On 3/16/12, tom mhlanga <[email protected]> wrote: > Mr Msindazwe, you are absolutely correct. the problem we are having > now and the problem well have going to Mangaung is more people playing > the man than the ball. We know all about these neo-liberal tactics that > they use to full the masses of this country. They will tell you that " > the constitution this and the constitution that" disregarding the fact that > the > ANC is the true costodian of this constitution. We know that these > liberals are too desperate to cling to their monopoly capital that is > being protected by the constitution due to the Sun-set Clauses we had > during CODESA. We are not going to be fooled by these neo-liberal > political analysts who want to be holy-cows at our expense. Let the > debate about the current political situation in SA continue, but > without ad hominem.As for Chikane we all know that he has very strong feeling > for Mbeki his former boss. To say the removal f Mbeki was like a Coup de tat > is another fallacy itself. If he new and understand correctely he would told > us that the ANC has its own internal processes that must be followed by > anyone deployed in any position (icluding the state president). When the ANC > recall you, that not a coup, but the internal process of the ANC. > > On 3/14/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> A response to Peter Bruce: Misremembering Mbeki, lazily engaging Zuma >> Eusebius Mckaiser >> >> One of the first things I do every Monday morning is to read Business Day >> editor Peter Bruce. I am one of his biggest fans, because his >> “I’m-stumbling-to-the-bathroom-but-thinking-aloud” style of writing is >> genuinely entertaining, and unique. And often, even when I disagree, I >> find >> his interventions worth engaging. This morning, however, I was shocked by >> the absolute bizarre, retrospective and sycophantic praise of Thabo >> Mbeki, >> and un-argued for assault on Zuma. The column is worth unpacking because >> it >> is an example of the dangers of amnesia, willful blindness and >> revisionism, >> and the importance of reminding ourselves of the intellectual poverty of >> making assertions without substantiation. >> >> The party list system >> It is odd to argue that the ANC’s removal of Thabo Mbeki was a process >> headed towards a constitutional crisis and that the crisis was averted, >> most >> fortuitously, by the amazingly clever and self-sacrificing Mbeki who >> provided selfless guidance on how he should be constitutionally rather >> than >> illegally removed. >> First, this is all false as a matter of electoral fact. We have, for >> better >> or worse, a party list system in South Africa. Many of us rightly hate >> the >> system, but that does not mean we can reinvent the legal facts about the >> system. Political parties draw up, at their behest, lists of who should >> go >> to Parliament or not and then the president is chosen from there. >> Related, >> this means that the party can remove someone from their party list and >> the >> result would be that they would be immediately recalled from government. >> This is all the ANC was doing: nothing more, nothing less. It was >> pedestrian >> constitutional processes being followed, so the constitutional crisis >> that >> was being imagined, is a lie, or in the best case scenario the result of >> Frank Chikane/Peter Bruce not getting elementary facts about our >> electoral >> system. >> Second, Bruce never explains the “illegal” process that Mbeki was saving >> the >> ANC from embarking on? It is quite a massive claim to suggest the >> governing >> party was designing an illegal mechanism or process to unseat one if its >> own. Surely this claim demands clearer and legally fact based elaboration? >> I >> for one would love to hear more on this fascinatingly contentious point. >> (Well, I lie: given that the process that was followed was actually >> constitutionally permissible there is no case for illegality that can be >> formulated.) >> >> The idea that Mbeki was a champion of constitutionalism is also, of >> course, >> an exercise in forgetting. It is under the Mbeki administration that the >> increased use of state machinery for extra-political purposes became >> intense. Mbeki of course was not found guilty of any such abuse himself, >> but >> more subtle examples, like his usurping of the JIT probe into the arms >> deal, >> and his poorly spirited attempt at another ANC presidency (no doubt with >> the >> desire to be president of the country remotely) are hardly the hallmarks >> of >> constitutional excellence and role modeling. (Other examples abound: The >> ANC’s so called attack on constitutionalism – if one buys this claim which >> I >> do not wholly do – all pre-dates Zuma, such as the 2005 headlines about >> the >> imminent clipping of judges’ wings off the back of Mbeki’s January 8th >> speech in Mthatha. And, of course, in the run up to Polokwane itself >> several >> Mbeki mandarins argued that a constitutional change for a third term >> would >> be acceptable, a claim that Mbeki ignored – and I happily speak under >> correction - rather than publicly denouncing that idea outright. The >> overall >> point, at any rate, remains: Mbeki at best has a chequered relationship >> with >> constitutionalism.) >> So, not only was the ANC behaving constitutionally but, in addition, to >> set >> Mbeki’s leadership up as the gold standard of good leadership on >> constitutionalism, is absurd. >> >> On Ramaphosa, Sexwale et.al. >> Bruce seems unaware of the fact that both Ramaphosa and Sexwale played >> critical roles in getting Mbeki unseated. The assumption is that they >> have >> selfless goals and flawless skill-sets that could be used in the service >> of >> the country. This is lazy. First, both characters were part of the >> leadership structures that debated Mbeki’s removal and reportedly were >> some >> of the more vociferous voices in favour of his removal. Sexwale’s >> presidential ambitions are as clear as Julius Malema’s insincere >> commitment >> to economic freedom! They can hardly accurately be imagined to be >> ‘Mbeki-ites’ or ‘Anti-Zuma-ites’: they are career politician-businessmen, >> and should be as carefully and skeptically engaged as political figures >> as >> anyone else. It is odd that once politicians get anointed by the press, >> critical faculties relax in their presence. Second, the strengths and >> weaknesses of these leaders, as potential presidential candidates, are >> not >> discussed – it is simply asserted that they would do a wonderful job. >> Yet, >> if we take someone like Zweli Mkhize, for example, his record in the >> province of KwaZulu-Natal would come out a mixed bag at the most. (There >> is >> a sad possible reason for this: a “anything-but-Zuma-please!” attitude >> which >> results in a less than full assessment of each of the alternative >> candidates. This is most unfortunate.) >> >> Willful Journalistic blindness >> Bruce casually says that we were “all cross with Mbeki, for AIDS, for >> aloofness…” This is a weak acknowledgment of Mbeki’s weaknesses. In the >> context of the column it almost amounts to exculpating Mbeki, diminishing >> the extent of his personal and political shortcomings. More than 300 000 >> South Africans died from AIDS related illnesses as a result of Mbeki-led >> denialism. That cannot be waspishly noted in passing as if you are >> excusing >> a kid for spilling coffee on the couch. There is a toxic combination of >> journalistic willful blindness and callousness hasty writing going on in >> such a light, in-passing comment about Mbeki’s governance shortcomings. >> This >> is irresponsible, both from the point of view of a fearless commitment to >> truth – as one expects of ideal standards of journalism – and simply in >> fairness to other characters whose strengths and weaknesses you are more >> comfortable giving a thorough exposition of. >> Mbeki’s Aids policies are a textbook example of a political leader having >> a >> personal existential crisis – “The West thinks we can’t control our >> penises, >> and stuff!” – at the expense of his country. His paranoia about such >> negative outsider sentiment extended to an on-and-off attitude towards >> crime >> – acknowledging it the one day, only to use it the next day as a blunt >> instrument to berated whites. His finest moment was helping to craft >> decent >> centrist macroeconomic policies in the mid-1990s. But once he became >> President, it was steadily downhill from there, and any on balance >> assessment of his place in political history must be harsh. He is now >> doing >> a decent job, again, on the continent, but this is a red herring in the >> context of an audit of how he did as president of the country. >> >> Final thought >> Two closing thoughts: >> >> a) It is tiring to read lazy assertions about Zuma as dumb, >> disinterested, >> not reading anything other than about himself, etc. Not one shred of >> evidence is given for this characterisation by Bruce. All we have is some >> single anecdote from a “colleague”. Since when can a serious political >> sketch be based on a corridor related anecdote between colleagues? This >> is >> not just lazy – up there with some columnists who review books they have >> not >> read – but, frankly, unfair on Zuma. Zuma is not ideal as our president >> in >> my viewpoint. I would not defend him at all as a good president. (That’s >> a >> discussion for another day.) But I do defend his entitlement to be >> assessed >> based on the things he says and does rather than being reduced to >> vacuity. >> Now we have more to engage: a Zuma-led massive expansionary fiscus aimed >> at >> embedding a Big Idea – manufacturing as a catalyst for development – and >> there is much to chew on here, and elsewhere. Here is the point: there >> are >> so many good arguments against Zuma, and against Zuma’s governance >> record, >> and political skill and character, why settle for lazy assertion? >> >> b.) Very finally, a warning: we should be wary of reinforcing the >> pre-2009 >> view of Zuma, so nicely articulated by Xolela Mangcu, of a kind of >> cultural >> and aesthetic disapproval of someone who looks and sound differently to >> ourselves. Of course the media never did so with Mbeki – the ‘philosopher >> King’-identity could not be lampooned for fear of being accused of being >> racist or Afro-pessimistic. Ironically, there is more space during the >> Zuma >> presidency for Bruce to write this column – it’s analogous version, circa >> 2003, say, would probably not have been written. This kind of column >> should >> be replaced by evidence based, and sincere, engagement. If anything, >> folks, >> you make it too easy for the Presidency! By using prejudice as a >> substitute >> for hard-hitting factual analysis, excellent criticism can be >> conveniently >> set aside by the President because it can point to the more ad hominem >> rants >> in pieces of journalism. As my mom would have said, “Don’t put jam in >> their >> mouths, Peter!” >> >> But there is never a dull moment in Mzansi, is there? I wonder what Mbeki >> thinks of being called a “civilized patriot” – the drama will continue >> long >> after Mangaung. Fun times ahead, nervous journalism ahead too…. >> >> Eusebius McKaiser is a political analyst at Wits Centre for Ethics. >> Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you! >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> >> Sender: [email protected] >> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:41:45 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: [email protected] >> Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Letting the facts speak for themselves about >> the >> SA Navy >> >> >> Business Day >> >> >> *Letting facts speak for themselves* >> >> >> *Rear-Admiral Bernhard H Teuteberg, Letters, Business Day, 2 March 2012 * >> >> I write this as a personal response to Terry Crawford-Browne >> (Department's demand indefensible, Letters, February 29). I strongly >> object to the lack of factual data contained in his correspondence. I >> therefore wish to place some facts at the disposal of your readers in >> order that they might form their own opinion of Mr Crawford-Browne's >> continuous diatribe towards the South African National Defence Force >> (SANDF) and SA Navy, over a number of years, in particular relating to >> the acquisition of ships, submarines and aircraft as foreseen by the >> approved and supported White Paper on Defence (1996) and Defence Review >> (1998). >> >> My list of admirals in the SA Navy indicates that we presently have one >> vice-admiral, four rear-admirals and 14 rear-admirals (junior grade) >> serving. I would suggest that Mr Crawford-Browne refrain from basing his >> research on the utterances of a defunct and deregistered military trade >> union. >> >> The statement that one of our three submarines "is already permanently >> disabled" is incorrect. I have personally reported to the parliamentary >> committee on defence on the matter and shown journalists the state of >> this submarine. The SA Navy is furthermore using this period to develop >> an in-house submarine refit capability, using the SAS Manthatisi as the >> first in class for this process. >> >> The two fully operational submarines have produced more successful >> operational sea-hours than was originally envisaged by the Project Wills >> Logistics Support Analysis; certainly proof of the success and >> sustainability of the submarine system. The statement that it would >> require R1bn to repair the SAS Manthatisi is totally incorrect. >> >> The SA Navy has had a frigate permanently on station within the northern >> Mozambique channel as part of the approved Southern African Development >> Community (SADC) maritime security strategy, for at least the last year. >> In addition we have met all our operational and exercise commitments. In >> this regard the SA Navy has also exceeded the envisaged sea-days as >> expressed in the log support analysis for Project Sitron (frigates). >> >> Our ships and submarines, including the men and women who serve in them, >> deserve more; including some recognition for the sacrifices they make to >> serve our country. >> >> Our submarines were never bought to "protect fish", but to serve as part >> of our "defensive posture", by being a capable, successful and credible >> deterrence. >> >> The department is underfunded in terms of the constitutional mandate of >> the SANDF, including the Defence White Paper (1996) and Defence Review >> (1998), and has been acknowledged by all political parties within our >> democratically elected Parliament. As a naval officer of about 38 years, >> I think the Somalia disaster cannot be resolved by military means alone. >> The military can, however, contain the resultant insecurity symptoms >> (piracy being one) while more lasting political, social and economic >> solutions are found. >> >> Maritime security on the African continent is being addressed by means >> of the AU 2050-African Integrated Maritime Security Strategy, which >> calls for regional responses to regional maritime security issues. This >> calls for a SADC response to maritime security in our region, including >> the movement of piracy in a southerly direction. As part of SADC we try >> our best to ensure that our shipping lanes remain free from interference >> to support the ideals of a "developmental state". >> >> We need to ensure that our men and women who serve our country are >> provided with the appropriate tools and with the resources to maintain >> and sustain operations, to uphold our constitutional imperative. >> >> Our minister is therefore exercising her responsibility to our country >> in requesting that the government commits further financial resources to >> the defence objectives. >> >> >> *R-Adm Bernhard H Teuteberg* >> ** >> *Chief Director Maritime Strategy, SA Navy* >> ** >> ** >> *From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=166431* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> >> -- >> You are subscribed. This footer can help you. >> Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to >> this message. >> You can visit the group WEB SITE at >> http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery >> options, pages, files and membership. >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] >> . >> You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to >> put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail >> to >> this address (repeat): [email protected] . >> >> -- >> You are subscribed. This footer can help you. >> Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to >> this message. >> You can visit the group WEB SITE at >> http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery >> options, pages, files and membership. >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] >> . >> You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to >> put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail >> to >> this address (repeat): [email protected] . >> >
-- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
