the rule of law. The ANC may have accepted the constitution and the Bill of Rights (read their lips), but always with a casuistic reservatio mentalis that everything was still subject to the higher Law of Moral Entitlement.
The NEC of the ANC alone could be trusted with the sacred duty of upholding its concept of democracy. No-one else can be trusted.
Zuma has twice publicly announced the supremacy of the ANC over the Constitution.
So to pilfer state assets and divert money intended for the poor in order to fund elections and to buy the loyalty of influential people would not only be acceptable, but indeed a moral duty - the duty to protect Democracy. Even when things go badly wrong and corruption takes on a life of its own and gets completely out of hand, the Guardians of Democracy may still cling to their sense of moral entitlement - like corrupt and degenerate popes who still somehow managed to believe that they were doing God's work - even while moving in mysterious ways from one 'nephew's' bed chamber to the next.
Is it acceptable for the Guardians of Democracy to lie about their transgressions?
No less a man than Winston Churchill answered this question: 'In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.'
The frightening thing is that this sense of moral entitlement probably implies that it is impossible for the Guardians to even think of the possibility of losing an election - and we know what that means in Africa (Mugabe, Kenya) ANC leaders pay lip service to multiparty democracy, but every now and then give the game away.
It is significant that when Mbeki went to Polokawne to seek a third term as ANC president, he did not bring an heir apparent with him. It was either Mbeki or nothing; losing was simply inconceivable. Stalin was also known for his policy of never permitting anyone to be seen as a possible successor.
Zuma finds it inconceivable that a mere charge of corruption could possibly be allowed to stand between him and the presidency to which he is morally entitled, because only he really cares about the poor.
The whole top structure of the ANC believes, like Zuma, that the ANC will (and must) be in power 'until Jesus comes'.
Unfortunately - a painful lesson Mbeki recently learnt: the gods take a very dim view of hubris.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Also facing the final axe now will be the country's remaining 11,000 commercial farms - which occupy only 0,76% of the entire SA land surface.
South Africa's agriculture is thus also being plunged into total destruction under the Mbeki regime. A major food exporter only a decade ago, SA now needs to import large quantities of food at high prices to keep its 47-million residents, and 5-million refugees from the rest of Africa, fed adequately.
More than 21-million South Africans now are permanently food-insecure and unable to buy even one meal a day and in this increasingly pitched battle for survival, the indigenous black SA population has launched an ethnic-cleansing campaign to chase 'foreign Africans' from their neighbourhoods.
Under this new Bill property owners will also not be allowed to take away or sell any kind of 'movable property' (tractors, cars, sheds, irrigation equipment etc.) on those sites once they have received notification of expropriation.
Previously, this land was owned by a mere 4,000 farmers, mainly of British stock. While this land reform programme has been warmly welcomed by the vast majority of our people, it has however, and regrettably so, elicited wrath from our former colonial masters. In retaliation for the measures we took to empower the black majority, the United Kingdom has mobilized her friends and allies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand to impose illegal economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. They have cut off all development assistance, disabled lines of credit, prevented the Bretton Woods institutions from providing financial assistance and ordered private companies in the United States not to do business with Zimbabwe. All this has been done to cripple Zimbabwe's economy and thereby effect illegal regime change in our country.
In late April the South African President, the purveyor of 'quiet diplomacy', Thabo Mbeki , addressed a four-page letter to President Bush. Rather than coordinating strategy to end Zimbabwe's nightmare, Mbeki criticized the United States, in a text packed with exclamation points, for taking sides against President Mugabe's government and disrespecting the views of the Zimbabwean people. "He said it was not our business," recalls one American official, and "to butt out, that Africa belongs to him."
The 'New South Africa' has also actively blocked United Nations discussions about human rights abuses in Zimbabwe - and in Belarus, Cuba, North Korea and Uzbekistan.
South Africa was also the only 'democracy' to vote against a resolution demanding that the Burmese junta stop ethnic cleansing and free jailed dissident Aung San Suu Kyi.
When Iranian nuclear proliferation was debated in the Security Council, South Africa dragged out discussions and demanded watered-down language in the resolution.
In the General Assembly, South Africa fought against a resolution condemning the use of rape as a weapon of war because the resolution was not sufficiently anti-American, and opposed a resolution condemning rape and attacks on civilians in Darfur - and then rolled out the red carpet for a visit from Sudan's genocidal leader.
When confronted by international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch about their apparent indifference to all rights but their own, South African officials have responded by attacking the groups themselves which, they conspiratorially (and falsely) claim, are funded by "major Western powers."
South Africa clearly is also attempting to league itself with China and Brazil in a new nonaligned movement to redress an "imbalance of global power," meaning an excess of American power.
Longtime observers of Mbeki believe that racial issues may also play a role as he lashes out whenever he believes that Westerners are telling Africans how to conduct their lives, or who their leaders should be.
There is a common theme developing here and surely this spells out the future of South Africa - the only truely functional economy in sub Saharan Africa, but one wonders for how much longer.