From retrenchment to self-employment

Kgabo Moabelo shows youngsters how to surf the Internet. Picture: Cedric Mboyisa.


FROM being retrenched to being an entrepreneur – that is the story of Kgabo Moabelo (37) from Alexandra township.

A victim of recession, Moabelo was retrenched earlier this year after serving his company for 12 years. Instead of feeling sorry for himself and drowning in a state of despair, the man from Alex – but originally from Polokwane – went about reinventing himself as an entrepreneur. He decided to use his retrenchment package to start a business, not just any business but an Internet Cafe. Today he is the proud owner of the state-of-the-art Internet cafe, The Duke's Cafe Internet Solutions.

He says his retrenchment made him realise that “there's freedom to explore new opportunities”. He adds that retrenchment is “absolutely not the end of the world”. Teenagers and the youth in general are Moabelo main clients. According to Moabelo, their (youngsters') time on the Internet is mostly spent on Facebook. He has since joined Facebook as well... just to keep up with the modern trends of social networking!

The Duke's Cafe Internet Solutions offers other services such as laminating, printing, photocopying, writing Cvs and uploading pictures for Facebook fanatics. Internet access is R5 for 15 minutes, R8 for 30 minutes and R12 for an hour. Alex is truly online, thanks to Moabelo. This man has set an example by overcoming a difficult situation and emerge as a winner! Moabelo is indeed a shining star in Alexandra and a ray of hope to all of us, including those who lost their jobs when the markets collapsed due to economic crisis.

Animal rights versus culture

THE Zulu ritual of Ukweshwama – in which warriors use their bare hands to kill a bull to mark the first fruits before the crops are harvested – has provoked a raging debate.

Animal Rights Africa (ARA) has turned to the courts to prevent this year’s ritual from taking place. In its court interdict application before Judge Nic van der Reyden, ARA wants the bull to be saved from “what we consider to be a cruel and protracted death”.

ARA argues that its action is not driven by any anti-Zulu culture sentiment, but says “our culture of animal rights demands that we oppose cruelty wherever it occurs”. If truth be told, cruelty to animals or human beings or nature has no place in our society and must therefore be rooted out.

The Ukweshwama ritual is presided over by the Zulu king. The age-old custom requires young men to kill the bull with their bare hands (no knives or spears involved) as a demonstration of their courage… a sort of coming of age for the young warriors. This method of killing the bull also involves young warriors simultaneously trampling on the beast, suffocating it and pulling out its tongue. It is said that it takes about 10 (while some say 40) minutes for the bull to die.

The sacrificial bull does indeed meet its death in a cruel manner in the name of culture. The ARA makes it clear that its case against the ritual is “simply and undeniably about cruelty to a sentient being, and any cultural practice that not only involves cruelty but also contravenes anti-cruelty legislation must be subjected to public scrutiny”.

That the ritual is cruel in nature is not in doubt, but looking at the issue in a narrow-minded and emotionally charged way prevents one from seeing the bigger picture and fully comprehending the purpose of the ritual.

It must be borne in mind that this barehanded killing of a bull is not done to satisfy man’s sadistic nature. If that were the case, then those responsible for the practice would have been long prosecuted and the custom done away with. But here we have a ritual that is central to Zulu culture. This has been practised for years.

Mind you, ours is a constitutional state which fully recognises our diversity and different cultures.

The ANC’s Commission on Religious and Traditional Affairs says: “The first fruit harvest celebrations form part of African culture and religion and are more common to the indigenous people of South Africa as a whole.”

Just like Jesus died cruelly on the cross as the sacrifice for mankind in order for us to be cleansed of our sins and be able to return to live with God, the same principle (here in the name of culture, not Christianity) – but for a different purpose – applies to the bare handed killing of the bull. Call it barbaric or whatever, Ukweshwama does enjoy constitutional protection.

In this case, rights of humans to practise their culture trump the rights of animals. Having said that, people who practise their culture must do so in a manner that does not involve cruelty. Without any intention to be in con tempt of court, any sober judge would dismiss the court interdict application by ARA. The Ukweshwama ritual will go on tomorrow.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This article first appeared in The Citizen.

Buthelezi's time is up

Zapiro cartoon sourced from Mail & Guardian Online.


OPPOSITION parties in South Africa, with the exception of the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Congress of the People COPE), are on their way to the grave.

The April 22 provincial and national election results provided irrefutable evidence that opposition politics in general is in decline. Parties such as the Independent Democrats, the Azanian People’s Party, the United Democratic Movement and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) were conspicuous casualties.

While their dwindling support could be attributed to the emergence of COPE and the reinvigorated DA (the powerhouse of opposition politics), these parties need to do some serious introspection and rethinking to avoid death or being wiped off the political map.

The beauty about death is that while it is inevitably a natural process, it could at least be put at bay by employing life-saving measures and strategies. The IFP, in particular, really needs to have a serious look at itself if it is to survive in the current dispensation. Protest as it may, but the IFP is a party caught up in yesteryear politics in an era of ever-evolving modernity.

Without beating about the bush, the main cause of the IFP’s fading fortunes is one Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the party’s founder and leader since inception in 1975. Under his leadership the party is more steeped in tribal politics, hence its prevailing categorisation as a cultural organisation of the Zulus.

Formed as the Inkatha National Cultural Liberation Movement (of course, with the blessing of the then banned ANC) in 1975, the IFP has done little to shake off its tribal party tag. In fact, the party has over the years consciously or unconsciously operated in a manner that conforms to garnering support along tribal lines.

It must be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with the IFP being a tribal party like the Freedom Front Plus, but the party must stop pretending it is not a tribal entity. The IFP seems to use the Zulu culture to stifle internal democratic processes.

It’s a pity when cultures or the gospel of Jesus are perverted for the glorification of individuals or a particular group. This would explain why a political dinosaur such as Buthelezi has been in charge of the IFP since 1975. It’d be naive to say there's no IFP leader who can do better than Buthelezi.

He may have been democratically elected to his position, but again democracy can also be perverted. It is possible to present the fear of an individual as democracy. Apparently, Robert Mugabe is also a democratically elected president of both the Zanu-PF and Zimbabwe.

Now is the time for the likes of IFP chairman Zanele Magwaza-Msibi and secretary-general Musa Zondi to take the party forward. The IFP must allow for contestation – without fear of victimisation or reprisal – to take place freely. Members must exercise their right, of course in compliance with party rules, to voice grievances and to choose their preferred candidates. Buthelezi cannot always go unchallenged for his position.

The time is now for the party to reinvent itself if it wants to reclaim KwaZulu-Natal and pose a serious challenge to its nemesis, the ANC.

Buthelezi has overstayed his stay in the IFP leadership position, to which he is not entitled to by birthright. Fresh blood, please.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This column first appeared in The Citizen.

Mbeki must account for HIV/Aids

PRESIDENTIAL AFFAIR... Thabo Mbeki and his successor Jacob Zuma at the ANC's December 2007 elective conference in Polokwane. Picture: Cedric Mboyisa


THE Oxford dictionary defines politics as “the activities involved in getting and using power in public life, and being able to influence decisions that affect a country or a society”.

Governments come and go, but what remains the same between democratic and undemocratic regimes is that they are all about attainment of power. What separates the two is how they use the power at their disposal – that is, whether to suppress a particular group of citizens while rigorously advancing the interests of a select few or endeavour to tirelessly improve the lives and economic status of the citizens in general while, of course, consolidating power by creating a stinking rich elite and deploying trusted cadres to powerful, strategic positions.

What is critical about power (whether acquired by democratic or undemocratic means) though is the principle of accountability. Those in power must be able to account for their actions or inaction. Governing people comes with anonus to rule responsibly in the interests of the public. Democracy is all about the people, for it is the people who govern through elected public representatives. Putting certain individuals in power is not tantamount to giving them a licence to do as they please, but to always act in the interests of the citizenry.

The main problem, especially in Africa, is that people with power such as former President Thabo Mbeki, ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, Zanu-PF and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and the Congress of the People leader Mosiuoa Lekota become so arrogant and inebriated with power that they see themselves as invincible, untouchable and above the law or accountability.

These individuals fail to comprehend a simple fact – that their being in power is not a birthright, but a choice of the people who can dislodge them any time. Even more importantly, they must face the consequences of their rule or misuse of their power.

A recent study by Harvard University found that about 300 000 South Africans died unnecessarily of HIV/Aids related illnesses during the period of 2000-2005. No prize for guessing who was in charge of the country during this period. As the head of the executive, Mbeki was called upon to “uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Constitution”. The same Constitution, in section 27, accentuates everyone’s right to health care services.

Perhaps Mbeki was so engrossed in some research papers and documents that made him advertently or inadvertently neglect his constitutionally mandated duties. But many lives were lost while Mbeki and his government were dithering. As the man who was in charge Mbeki must answer for this before he goes to the grave. For Young Communist League national secretary Buti Manamela to call for Mbeki to be charged with “genocide” is a bit extreme, but he is absolutely right in demanding that Mbeki account for his government’s failure to furnish HIV/Aids sufferers with anti-retroviral drugs at the time.

As for the power-blotto Malema to say “you will never touch one of our own” in defence of Mbeki, just proves once again what a despot in the making he is. Malema is teeming with the arrogance and intolerance of Lekota. Malema belongs in the league of Mbeki and Mugabe.

Those in power are subject to the laws of the land. Mbeki is no exception. He must account for his deadly stance on HIV/Aids.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This article first appeared in The Citizen.

South African anthem slayer!

Picture of reggae musician Ras Dumisani sourced from www.music.org.za


HE came, he sang (horribly so) and he incurred the wrath of South Africans.

Ras Dumisani will go down in history as the man who brought the country into disrepute by mauling the national anthem for the whole world to see. So I ask you bloggers, should he be banned for life from ever singing the anthem again or must he also be banned from singing his reggae music?

Malema not for President

WHETHER one likes or hates ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, the man is one of the most prominent players on the political scene in South Africa.

Facing a reinvigorated Democratic Alliance and the angry ANC rejects COPE, the ANC’s election machinery tasked Malema with mobilising the youth to keep the ruling party in power.

Malema did not disappoint his masters. He led his charges to a resounding victory for the ANC of President Jacob Zuma and Gwede Mantashe. Political foes of the governing party had many headaches and surely some had heart and blood pressure problems as Malema decimated them one by one with his barrage of endless insults.

Go to former President Thabo Mbeki, South African Communist Party boss Blade Nzimande, DA leader Helen Zille, COPE leaders Mosiuoa Lekota and Mbhazima Shilowa, United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa and Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi and ask them about Male ma. They will all tell you of stories of being on the receiving end of Malema’s relentless politics of personal attacks. Zille, who has had a number of heated exchanges with the youth leader, describes Malema as a demagogue in the worst sense of the word. Malema proved to be a one-man wrecking machine ahead of the April 22 provincial and national polls. He was arguably the main man responsible for getting the youth behind the ANC during its most trying time since the advent of democracy in 1994.

The media did not escape Malema’s seemingly sanctioned verbal assaults. In his eyes, almost all white journalists are pushing a racist agenda against the ANC. To him all media owners, especially the white ones, are racist by nature. According to the gospel of Malema, black journalists (especially those who – through opinion pieces – disagree with his leadership style) are agents of white folk, who in his warped mind are out to get him.

Malema and his cohorts would love to dictate to the media what constitutes newsworthiness. Even those who speak on his behalf are inherently intolerant of some sections of the media while rolling out the red carpet for their media darlings, who suck up to them.

This is in sharp contrast to the pleasantly professional conduct of the governing party’s spokesmen Ishmael Mnisi and Brian Sokutu.

Now we have Zuma saying Malema is a worthy candidate to inherit the ruling party. What this means is that Malema is in line to become President of South Africa. This is so because, according to the Polokwane conference resolution, the leader of the ANC must become the head of state. There are few admirable personal traits about Malema. His ability to say it like it is is quite refreshing in a world of politics where political correctness is the usual order of the day. But that does not necessarily make him presidential material to run the country.

Malema may be doing well in his current position, which was and still is necessary in consolidating power for the Zuma camp after the Polokwane spring. But the current Malema cannot be the President for many reasons. Not only is he a polarising figure, he is more like a celebrity who does not miss an opportunity to play to the gallery. He lacks substance in his leadership. He’s just a distinguished exponent of personal attack politics. Any other “nice” deployment, not presidential in nature, will do for Malema.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This column first appeared in The Citizen.

Prof Jansen's major blunder

The Zapiro cartoon is sourced from the Mail & Guardian Online.


THE University of Free State must surely count as one of the remaining heavens on earth for white racists.

Stories of racism against black students and staff at the institution abound. One young woman says she could not wait to complete her studies so she could get away from “the oppressive environment” at the university. She recounts, with a sense of sadness, that the university management allowed the infamous Reitz hostel to become what it is.

She recalls: “Sometimes you will pass there (Reitz hostel) and they (white students) would make racist remarks and laugh out very loudly. “I hated passing there because I did not feel safe.” The young lady says black students and staff have became accustomed to being victims of racism.

Newly installed rector Professor Jonathan Jansen deserves to be highly commended for seeking to transform Reitz hostel “into a model of racial reconciliation and social justice for all students”.

Kudos are also in order for Jansen for admitting the university has all along been complicit in creating and enabling environment for white racists to flourish. But at the same time, Jansen deserves to the severely castigated for deciding that the university will no longer pursue charges or disciplinary action against the four students who racially abused and humiliated black employees of the institution.

As much as reconciliation is import ant in creating a racially tolerant society, the learned professor has got it totally wrong is his clumsy attempt to emulate conciliator par excellence, former President Nelson Mandela.

Jansen’s sense of reconciliation is fundamentally flawed in a sense that it is rammed down our throats. There was no prior consultation with the relevant parties, especially the victims, before the reprehensible decision was taken.

Contrary to Jansen’s assertion that the decision is a gesture of racial reconciliation, it will, in fact, perpetuate racism and create racial tensions. Jansen’s decision is more like condoning the deplorable and racist behaviour of the four students. It seems more like Jansen is trying to please his masters, whoever they are or wherever they are found.

Jansen and his university cannot just buy back the dignity of the women, who were so humiliated by the four boys. What is critical in a reconciliation process is that the perpetrators must be genuinely remorseful and sorry about their actions.

Nowhere is his speech did the profess or say whether the four culprits had repented of their racist ways. While Jansen is busy playing Mr Nice Guy, some white students are believed to be continuously taunting the victims over the incident.

The condemnation of Jansen, by the likes of the ruling party and many others, is justified. Not surprisingly, the Democratic Alliance has extolled the vice-chancellor, for “Jansen embraces the values the DA believes are good for higher education and students”. That great South African Institute of Race Relations (of which Jansen is president) defended him, dismissing criticism of Jansen’s revolting decision as “intimidation and bullying”.

Yes, universities are independent, but their independence cannot be used an excuse or a cover to perpetuate the notion that white people are superior to black people.

Even cleaners are constitutionally en titled to dignity and deserve respect as human beings. The learned professor has no right to make decisions for them. Jansen has erred, and he must expedite the process of correcting his mistake.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This article first appeared in The Citizen.