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.

Shaik before stirring

Pardon me... Shaik wants a presidential pardon. Cartoon sourced from Mail & Guardian.


BEING the President of South Africa or any country comes with power and a number of prerogatives.

Chapter Five of the Constitution deals with some presidential duties and prerogatives of the head of state. Section 84(j) states that President Jacob Zuma, just like his predecessors, has the power or function to pardon or reprieve offenders, remit any fines, penal ties or forfeitures. So for a President to grant a pardon to a criminal is not unconstitutional. It is in keeping with his constitutional obligations as the head of the executive. But the Constitution, in section 83(c), enjoins Zuma to act in a way that “promotes the unity of the nation and that which will advance the Republic”.

As everyone is aware, Zuma’s former financial adviser and backer, Schabir Shaik, has applied for a presidential pardon. Shaik, it must be pointed out, is a certified (not in mental terms, it must be made clear) criminal with a fraud conviction. That is why he is exercising his constitutional right to apply for a presidential pardon as a citizen of South Africa.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Shaik seeking a presidential par don. But there is everything wrong with Zuma being the final arbiter in whether or not to grant to grant Shaik presiden tial pardon. Nor should the whole Zuma administration be in a position to partake in the decision-making here, for that matter.

This is a case of very naked conflict of interest. Upon convicting Shaik, Judge Hilary Squires found that he and Zuma had a mutually beneficial relationship. As they say, it takes two to tango, so common sense dictates that Zuma ought to have been tried with Shaik during his case. It is quite baffling or boggles the mind why this never happened.

Former President Thabo Mbeki fired Zuma in the wake of the adverse ruling against Shaik. Although the judgment had no bearing on Zuma’s innocence or guilt, he was more like tried in absentia because he was never accorded an opportunity to take to the stand.

Shaik is a close friend and ally of Zuma. In fact, Zuma has a good rap port with the Shaik family, which in cludes the likes of Mo, the spy boss. Zuma is clearly indebted to the Shaik family for his rise to the highest office in the land, and even more so, it would appear, to Schabir, a man who has been laid bare as a fraudster and a greedy criminal who would boast about and use his political connections to advance his narrow business interests.

Shaik has been exposed as a man who cares less about the poor and more about unscrupulously amassing wealth using prominent public officials’ names or political connections. It’s becoming clearer every day that loyalty, just like in the Mbeki administration, reigns supreme in the Zuma administration.

The current government couldn’t care less about its integrity and credibil ity. As long as you are in with the right crowd you will be rewarded hand somely and treated like a king, even if you’re an unrepentant criminal who was broken out of jail on a bogus medical parole.

Should Shaik be granted a presidential pardon (as is likely to happen) it would be a crying shame. Zuma must avoid misusing his presidential prerogative to appease his pal.

Zuma mustn’t let his “un-shaik–en” loyalty to Schabir Shaik cloud his judgment.

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

Obama Nobel Prize injustice

THERE is no denying that America’s 44th and first black (and partially white) President, Barack Obama, is an intelligent and a charismatic leader in a league of his own.

He ran one of the most shrewd and innovative presidential campaigns as he marched to the presidency of the world’s superpower. Try as they did, his opponents in the form of Hillary Clinton and John McCain could not stem the Obama tide. Not even former US President Bill Clinton could stop Obama from occupying the White House.

Such was the man’s brilliant strategy that there was no stopping him from making history by breaking the white man’s stranglehold on the White House. Obama was the ray of light after the catastrophic rule of one not- so-sharp, lying, confrontational and bullying George W Bush.

Obama’s oratory skills are legendary. The man has the ability to move moun tains with his words. Obama, just like Martin Luther King Jnr, can have people in tears with his speeches, which he delivers with phenomenal and unparalleled eloquence.

It is no exaggeration to say that Obama ranks up there with the best orators the world has ever heard. The man is simply a genius when it comes to public speaking. It is a marvel to witness Obama deliver one of his masterpiece speeches!

Since assuming office Obama has been a breath of fresh air in terms of trying to engage with countries which were previously continuously at war with the US. This includes reaching out to Iran, Turkey and the Muslim world in general. As Menachem Z Rosensaft (founding chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors) points out, Obama has charted a new direction in trying to end the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Really now? Obama, as an ally of Israel, would obviously seek a solution that will favour Israel and disadvantage Palestine.

Rosensaft further preaches the Obama gospel thus: “The President has travelled thousands of miles to tell men, women and children across the globe, national leaders and average citizens alike that after eight years of xenophobia and jingoism the US has returned to its historical role as a unifying catalyst of humankind”. Wow, the US is a “unifying catalyst of humankind”! More like a dividing catalyst of humankind. In most cases, if not all, its selfish interests (business or whatever) drive the US when it sticks its nose in other countries’ affairs.

So it is really puzzling and disturbing to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Obama on the grounds of his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen inter national diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. What a load of mumbo jumbo!

What Obama is doing is repositioning the US after the damage done to the country’s image by Bush. The Nobel Prize committee failed to see Obama’s intentions for what they really are. Obama’s intentions may be noble, but at this stage they do not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, period. The Nobel Prize committee is nothing more than the PR machine for the US. The decision is a farce.

Had this decision been taken here in South Africa, surely some lobby group or political entity would have sought a judicial review. It is an insult to laureates such as former President Nelson Man dela. At least Obama has the company of other undeserving laureates like former President FW de Klerk.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen.

Can this "elephant" be felled?

Logo sourced from the African National Congress website.


IT has been said that the “ANC will rule until the Son of Man comes back”. As arrogant as this may sound, it seems the ruling party will be in power for quite a number of years to come. On the issue of Jesus Christ, as far as I know, no one knows when He intends coming back. So it would be purely speculative on my part to say whether Khongolose will be in charge during the Second Coming.

You tell me bloggers, what is it that seem to make the governing party invincible at the polls? Is it possible that someday there will emerge an alternative to the ANC (which President Jacob Zuma refers to as an elephant), which could possibly take over the reins? Could this happen in the foreseeable future or in some very distant future?