South Africa, be cautious when you romanticise the liberator

MandelaMadonsela

Heroes who liberate a country: Will they always do the right thing? Nelson Mandela allowed serious errors in SA’s new democratic constitution, says Madonsela

GIVEN former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s hero-status for exposing state capture under President Jacob Zuma’s government, and her determination to get South Africa back on track – to “re-anchor” it – it was interesting to hear her criticise the visionary who contributed more than anyone else in bringing about non-racial democracy – Nelson Mandela. Not for malice, but naiveté.

Addressing a conference in Sandton on Sunday, she said Mandela had erred by not sufficiently empowering the people in the new constitution adopted in 1996. Its framers gave excessive power to public officials and too little directly to the people. For this, the country had paid dearly as officials from the president down, ran amok with their power, with little regard for the law and the people.

South Africa is admired for adopting, after the first democratic election in 1994, one of the world’s most progressive constitutions. But, said Madonsela, the country believed naively at the time that because of this, and the fact that illustrious struggle heroes – such as Mandela – would occupy major power positions, the spirit and letter of the constitution would be rigorously implemented, creating a better country.

For example, economic growth and redistribution would be actively pursued – crucial to reducing inequality. But instead, misguided government policies with devious agendas and mismanagement, and state capture by powerful private interests, created almost no growth. Overall unemployment was around 30 per cent and youth unemployment 50 per cent, while billions of rands was illicitly laundered through Dubai by officials and private families – the Guptas, although she avoided naming them – with government connections. Some R240m of public funds was used to upgrade President Zuma’s private home.

Contrary to the constitution’s intentions, Zuma and his cronies have abused their powers, rather than being guardians of the people’s interests. Self-enriching guzzlers feeding at the public trough. In many cases, people have watched helplessly as the country slides downwards, while officials appointed by party bosses perform abysmally, yet can only be removed by voting the governing party out at the next election, which takes place every five years.

It is an oft-repeated historical theme that when liberation fighters defeat former despots, they often become as bad as them, while ordinary people remain poor and powerless. Apartheid itself was created by Afrikaners fighting for liberation from English dominance; they then went on to become harsh rulers in their own repressive regime. The rise and rise of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is another case.

During the decades of apartheid rule, vibrant civil society organisations and individuals rose up to defeat the racial system. After 1996, however, in the euphoria of the new democracy, it was believed the constitution would ensure protection of people’s rights. In many cases the opposite has happened, because of despotic officials and the people’s insufficient say in how institutions and officials operate.

Speaking of her own office when she was public protector – one of several “Chapter Nine” institutions created by the constitution to protect democracy – her initial vision was to be the “voice of the people” to protect them from abuse by officials. But during her tenure, the concept changed to the public protector being more of an “enabler” for helping people speak with each other when necessary – ordinary people and officials.

One case where this had succeeded, she described, was where residents in a rural area who performed work for the government weren’t paid; instead of confronting the usual bureaucratic channels, she brought these people together in a room with officials familiar with the place the complainants came from, so they could explain the situation; the matter was settled.

The lesson of the crisis of South Africa today is to beware of romanticising liberation struggle heroes. Not to believe they are saints, incapable of erring. The chaos and corruption in the ANC – the once revered liberation movement – is enough proof. But even icons like Mandela should be treated with a healthy dollop of caution.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )

Advertisements

Hitler as model: Who is SA’s public protector protecting?

Busisiwe Hitler Goodson

Should the SA Reserve Bank be modeled on Hitler’s economic vision for Germany? SA’s  controversial Public Protector endorses book by Holocaust denier Stephen Goodson (top left) praising Nazi policies, causing outrage among Jewish leaders

WHILE South African Public Protector (ombud) Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s aggressive demeanour and politically suspect agenda offends many, care must be taken not to automatically dismiss everything she says because of dislike, or for her apparent embrace of certain views of disgraced anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Stephen Goodson. Her punting of someone like him has led outraged Jewish leaders to demand she distance herself from him.

We live in complicated times in a country struggling to find its way, where important debates are often stifled by people shouting each other down. Mkhwebane is particularly unpopular when compared to her predecessor Thuli Madonsela, who won the hearts of South Africans by confronting the country’s most powerful people on the issue of state capture by the Gupta family.

For Jews, it is alarming that Mkhwebane seems to be oblivious to the inflammatory implications of aligning herself with a figure such as Goodson – a sinister sign for someone occupying so politically sensitive a position. She has referred positively to a Goodson book entitled A History of Central Banking (and the Enslavement of Mankind). Adolf Hitler and former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi appear on its cover. She needs to be educated to the fact that the moment the word Hitler or Nazi is mentioned, rational debate is shut down by images of Auschwitz. It is strange that she seems not to know that – or to be ignoring it. Where is she taking instructions from?

Anti-Semitism in South Africa has remained consistently low compared to many other countries worldwide. Mkhwebane threatens this by injecting suspicion towards Jews into the public arena through association with the likes of Goodson. The important role of Jewish businesspeople, professionals and others in the South African economy could be exploited by populist politicians with mischievous agendas. In our convoluted political environment, this is extremely dangerous.

Her recommendation last week, apparently based partly on her reading of Goodson, that Parliament should initiate a process to change the Constitution’s definition of the Reserve Bank’s mandate – its inflation targeting framework – has been slammed across the political spectrum, including by ANC heavyweights insisting that she has over-reached her constitutional powers. Her task is to do what the Constitution demands of her, not attempt to change it. The Reserve Bank’s independence is crucial, particularly in an environment where our democratic institutions are all under attack.

Mkhwebane has earned many times over the distrust she is now subject to. But not everything she has uttered about governance is unworthy of discussion – including the Reserve Bank’s mandate. However, it would be taken more seriously if it came from someone with credibility. This country desperately needs to extract itself from the hole of low growth, poverty and inequality into which it has sunk. Other successful countries have adopted different models for the role of banks in economic growth, while retaining their independence.

Goodson joined the SA Reserve Bank in 2003 as a director and in May 2012 resigned under public pressure because of his anti-Semitic views. He has expressed admiration for Hitler’s economic policies, and said international bankers (read: Jews) financed and manipulated the Second World War against Germany because its leader’s model of state capitalism threatened them.

In an interview in 2011 with American talk show host Deanna Spingola on Republic Broadcasting Network – a radical rightwing radio station – he said the Holocaust was a “huge lie” with the objective “to extract enormous sums of money from the Germans as compensation.” International bankers, he added, “tarnished that whole period as being one of great evil in order to keep you blind to what is possible.” He praised the social achievements during the Third Reich.

Is Mkhwebane captured by the Zuma-Gupta self-enrichment project? Does her association with Goodson and his views serve their agenda? Jews and other South Africans are correct in being alarmed.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )