'You may be their puppets, but we are not!'

Speech by the Minister of Home Affairs, Malusi Gigaba MP, during the VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE Debate in the National Assembly on 10 November 2016

Here we are again for a 05th frivolous attempt by the opposition since 2014 to win by stealth and cunning battles they had lost on the ground.

What makes a mockery of this are the reasons provided for this new gimmick.

The so-called “state capture” has become the most recent Trojan horse inside which the DA Spartans have hid in their new spurious attempt to waylay democracy.

It would seem that anything would have passed for this debate today; that the DA was waiting for any excuse to bring to the House this motion so that we assist them and participate in their denigration of the President and the ANC.

For people who claim to respect democracy, the judiciary, rule of law and fairness to act in this fashion which demonstrates, on the contrary, their disdain for these fundamental Constitutional principles and values which our nation holds so dear betrays their disingenuity.

In its own statement, the ANC has welcomed the erstwhile Public Protector’s Report, noted the seriousness of the issues it dealt with and welcomed its recommendations, whilst noting that they are inconclusive and contain no binding findings conferring guilt on any party, but rather calls for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of improper relationships and involvement of private interests in the running of the affairs of the State.

Furthermore, the ANC said that it supports, as a matter of principle, the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry, however due regard must be given to the Constitutional prescripts that guide the establishment of such Commission.

If the opposition believed in fairness and the rule of law, they would have welcomed the Public Protector’s Report in toto and instead of jumping the gun to call for a no confidence vote in the President, on the basis of an inconclusive report, they should have waited patiently for the Commission of Inquiry and what it will find.

However, the fact of the matter is that such patience does not exist among those eager to dispose of the ANC in order to defend racial privilege and supremacy.

The truth is that there is a bitter struggle in South Africa between the former oppressors and those whom they had oppressed, for the right and power to determine the political direction of this country as well as the ownership of its economic resources.

When the Anglo-Boer ended in 1902, the Brits in particular and whites in general had secured more than the monopoly of electoral power; they had also secured for themselves the monopoly of political power and property ownership, included in which was the right to make black labour cheap and to exploit it without prohibitions.

Throughout its existence, the system of white supremacy had been predicated on this very notion that in order to plunder South Africa’s natural resources, the white minority had to have the exclusive monopoly of political power in its hands.

The end of the apartheid system constituted the horror of horrors for the racialist political and economic establishment as it elevated the native, long kept at his place as the political underclass and beasts of burden, to political power where they could begin dismantling the system of racial supremacy, occupy the civil service and change the laws and systems that had oppressed them and start systematically to change both the structure of economic ownership and production.

Accordingly, the fight today, as it was in the past and will be tomorrow, is not merely a fight about the person of President Zuma, whilst it may ostensibly seem so, but it is ultimately about the ultimate control of the economic fortunes of this country and her political destiny.

In this regard, we can see right through the actions of the opposition and their façade.

These self-appointed ‘defenders of the Constitution and rule of law’, in and out of this House, fail the fundamental test of their own claims and assertions.

Ultimately, the true test of one’s commitment to a particular principle is not your willingness to respect it insofar as it applies to you or your friends, but rather when dealing with your opponents.

So on this basis alone, this motion is clearly spurious, and should therefore not be supported.

However, Lenin warns us that:

“People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises.”

At best, this motion is merely about political point scoring, but at worst, it is characteristic of the abhorrent ploys by the global empire and their local political hoodlums under guises of good governance and defending the Constitution and the rule of law to steal political power in order to defend, protect and advance their exclusive economic interests.

The CIA used this strategy in Iran in 1951 following a decision by the then Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh to nationalise Iranian oil, thus taking it away from a British company that was exploiting it and the Iranian people.

According to John Perkins, author of “The New Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, Britain enlisted the assistance of the US, their ally, and

“Instead of sending in the Marines, therefore, Washington dispatched CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt (Theodore’s grandson). He performed brilliantly, winning people over and through payoffs and threats. He then enlisted them to organise a series of street riots and violent demonstrations, which created the impression that Mossadegh was unpopular and inept. In the end, Mossadegh went down and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The pro-American Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi became the unchallenged dictator.”

Certainly, Iran was not to be the only and final country to experience such foreign interventions with the support of local actors; this is also the story of Panama, Ecuador, Iraq, of Libya and Zimbabwe closer to home.

The modus operandi remains the same, driven by a cartel of global governments, local politicians, big global and domestic capital and corporations.

At its heart, this is about the commercial interests of the rich and powerful who control the media and pay off local political actors, journalists and others in pursuit of their depraved agenda.

For years the opposition has adopted a strategy of personalized fixation and attacks focused on President Zuma, aimed at demonizing him and rendering him unpopular, portraying his leadership of our country as inept, corrupt-ridden, irrational, irresponsible and reckless.

This was precisely the argument made earlier today when this farcical motion was tabled.

Mossadegh’s crime in Iran was to reclaim their oil; Torijos’ crime in Panama was to reclaim the Panama Canal, Roldos’s crime in Ecuador was to defend their oil, and so were the crimes of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Husein in Iraq.

In our case, our extensive mineral wealth, BRICS and the prospective nuclear power station in South Africa lie at the heart of the regime-change offensive we are subjected to.

Accepting this agenda and not opposing it to the very death will be our biggest folly.

As one member of the Cuban Five said during their trial in the US, refusing to cower and cringe in front of the imperialist repressive machine, so we too repeat after him that:

“Here, on this soil, we stand with our robust souls!”

There will be no retreat; there will be no surrender from us!

The ANC prosecutes an historic mission to forge a united, democratic, non-racist, non-sexist and prosperous society.

While the DA pays lip service to poverty, unemployment and inequality, we know these conditions intimately because our people have lived in them for centuries, condemned to their brutality by the system of racial tyranny of which the DA today is the most ardent defender and single-minded promoter.

For 104 years, our movement has struggled to overturn these conditions, concentrated as they are on black people in general, and Africans in particular.

The ANC has deployed Comrade Jacob Zuma as President to lead the implementation of a programme in government which will overcome these conditions.

It is under President Zuma’s leadership that,

- the National Development Plan was drafted and adopted;
- the National Health Insurance is being piloted;
- a new HIV and AIDS programme was developed, giving a real chance to long productive life to those living with HIV and AIDS;
- this country unveiled the largest infrastructure roll-out in its history;
- focus was changed towards rural development and has spearheaded a radical land reform programme;
- we now have two new universities in the Northern Cape and Mpumalanga;
- Further Education and Training Colleges have been restructured, their profile raised and billions of rand of investment made to improve their infrastructure;
- the NSFAS has been increased to over R10bn in 2016/17, and the children of poor parents and the “missing middle” earning less than R600m will continue to receive financial support from government;
- a bold capital expenditure expansion was announced by State-Owned Companies reflecting the expansionary outlook of this government towards economic investments;
- the first female AU Commission Chairperson in its 50 years of existence was elected;
- the energy challenge was resolved and nine-point plan for economic recovery developed.

These are the issues our political class should be focusing on.

South Africans would be better served by an opposition that seeks to improve existing initiatives, or offers compelling alternatives, rather than sitting back – free of the responsibility to govern – plotting ways to win news cycles and score political points.

Working together, with all South Africans who are committed to taking positive steps to improve our economy and society, we will move South Africa forward.

Our country’s politics today is too divided and polarised, driven by racial-commercial interests.

We need to unite our nation because these divisions are not good for all of us, especially during these difficult economic times.

The future of our Republic hangs by a thread; poverty, inequality and joblessness weaken all of us collectively; nobody benefits from their perpetuation.

Our country cries out for a leadership that will unite us, bridge the gaps, restore our hope in the future and point us ever forward towards the promise of a better life in a national democratic society where all shall enjoy their fundamental rights as equals.

We hear the call of our people for a good, visionary, uniting, ethical, transparent and accountable leadership that places the interests of the nation ahead of their own.

We know that there are many mistakes we commit as leadership in the course of pursuing our people’s interests.

This democracy is young, and so we learn by doing.

What we do not do right, we are determined to correct as we continue to learn how to better lead and serve our people in their very own best interests.

Finally, let me refer you to a conversation between a Buddha who was interrupted by a man during a lecture with a flood of abuse.

When the man finished, the Buddha asked him:

“If a man offered a gift to another, but the gift was declined, to whom would the gift belong to?
To the one who offered it, said the man.
Then, said the Buddha, I decline to accept your abuse and request you to keep it for yourself.”

This is our message to our opposition today: we decline to accept your abuse and request you to keep it for yourselves.

We will oppose this vote, not because, as we have said it, we take lightly the issues of corruption, integrity and transparency, but because we cannot join the regime change and economic plunder campaign of your global and domestic masters.

You may be their puppets, but we are not!

I thank you

My problem with the Freedom Charter

Like Steven Friedman highlights correctly: “Political documents, like politicians, do not serve us best when they are worshiped rather than critically analyzed”. 

The question of whether the freedom charter should be viewed as a revolutionary document or a democratic manifest must stem from the clarity provided above. The freedom charter is not without contention if brought to close scrutiny of what it entails and how it is articulated. The charter was drafted in 1955 with the final drafting of the Freedom Charter being undertaken by a small committee, which remained anonymous.

The preamble of the charter commences with the important statement that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white…” Ten Sections follow, each headed by a specific demand:

1. The people shall govern
2. All national groups shall have equal rights
3. The people shall share in the country’s wealth
4. The land shall be shared among those who work it
5. All shall be equal before the law
6. All shall enjoy equal human rights
7. There shall be work and security
8. The doors of learning and culture shall be opened
9. There shall be houses, security and comfort
10. There shall be peace and friendship

The charter ends with the solemn pledge: “These freedoms we will fight for, side by side, throughout our lives, until we have won our liberty”. By accepting the opening statement (preamble) the Congress of the People (2 888 delegates) accepted the principle of multiracialism; this is despite the fact that, as McKinely highlights, the PAC and black consciousness thinkers, with an Africanist nationalism narrative, vehemently rejected this and is arguably why both the PAC and Black consciousness thinkers broke away from the ANC.

The view point is that such a statement advocates “that the robber and the robbed are equal owners of the loot”. The idea met with some opposition, with left-wing radicals of the ANC wishing for militant and the right-wings distrusting a multiracial campaign. Acceptance of the 3^rd and 4^th sections means that the congress accepted the principle of nationalization (this meant that the mines, banks and factories should be transferred to workers). Other demands were to some extent moderate and utopian in nature.

However the charter has no Marxist narrative (it speaks not of a class struggle), the reference to nationalization is placed in vague terms and indicates state capitalism. As such, the charter cannot be viewed as a blueprint envisaging the destruction of our present parliamentary system of government and its replacement by a peoples republic; in essence, the Charter cannot be viewed as a revolutionary document for its main purpose, as articulated by Jordan Ngubane, was “to condition the African people for the purpose of accepting communism via the back door”. A revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system; 60 years from its birth, the charter has failed to radically overhaul the system of oppression (namely the economic and political systems of the country) and serves more of a democratic manifest of false promises.

Though writers such as Nsibirwa may argue that the Freedom charter continues to inspire us when things go right but may also help to point us in the right direction when things go wrong, and in view of its adoption in part of the constitution of the republic of South Africa, the value and the Relevance of the Freedom Charter, taking into consideration the above mentioned, outside of the political climate of which it was established, has become a shadow of the past. Its definitive sections which brought hope for a revolution which never started has false hope for its implementation currently and in the future. It would take a revolution to draw us back to the ideals of the Freedom Charter; a revolution which our current political climate, both locally and internationally, provides little to no room for. For the main fact that the freedom charter is a point of reference and not a driving force arguably reiterates its notion of a democratic archive as opposed to a radical driving tool and is, today, detached from reality.

By Thabo Shingange

The Revolution is not for SALE

The Revolution is not for SALE
ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall.

What informs this body of work is in the wake of an unprecedented success of a movement that was able to galvanize students politically affiliated and those that are not to a common cause and such a project was specifically #TuksFeesMustFall a resultant concept or trend if you may, from the broader national movement #FeesMustFall. Such a movement’s name is #UPrising, a lot is in a name especially when you conceive of the student body at the University of Pretoria affectionately referred to as Tuks. From the ashes that happened to be the fragments that held students back in terms of a convergence of voices was the reality we had been confronted with and like a phoenix UP rose from this grey area. From race, political affiliation, class and gender is but a few of the spoken of fragments. Although what the movement managed to achieve is history in the making given the institutional space in which their exploits unfolded, criticisms are present in light of the manifestations of the week that has passed. These criticisms are not afforded to discourage, but they are put forth in order for meaningful engagement and the aversion of elementary errors that have the potential to derail the movement or the worst case scenario put its members in danger were manifest especially on/from the 22nd of the month of October. The theories of social movements and resource mobilization will inform the argumentative edifice and criticisms to follow.

Resource Mobilization is a major sociological theory in the study of social movements. This emerged in the 70s but has been in existence since the days of the father of mobilization that asked a very elaborative and infamous question ‘what is to be done?’ Vladimir Lenin. Resource mobilization stresses the ability of a movement’s members to (1) acquire resources and to (2) mobilize people towards accomplishing the movement’s goals. This is contrary to the traditional theory of collective behavior that views social movements are deviant and irrational. Conversely, resource mobilization sees them as rational social institutions that are key actors in the terrain of contentious politics. According to resource mobilization theory, at the core a social movement organization works towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure. The last two factors namely, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure are pivotal to any social movement. Had #UPrising elected to act outside alliances with the respective political organizations on the campus there would be no need to refine organizational structure. But the movement chose to go into an alliance, thus it was obligatory that power and influence to be shared, as to avoid a concentration of power to one group. The differences might have been caucused in private but their ramifications were evident to a tuned eye coupled with intellect. Put simply, working towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media does not warrant ownership of the revolution. Social movements and student movements’ alike need all of the above resources to be effective, as deviance and grievances alone do not bring about social change.

This theory is one that assumes that individuals are rational, (not always, as a tendency of being affective is also a strong possibility) individuals weigh the costs and benefits of movement participation and act only if benefits outweigh costs and this does not however exempt the so-called funders that decide to find a cause. To what ends do the means of funding a revolution entail? What is to be done that student movements do not fall prey to capital tendencies? What conditions and terms did the movement give to the funders? Or does there lay a possibility that the funder dictates to the movement because of the resource in question? These questions are informed by the dynamics of capital’s capability to reconfigure itself and be embedded in social relations. Our funders are capitalists we should at least agree. In the contemporary configuration of capitalism the exchange is no longer one that subscribes to a cash exchange alone. This needs to be looked at by movements as to avoid co-option to capitalist interests in how they go about reaching their goals.

Student movements are goal-oriented, but organization is more important than resources. Organization means the interactions and relations between social movement organizations. In the Tuks context the power dynamic that saw the concentration of power fall to one party and subsequent allegations of sabotage by others are as a result of the reluctance to share power and ideas. Again, it is not only about power but an acknowledgement that parties to the alliance need to take into cognizance that as individual entities they possess both capabilities and limits. A case in point here is that time and again political organizations in the University of Pretoria have attempted to mobilize students but their efforts are often thwarted by the directive that in mobilizing students the end-goal is to align them to a political ideology, to form part of a constituency. What UPrising managed to achieve is to mobilize students inter-sectionally, this mobilization cut-across race, gender, political affiliation, different societal class positions, students-staff dynamic and levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate). But what this movement lacked was the strategic acumen that is deployed in contentious politics, a terrain that political societies relish and are flamboyant in enganging. This highlights the gaps in limits and capabilities in all parties concerned, a call that warrants complementary convergence of the two. Efficiency of the organizational infrastructure is a key resource in itself.

Resource mobilization theory can be divided into two camps. McCarthy and Zald are the originators and major advocates of the classical entrepreneurial (economic) version of the theory while Tilly and McAdam are proponents of the political version of resource mobilization. The former argues that grievances are not sufficient to explain creation of social movements. Instead access to and control over resources is the crucial factor. The grand law of economics supply and demand seems to give a thorough explanation of the ebb flow of resources to and from the movements, and that individual actions (or lack thereof) is accounted for by rational choice theory. This should not however operate in isolation of the latter; the political model focuses on the political struggle instead of economic factors. This division also implies the organic complementary pairing of the two.


What unfolded on the 22nd of October 2015 was rather unfortunate, but we should appreciate it nonetheless as lessons were drawn from it. From #OccupyBurnett to a possible takeover by unknown agents a phenomenon that could have been averted had there been a synergy from all alliance partners. Suspicion among the alliance partners became pronounced and the ends of people’s fingers aimed at their counterparts. It is imperative that I flag the existence of a contemporary capitalist class that thrives when groups they are part of are fragmented. Student movements need to stay vigilant and be on the look-out of capitalistic agendas that may potentially derail the movement and dispirit the masses. We need to take ownership as students of our student movements and let whatever alumni participate only on an advisory capacity. In owning such a movement let us seek our own financial backing and refrain from accepting funds from funders that are willful in such a way that they want a seat at the table.

We have to concede that the power dynamics that unfolded because of a preoccupation with platforms and a concentration of power by one group against the others was a gamble with the safety and lives of students as collateral. However, this was an operational exercise an equivalent of building a car as we simultaneously drive it. We have gone the distance and we have learnt. By ‘we’ I mean the entire student body of the University of Pretoria. The fees have indeed fallen, but they are not flat on the ground as I’m of the belief that they are on their knees. Them falling will be the day we realize free quality education in our lifetime. This was just a small victory of a long gruesome war against the dominant mode of production which is the capitalistic logic. We still need to surmount battles such as transformation and academic exclusions in our institutions amongst others. Reflection upon this victory is necessary and this is by no means a rule book on what is to be done when a movement is in motion. Rather these are pointers on what we duly need to consider as a movement in concert with other movements. We were strategically outplayed however by university management; in that the suspension of academic activities that subsequently meant that support services had to be halted meant that we were thwarted an opportunity to mobilize cleaners in our broader struggle. What I mean by this I have written and articulated in another paper of which I will make available.
The words of a student leader by the name Junior Ackotia hit home when he said to a group of students ‘no-one has ownership of the revolution, because should this be the case, then we have a problem on our hands’.

We have come, we have seen and given the goal we set to achieve we have definitely conquered. But we could do much better if we reiterate this: #ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall. The Revolution is not for SALE! To non-political affiliated groups realize your limits in the terrain of contentious politics and to student political organizations in the terrain of intersectional struggles and mobilization realize your limits and may both converge as we continue to make history in our lifetime.

Amandla!!!

By Tebogo Winston Mogoru

The illusion of the Apolitical and the terrorism thereof

I really don't get worked up easily. I get worked up perhaps when I go get a haircut and I tell the barber to not go anywhere near my beard but he goes ahead and trims it like he thinks its not his instruction to follow. Yes, maybe then I get worked up quite quickly and can let my speech be seasoned with a bit of French. The other time is when I come across obnoxious people who claim to not belong to any political faction (or school of thought for that matter) and still insist on patronising the efforts of those who are politically aligned. I believe that truth should be accepted as truth no matter where it comes from (let us not get carried away into debates about 'what is truth'). What Im really trying to relay is that a responsible rule of thumb is appreciating arguments and not turning towards who exactly is arguing; we should play the ball and not the player. This rule of thumb allows me to be open minded when engaging individuals. At this point it suffices me to say that there are 'apolitical' people who actually appreciate the relevance of political factions and their efforts. However, such are few and are only a handful compared to the more prevalent intellectually bankrupt and politically uncircumcised so called 'I am neutral' individuals- it is these ones I have a bone to pick actually.

These are a people who really discourage the struggle. If they are white, it is easy to understand where their disinterest stems from- but for a brother or sister of common colour to show contempt is a unique form of ignorance. It suffices me to say that ignorance isn't a privilege but a pestilence.  A pervasive pesticide subliminally, institutionally and socially encouraged by those who would benefit in the maintenance of the status quo. I would that people be silent if they aren't going to offer up any constructive and informed critique to those who choose to 'box themselves' in whatever colour of political ideology- whether its yellow, blue, red or green for that matter.

What further exacerbates my anger is the fact that some would rather actually take time off to argue that there really is no problem to begin with. For a person to abstain from problem solving initiatives is one thing but for one to actually try and actively argue that the problem doesn't exist is another. Such apolitical people become enemies of progress. They become obstacles to ground level soldiers and are really microcosms of the type of upper level rhetoric expressed by those managing the system being opposed.

The illusion of such neutral people is that they fail to see that by putting so much energy and effort in going about their apathy, a stance is actually taken. This is a counter revolutionary stance as they actively discourage activism by looking down upon the efforts of political participants. This illusion is actually etched by the same structure being opposed- one which encourages individualism and white hegemony. Such neutral people are quite ignorant of the fruits yielded by the 'unattractive' politics they so want to distance themselves from. This is because more time is spent on negative news headlines concerning political organizations and figures than it is actually grasping grass root concepts of power, identity and consciousness. The illusion of neutrality is that the apolitical believe that they are pure and objective and not involved in the issues and thereby making them more enlightened to express their opinions and views. Sadly, one couldn't be any further from the truth. As it has been quoted before- there is no virtue in being neutral.

Linguistically when you engage a person who chooses to not identify with any political stance (or atleast identify what umbrella they fall under) is that they have a field day tearing down a person's walls yet they themselves don't expose themselves to the same vulnerability. Such is a cowardice you will find with such individuals. It is almost like fighting an invisible person. Such apolitical people hide behind the 'I DONT BELONG TO ANY PARTY' reasoning because it so convenient to throw stones and attack other buildings when you yourself have no foundation of your own. Socially they are obstacles as they mislead potential future agents of change with their distorted approach towards social issues.

It really does not take alot to write what I wrote.
It is actually quite easy to express yourself when what you are expressing are deep felt convictions you can almost articulate half asleep with your mouth full of food. (This is why this blog exists in the first place: for elongated rants which go beyond twitter and facebook platforms). As Ravi Zecharias once said 'when arguing convictions, it is better to hope for a civil outcome than it is to hope that your counterpart will be persuaded to see things otherwise'.

There really is nothing to appreciate in one who is on the fence- especially when they are able to be a part of the solutions. If apolitical people truly want to be neutral they should not be quick to conclude that things are how they seem on the surface. True neutrality will be having an informed viewpoint on matters. A viewpoint not clouded by their emotions but one which takes into consideration the fact that politics is an emotional practice aswell. Apolitical people could be useful if they would empathize more than they patronize. They could be pivotal in narrating the experiences of those who are involved and not add to the many hurdles faced by those in the fields.

Honestly, if your critique isn't constructive- it isn't worth recognition.