Cheers erupted from the ANC caucus in parliament as speaker Baleka Mbete read the results of the secret ballot vote of no confidence against Jacob Zuma. 177 for. 198 against. The irony is that this group of jubilant souls were only celebrating their own demise.
To say the opposition lost would be technically accurate, but not at all a fair reflection of the bigger picture. The vote of no confidence failed, but the opposition won. You see, this was always a win-win situation. The very idea of the no-confidence vote was to put the ANC between a rock and a hard place. That is why we have had 8 of them already. Each time the ANC votes to keep Jacob Zuma in power they tie themselves ever closer to their greatest liability and alienate those who "love the ANC but hate Zuma." Every time the ANC caucus puts their weight behind Zuma they lose seats in the 2019 election.
I'm sure most ANC MPs know this, but are more concerned about saving themselves from the whip of party discipline than saving the party from the wrath of the voters and the mire of immorality. Though sometimes I do wonder.
On the other hand, voting Zuma out would also be a dangerous road and additionally, it would be an unpredictable one. No one really knows what would have happened had the required 50 ANC MP's broken ranks and had the president removed. It is far from inconceivable that it would cause an irreparable rift and possibly a split in the party. Far less likely, it would have been the turning point for the ANC to course correct and repair its once honourable reputation. But those possibilities are just what-ifs now. The ruling party has chosen the slow poison.
The only way for the ANC to escape this trap would be to recall Zuma itself. This would allow them to show some semblance of morality while not bending to the will of the opposition, though at this point it may even be too late for such a move to still be considered a show of strength. But this hasn't yet and certainly will not happen until at least the electoral conference in December. There are too many people high up on his side who would go down with him.
The country needs Jacob Zuma gone. But Jacob Zuma is not the extent of the problem. The ANC is the problem. You cannot separate Zuma from the ANC, and the secret ballot vote proved that. Zuma is not unique, he is a representation of what is happening in the rest of his party. Most of the ANC are as morally decayed as Zuma. If it were not so, he would not be in power. The whole party needs to go.
So while the DA and the EFF publicly mourn the retaining of President Zuma, privately they will be celebrating another hole fired into the sinking ship of the ruling party, all while its hopeless crew drown, shackled to their own pride.
Showing posts with label DA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DA. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 August 2017
Monday, 27 March 2017
Maimane's not so Big Moment
I am amazed, but not particularly surprised, that the Helen Zille tweet row has carried on for as long as it has, and that so few sensible voices have been prominent in the debate. I've had many thoughts on the issue since my post last week. These are a few.
First off, Zille needs berating for her own foolishness, not because what she said was wrong, but because someone with her experience in both politics and journalism should have foreseen the reaction to her tweets. She knows better than most how the racial propaganda war works in South Africa and has been a victim of it enough to have anticipated her moral lynching.
Zille's moment of naivety, however, by no means justifies the manufactured outrage from those who think only in terms of black and white. The dominant argument remains that Zille defended colonialism and thereby offended millions of South Africans who suffered because of it. It's even gotten to the point where the Black First Land First movement has decided to lay racism charges against her. I believe I sufficiently established the ridiculousness of these claims in my last article, but in case you were still in doubt I will further elaborate.
The now infamous tweet series started with a reference to how Singapore achieved major development by building off what the colonists left behind. The whole idea was how South Africa could emulate that, so the argument was never racial nor a defense of colonialism from the start, but merely about how to achieve development. One should not be surprised, however, at the racialist vultures who were hovering, waiting for any misrepresentable statement to cry racist over. Contrary to one popular argument, Zille did not say that there were good aspects of colonialism. She said that there were good aspects to the legacy of colonialism i.e. what we are left with because of colonialism. One can perfectly reasonably call colonialism abhorrent and evil and simultaneously suggest that there are consequences of colonialism that we can exploit to improve the lives of the people.
To sum it up in one question, Do you believe running water is a good thing, that written language is a good thing, democracy, electricity, modern travel? If yes, then you agree with Mrs Zille. The ANC agrees with her, the EFF, even Black First Land First agree with her. In fact, the ANC's own idea of the Developmental State is the same principle Zille was arguing.
Now, significantly, Zille's tweets are supposedly sufficient reason for her to be axed as premier of the Western Cape. We've already established why this is not the case, but let us try to convince Mmusi Maimane of this too. Apparently this is Maimane's chance to step out of Zille's shadow and show that he is the true leader of the DA by beheading his mentor and predecessor. Of course, this is a tempting opportunity, but it would cost him his integrity. Hopefully Mmusi will not fall into the trap baited by his enemies. So for many it is a question of whether Mmusi Maimane will man up and show that he is the true leader of the DA or stay in the shadow of Zille, but really the question is whether he will give up his integrity for cheap political points.
Zille's moment of naivety, however, by no means justifies the manufactured outrage from those who think only in terms of black and white. The dominant argument remains that Zille defended colonialism and thereby offended millions of South Africans who suffered because of it. It's even gotten to the point where the Black First Land First movement has decided to lay racism charges against her. I believe I sufficiently established the ridiculousness of these claims in my last article, but in case you were still in doubt I will further elaborate.
The now infamous tweet series started with a reference to how Singapore achieved major development by building off what the colonists left behind. The whole idea was how South Africa could emulate that, so the argument was never racial nor a defense of colonialism from the start, but merely about how to achieve development. One should not be surprised, however, at the racialist vultures who were hovering, waiting for any misrepresentable statement to cry racist over. Contrary to one popular argument, Zille did not say that there were good aspects of colonialism. She said that there were good aspects to the legacy of colonialism i.e. what we are left with because of colonialism. One can perfectly reasonably call colonialism abhorrent and evil and simultaneously suggest that there are consequences of colonialism that we can exploit to improve the lives of the people.
To sum it up in one question, Do you believe running water is a good thing, that written language is a good thing, democracy, electricity, modern travel? If yes, then you agree with Mrs Zille. The ANC agrees with her, the EFF, even Black First Land First agree with her. In fact, the ANC's own idea of the Developmental State is the same principle Zille was arguing.
Now, significantly, Zille's tweets are supposedly sufficient reason for her to be axed as premier of the Western Cape. We've already established why this is not the case, but let us try to convince Mmusi Maimane of this too. Apparently this is Maimane's chance to step out of Zille's shadow and show that he is the true leader of the DA by beheading his mentor and predecessor. Of course, this is a tempting opportunity, but it would cost him his integrity. Hopefully Mmusi will not fall into the trap baited by his enemies. So for many it is a question of whether Mmusi Maimane will man up and show that he is the true leader of the DA or stay in the shadow of Zille, but really the question is whether he will give up his integrity for cheap political points.
Thursday, 16 March 2017
Storm in a Teacup
In the midst of a political disaster zone, with the social grants crisis reaching it's climax, xenophobia emerging from the dark crevices of society and more corrupt and incompetent so-called politicians being nominated to and defended in parliament, the media, politicians and opinionists of our beloved country decided to release all of hell's fury on Helen Zille in light of some, well, pretty uncontroversial tweets.
This is what the most prominent of the tweets said:
"For those claiming legacy of colonialism was ONLY negative, think of our independent judiciary, transport infrastructure, piped water etc."
Of course what this means is that colonialism was a great thing and we should go back to the days of apartheid, so the hysteria of our radio personalities and twitterati is completely justified. Except that's not at all what she said. Let's break down her argument (luckily she made it in a tweet, so there is not that much analysing to do):
These are the premises:
This is what the most prominent of the tweets said:
"For those claiming legacy of colonialism was ONLY negative, think of our independent judiciary, transport infrastructure, piped water etc."
Of course what this means is that colonialism was a great thing and we should go back to the days of apartheid, so the hysteria of our radio personalities and twitterati is completely justified. Except that's not at all what she said. Let's break down her argument (luckily she made it in a tweet, so there is not that much analysing to do):
These are the premises:
- Colonialism brought development to Africa, for example, an independent judiciary, transport infrastructure and piped water.
- These examples of development are good things.
This leads her to the conclusion that:
- Some aspects of the colonial legacy are good.
No sober minded person could refute the premises, and the conclusion follows directly from them and so one cannot deny that either. Yet almost every analyst has twisted her statement to portray her as a racist, pro-apartheid colonialism-defender. Even her own party has distanced itself from her. To refute these claims let's look at what she does not do:
- Justify the oppression under colonial rule.
- Justify land theft or slavery or any other negative aspects assosciated with colonialism.
- Justify colonialism at all, or even give an opinion on whether it was good or bad as a whole.
- Praise colonists.
- Even mention apartheid! Yet Zille, an anti-apartheid activist back in the day, is being accused of being pro-apartheid.
- Say anything racist, unless you believe facts can be racist, but even then it's a far stretch.
Acknowledging that some good came out of colonialism does not imply that colonialism as a whole is good. And she has made this known. My favourite argument by these hysterical Zille-phobes is the analogy with Nazism. "So if there are good things that come out of things that are, on the whole bad," one might say, "then there were good things about Nazism too!" Actually yes. The Nazis brought an end to the great depression. Do you then mean to imply that the end of the great depression was a bad thing? The notion is utterly ridiculous. The end of the great depression was a good, whether or not the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. Furthermore it does not justify the holocaust or any of the other evil acts perpetrated by the Nazis, just as saying that the development brought about by colonialism is good does not justify the evil done under that ideology.
Absolutism. The idea that if something or someone is part bad they must be all bad. That is what it boils down to. It is a fallacy, but it has become very prominent in the world today, especially between opposing ends of the political spectrum. Look at Donald Trump for example. According to InfoWars he can do nothing wrong, but according to CNN he can do nothing right. But the fact is, that whether you support him or not, you can, and should, acknowledge that he does both good and bad. And it is the same with almost everything.
My biggest worry with this matter is that people don't have the ability to think for themselves. Many latch on to what Fikile Mbalula or Eusebius McKaiser say and take that as the truth without analysing the story themselves. And it is this lack of critical thinking that keeps corrupt and incompetent leaders like Jacob Zuma and Bathabile Dlamini in power. Hopefully more and more of us can learn to think critically, to create a better South Africa.
Saturday, 25 February 2017
Assessing the Budget Speech
So I was pretty close with my predictions on the budget, though they weren't too hard to call for anyone. One thing that did surprise was the new tax bracket: 45% for those earning more than 1.5 million. We'll get back to that one though.
In the immediate aftermath of the budget speech there was nothing but praise for Gordhan for masterfully negotiating the political tightrope he had found before him. But I think there has been enough analysis on that. I want to focus on what the budget actually means for South Africa.
Perhaps the most notable point is how much emphasis Gordhan puts on reducing the deficit, but while doing almost nothing about it. There was no sign of spending cuts, not even the same admonition to end wastefulness that was given last year. Instead there were increases in social grants (which, as it stands, may not even make their intended destinations) and billions more thrown at education. Now I can sense the immediate protests of "But we need more money for these things!" I'm afraid though that if we keep raising the debt to finance welfare, we will get to the point where it will be impossible to pay for these things at all. Especially in an economy that is growing at hardly above 0%. As much as we want to be charitable, we need to be sustainable to survive. And a budget deficit, especially in our economic climate, is not sustainable.
The little that was done to address the deficit involved raising taxes. unfortunately this is a self-defeating method for such an aim. Having a balanced budget is simple. Income must equal expenses. So if expenses exceed income we can either reduce expenses, which Gordhan hasn't done, or we can increase income, which for the government is tax income. But this is where Gordhan went wrong: increasing the tax rate is not the same as increasing tax income. In fact, the very opposite is true. Often decreasing the tax rate leads to an increase in tax income in the long run. Why? Decreasing the tax rate attracts investment, investment brings economic growth and economic growth results in there being more money to tax.
This is where the new tax bracket comes in. Instant logic argues that 4% is not that big a difference, especially for people earning more than one and a half million a year. If someone can pay 41% surely they can pay 45%. Looking more deeply one may consider that for a lot of people that 4% could be the straw that breaks the camels back. There is only so many times you can take just a little bit more before all the little bits add up to a whole lot. And 41% is already a lot. So that 4% could well drive many people out of South Africa, to countries where they both earn more and keep more of what they earn. And you may say, "Oh, it's only 100 000 people that are affected, and only a fraction of them will leave anyway." But remember, these 100 000 are the people who contribute most to our economy. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and especially businessmen and entrepreneurs, the people who have the potential to grow the economy and create jobs. We have already been experiencing a mass exodus of these people and can't afford to lose any more. Marginalising the wealthy has a negative affect on all of society.
Unfortunately a budget that is good for our economy and for the people of South Africa is impossible in this political climate. So taking that into consideration, I too shall have to render my praise to Minister Gordhan for the budget he presented in such trying circumstances.
In the immediate aftermath of the budget speech there was nothing but praise for Gordhan for masterfully negotiating the political tightrope he had found before him. But I think there has been enough analysis on that. I want to focus on what the budget actually means for South Africa.
Perhaps the most notable point is how much emphasis Gordhan puts on reducing the deficit, but while doing almost nothing about it. There was no sign of spending cuts, not even the same admonition to end wastefulness that was given last year. Instead there were increases in social grants (which, as it stands, may not even make their intended destinations) and billions more thrown at education. Now I can sense the immediate protests of "But we need more money for these things!" I'm afraid though that if we keep raising the debt to finance welfare, we will get to the point where it will be impossible to pay for these things at all. Especially in an economy that is growing at hardly above 0%. As much as we want to be charitable, we need to be sustainable to survive. And a budget deficit, especially in our economic climate, is not sustainable.
The little that was done to address the deficit involved raising taxes. unfortunately this is a self-defeating method for such an aim. Having a balanced budget is simple. Income must equal expenses. So if expenses exceed income we can either reduce expenses, which Gordhan hasn't done, or we can increase income, which for the government is tax income. But this is where Gordhan went wrong: increasing the tax rate is not the same as increasing tax income. In fact, the very opposite is true. Often decreasing the tax rate leads to an increase in tax income in the long run. Why? Decreasing the tax rate attracts investment, investment brings economic growth and economic growth results in there being more money to tax.
This is where the new tax bracket comes in. Instant logic argues that 4% is not that big a difference, especially for people earning more than one and a half million a year. If someone can pay 41% surely they can pay 45%. Looking more deeply one may consider that for a lot of people that 4% could be the straw that breaks the camels back. There is only so many times you can take just a little bit more before all the little bits add up to a whole lot. And 41% is already a lot. So that 4% could well drive many people out of South Africa, to countries where they both earn more and keep more of what they earn. And you may say, "Oh, it's only 100 000 people that are affected, and only a fraction of them will leave anyway." But remember, these 100 000 are the people who contribute most to our economy. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and especially businessmen and entrepreneurs, the people who have the potential to grow the economy and create jobs. We have already been experiencing a mass exodus of these people and can't afford to lose any more. Marginalising the wealthy has a negative affect on all of society.
Unfortunately a budget that is good for our economy and for the people of South Africa is impossible in this political climate. So taking that into consideration, I too shall have to render my praise to Minister Gordhan for the budget he presented in such trying circumstances.
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Preparing for the Budget Speech
It's a good thing that Pravin Gordhan is not one who is easily rattled. At least he doesn't show it if he is. Very few people in any job could be in a more stressful situation than our finance minister is in now. Multiple branches of the ANC are calling for his head, a rumoured potential replacement has been nominated for parliament, and he is preparing for the most important public event on his calendar, the budget speech, which needs to balance powerful conflicting interests.
With the ANC under pressure and policy tide turning toward populism as a release valve on the one hand, and an ailing economy in desperate need of some freedom therapy on the other, Gordhan has his work cut out. He is walking a tight rope. What we want him to say is this: "We are privatising the SOEs, phasing out state welfare and cutting taxes." This would catch the ears of the business world and spark a new era of economic growth. The rand would literally jump in value, but he would certainly lose his job. The ANC Youth League, Women's League and the MKTV would be joined by a host of more conservative ANC structures and members in calling for his head and Zuma would garner more than enough support to bring down the axe. But it's nice to fantacise about a budget that would actually help the economy.
To win back his detractors would require exactly the opposite of what we need. Increase taxes on the wealthy, more welfare and tons of investment in black business. However Gordhan is both intelligent and moral, at least when standing next to many of his ANC comrades, so there is no chance this will happen either. Besides, I doubt he could care less about what Collen Maine and company have to say. No exponents of this line of thinking have ever shown any understanding of economics, or even the ability to predict the consequences of ones actions. Unfortunately these people can say whatever they like, since they are not in a position to make the decisions and so will never be held accountable. No wonder Gordhan ignores them.
What is likely to happen is this: subtle tax increases attempting to raise tax income without driving away investment and subtle spending cuts in an attempt to reduce costs without sending the populists into a state of outrage. This is why he left big issues like income tax and SOEs alone last year and will probably do so again this year while focusing on things like sugar and sin taxes and cutting down on wasteful expenditure.
So I have pretty low expectations for this budget speech. I don't see anything radical happening, for better or worse. Gordhan, for the sake of keeping his job, without ruining the economy, will probably just deliver more of the same. But I hope I'm wrong.
With the ANC under pressure and policy tide turning toward populism as a release valve on the one hand, and an ailing economy in desperate need of some freedom therapy on the other, Gordhan has his work cut out. He is walking a tight rope. What we want him to say is this: "We are privatising the SOEs, phasing out state welfare and cutting taxes." This would catch the ears of the business world and spark a new era of economic growth. The rand would literally jump in value, but he would certainly lose his job. The ANC Youth League, Women's League and the MKTV would be joined by a host of more conservative ANC structures and members in calling for his head and Zuma would garner more than enough support to bring down the axe. But it's nice to fantacise about a budget that would actually help the economy.
To win back his detractors would require exactly the opposite of what we need. Increase taxes on the wealthy, more welfare and tons of investment in black business. However Gordhan is both intelligent and moral, at least when standing next to many of his ANC comrades, so there is no chance this will happen either. Besides, I doubt he could care less about what Collen Maine and company have to say. No exponents of this line of thinking have ever shown any understanding of economics, or even the ability to predict the consequences of ones actions. Unfortunately these people can say whatever they like, since they are not in a position to make the decisions and so will never be held accountable. No wonder Gordhan ignores them.
What is likely to happen is this: subtle tax increases attempting to raise tax income without driving away investment and subtle spending cuts in an attempt to reduce costs without sending the populists into a state of outrage. This is why he left big issues like income tax and SOEs alone last year and will probably do so again this year while focusing on things like sugar and sin taxes and cutting down on wasteful expenditure.
So I have pretty low expectations for this budget speech. I don't see anything radical happening, for better or worse. Gordhan, for the sake of keeping his job, without ruining the economy, will probably just deliver more of the same. But I hope I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)