COMMENT - On the EFF's betrayal, their deal with the infamous Lord Renwick to turn away from land reform. So who is Lord Renwick? Lord Renwick has directorships of the following:
Vallar PLC - the investment vehicle of
Nat Rothschild, son of
Jacob, 4th Lord Rothschild (great-grandson of the 1st Lord Rothschild
who funded Cecil Rhodes) and the future 5th Lord Rothschild.
SABMiller - which was advised by NM Rothschild.
According to Sourcewatch, Lord Renwick also advised Lord Carrington during the Lancaster House negotiations. (
Lord Carrington was also the Chairman of the David Rockefeller founded and once chaired Bilderberg Group.)
However Lord Renwick's main job seems to be Vice Chair of Investment Banking at JPMorgan Europe and Vice Chair of JPMorgan Cazenove,
ultimateley owned by the
Rothschild/Rockefeller's
JPMorgan Chase:
The Chase-Equitable merger not only created the world’s largest bank in terms of assets and deposits but also gave the Rockefeller family, which con-trolled Equitable, a strong connection to Chase. The Rockefellers have been asso-ciated with Chase ever since.
(BLACK OPINION SA) Who Is Lord Robin Renwick Julius Malema’s Handler From London?
By admin Posted in Featured
Posted on April 13, 2016
By BO Staff Writer
During October 2015, the top leadership of the ostensible “Marxist-Leninist” parliamentary party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) led by its “Commander in Chief” Julius Malema took a tour to London where they met amongst others, ‘Lord’ Robin Renwick. The meeting with Renwick and other representatives of imperialism happened under the secret rule called the “Chatham House Rule”. Up until now no one knows what was said between the EFF and the representatives of British colonialism. The media is also not interested to ask the relevant questions. What is known is that after meeting Robin Renwick and others, EFF changed its policy in a number of significant ways.
Renwick gloats about being the man who converted Nelson Mandela from demanding nationalisation of the economy to becoming a servant of capitalism and private property. Since meeting with Renwick, EFF has been quite on things like “land expropriation without compensation” and “nationalisation”. EFF has been focused on the “Guptas Must Go” and the “Zuma Must Fall” campaigns which are in turn fully supported by British and Afrikaner imperialism.
We don’t know what was said between Malema and Renwick but leaked pictures show the two men in deep conversation. After meeting Lord Renwick, EFF radically altered its anti-imperialist stance and has since become an agent of imperialism. They have also denounced radical land reform as well as Robert Mugabe, who is the only person who has been able to return land to black people in Southern Africa in recent times. The most bizarre, and still to be explained, policy change of the EFF after meeting Renwick is the attack on the late President Mandela’s legacy. Not even a year before, the EFF was singing praises of Mandela including leading a big procession to his home after his death to pay homage to him.
What has led to the change of heart? One explanation is that white global capitalism is worried that it has elevated Mandela to such a high point that he is likely to be regarded as a saint by even the white population. This is not acceptable as its inconsistent with black representation by white supremacy. In this context Mandela must necessarily be brought down to normal black status as a figure with no legacy to celebrate. Whites have used Mandela when it suited them – now they are abusing him. It’s the same old story. What is shocking is to see the willingness of Julius Malema and company to do the dirty work of white supremacy.
Robin Renwick with Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela referred to Robin Renwick as his advisor.
Robin Renwick with Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela referred to Renwick as his advisor
Lord Robin Renwick – Malema’s new friend – is a nasty piece of work. He is a chief imperialist negotiator who was deployed to Southern Africa by the Queen under the Margaret Thatcher administration. He has successfully negotiated neo-colonial settlements consecutively in Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa. In November 1978 he was deployed to Zimbabwe, where he was appointed head of the Rhodesia Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He later served as Political Adviser to the Governor of ‘Rhodesia’. He had clear instructions to find a suitable black successor government that was: amicable to working with the British, willing to keep the economy in the hands of White Monopoly Capital, and, willing to accept the neo-colonial constitution drafted by the British that served to protect White minority rights. As indicated below, in order to delay and confuse the process of negotiations Renwick is not shy to share his strategy:
“So we produced a rather wild plan, if you like, rather than recognising Muzorewa we should change the constitution into a respectable constitution but with protection for minority rights and that we should ourselves take over the running of the country for a period and then de-colonise it as we had in other countries.”
Bishop Abel Muzorewa signs the Lancaster House Agreement seated next to British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington.
The Muzorewa sham independence process fell apart but it did buy the British colonialists breathing space and cut the momentum of the armed struggle. The British were reluctantly forced to hand over power to Robert Mugabe via agreements made at Lancaster.
Robin Renwick was closely involved in the process of what he calls ‘decolonising’ Zimbabwe. He convinced Robert Mugabe, who was adamant on arm struggle for liberation, to delay the real liberation of the Zimbabwean people by another 20 years by leaving the economy and the land in the hands of the British. The Queen awarded Renwick with the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) in 1980 for his service to the crown. Traditionally these awards go to those who “hold high and confidential offices within Her Majesty’s colonial possessions, and in reward for services rendered to the Crown in relation to the foreign affairs of the Empire”.
In 1987 Robin Renwick was deployed to South Africa by the Queen under similar instructions. South Africa had declared a state of emergency and like Zimbabwe (seven years earlier) was costing European investors billions of rands. Renwick’s orders were to find a suitable successor to President PW Botha, for the purpose of freeing Nelson Mandela who the British had identified as the black leader that they could best work with, and drafting a new neo-colonial constitution that protected the rights of the white minority who owned the SA economy. Renwick also had instructions to get SA to agree to giving Namibia its independence. Two conditions were attached to this nominal independence. Firstly, that no radical return of land must be realized and secondly, that SA destroys all its nuclear weapons. South Africa has been allowed to develop nuclear power under white rule but the global white system was worried that independence would put the bomb in black hands. Renwick, achieved both objectives within a four year period.
In his book ‘Mission to South Africa, Diary of a Revolution’ Renwick details the critical role he played in convincing Nelson Mandela to abandon there ANCs policy on nationalisation. He became close friends with Nelson Mandela who regarded him as his advisor during the negotiation process between 1987 and 1991. The Queen Knighted Renwich in 1989 for his service rendered to the crown in SA.
Renwick serves in the House of Lords in the British Parliament and has business links to the Rothchilds, the Ruperts and some of the biggest multinational companies in the world including mining companies in Asia, Europe, Australia and Africa that mine gold, diamonds, copper, coal, natural gas, petroleum etc. In Africa he has held director positions in SAB Miller the second largest brewery in the world, Harmony Gold the third largest gold mining company in SA, Gem Diamonds a company linked to forceful removal of Bushmen peoples in Botswana. I must be pointed out that Gem Diamonds also has mines in the following African countries: Angola, Botswana, Central African Republic, DRC and Lesotho.
Here are some of the key changes to policy that Renwick has already achieved with the EFF:
Abandoned revolutionary violence to reclaim land.
Pledged loyalty to section 25 of the SA Constitution which is about buying land.
Attacked Zimbabwean land redistribution.
Announced alliance with the DA.
Embarked on an anti Gupta and anti Zuma campaign instead of fighting white capital.
Formed an anti Gupta and anti Zuma alliance with the representative of white monopoly capital, Johann Rupert.
Malema is attending private meetings in the Chamber of Commerce under the ‘Chantam House Rule’. This means that it’s a secret, that one bind oneself to, not to reveal who one is meeting with. This includes meetings with affiliates of the principal party(s). White Power handlers like Renwick are preparing Julius Malema, like they prepared Nelson Mandela in the 1990’s, to carry out the mandate of the Queen.
In the press conference held after the London tour, the EFF had promised to make the footage of the secret meeting available. In fact the media was asked by the EFF to get directly in touch with the award winning film maker Rehad Desai to get the footage. All attempts to get the footage from Desai has been totally unsuccessful. Check this exchange with a Black Opinion journalist:
“[2015/12/02, 10:46 PM]
Hi Rehad and Zivia,
I heard on news that you recorded meetings held during EFF UK tour. Please advise when footage will be uploaded on the net and if you managed to film all meetings held during EFFs tour?
Response from Rehad:
Hi
My arrangement re: footage is with Mbuyiseni, what he decides to put up on the internet is a matter for him to decide. Any queries you may have I would ask you to contact him directly.
Best “
But this is contrary to the publicly stated view that the film maker would make the footage available to whoever asked for it. Anyway the BO journalist persisted; and sent another request to Desai:
“[2015/12/02, 10:53 PM]
Hi Rehad,
Please assist with clarity with the following:
Did you film the investors meeting at the royal institute of international affairs also known as Chatham house. The one where lord Robin Renwick was?
Also the footage you captured was for EFF, where you hired as a camera man for EFF or were you there as a film maker? “
Rehad’s response:
“No not all. I have been granted privileged access to film for a documentary I am making.”
The BO journalist asked further:
“Did you film the investors meeting at at the Chatham House the Royal Institute of International Relations? The one wherelord Robin Renwick was?”
Rehad responded:
“As I stated I am making an independent documentary film, I am not hired by the EFF. We filmed all of the meetings including Chatham house.
In what capacity are you asking these questions? Please desist from attempting to use me to fight your battles with the EFF whatever they are. I find you questions and tone objectionable.”
BO left it there. Its clear that Rehad Desai could not make available the discussion at the secret meeting. The public offer that the footage would be made available was just for show and EFF knows that the media would not follow up on the matter and therefore the meeting remains secret. Clearly, the film maker was put in a difficult position where he was put on the spot for a matter he had no mandate to deliver on. This seems to be the modus operandi of EFF. It knows the media is not interested in its contradictions or lies. The media has for instance up to now not cared to ask what happed to the promise of occupying ABSA which was the key demand of the march to the JSE. The relationship between the media and the anti Zuma faction is now decidedly unethical.
EFF shall not reveal the content of the secret meeting. However we can clearly observe the policy changes that are directly linked to the meeting.
Lord Robin Renwick is yet again being mandated to make sure that the coming post 1994 revolution is subverted. Finding a South African Abel Tendekayi Muzorewa like leader, who would be wiling to ensure that white interests are taken care of while presenting the fight as one for economic freedom, is an integral part of that mandate. There is little doubt that South Africa is facing real prospects of an anti capitalist and anti settler colonialist revolution in terms of which every sector of black life – the poor, the unemployed, the landless, the black middle class which faces racism everyday and black business that is subverted by white capital – shall all come together as one radical block to defeat white monopoly capital and thereby end white rule. Just like in the the 1970’s in Zimbabwe when colonialism was under attack by revolutionary forces a reactionary was found in Muzorewa, in South Africa under similar conditions Mandela was tamed to lead the people to the 1994 sell out settlement. The same colonial forces are now terrified that they may be swept under by a revolutionary upheaval in SA. To this end they have identified their South African post 1994 Muzorewa – Juluis Malema.
So, what unites Malema and Robin Renwick who up to a few years ago was still trying a regime change in Zimbabwe? An important dimension that needs serious consideration here is that Renwick has massive interest in the energy sector. EFF support for the Minister of Finance Pravin Gordhan, who is poised to unleash privatization, explains how the financial interests of Renwick shall be taken care of. The big question in this context is, what is Renwick giving in exchange? The value of the pound right now is very high and this makes conditions conducive for Renwick to spend for his political and imperialist project. Evidently, Renwick has been very consistent in serving the British Empire. It must be asked – has Mr Malema now finally agreed to serve Empire, if not, what is he doing with the servant of the Queen?
The following questions must be asked to the EFF leaders:
When are they releasing the unedited footage of their meeting with Robin Renwick and company?
What did EFF hope to achieve by meeting a coup plotter and arch imperialist?
What did Renwick give EFF and what did they (EFF) promise in return?
How is working with Johann Rupert consistent with their stated aim of “land expropriation without compensation” and “nationalisation”?
Has EFF now changed policy from viewing white monopoly capital as the enemy into seeing it as a strategic partner to topple Zuma?
Does EFF care for the billions stolen everyday by white capital?
How is working with the DA advancing the interests of the black majority?
Labels: EFF, JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
COMMENT - This is a momentous day. The EFF in South Africa organized a huge march of an estimated 50,000 people, painting seas of Chavez red berets and clothes, at South Africa's most powerful financial institutions, the Reserve Bank, the Chamber of the Mines, and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange or JSE. They met with the CEO of the JSE, and made the following demands:
To the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, we demand the following:
1. All companies in the JSE should move towards socialization of their ownership, meaning that they should give real and meaningful shares to their employees, who will in turn receive dividends at the end of each financial year. A minimum of 51% of all JSE companies should be owned and controlled by workers. This is different from the BEE schemes which empower fewer individuals.
2. All companies represented in the JSE must introduce a minimum wage of R4500 for all their workers, and taking into consideration the sectoral minimum wages contained in the EFF Elections Manifesto, which are: Mineworkers: R12 500 per month, Farm workers: R5000 per month, Manufacturing workers: R6500, Retail Workers (Cashiers and Retail Store Assistants): R5000, Builders: R7000, Petrol Attendants: R5000, Cleaners: R4500, Domestic Workers: R4500, Private Security Guards: R7500, Full time Waiters and Waitresses: R4500
3. All companies in the JSE should ban labour brokers, and permanently employ their workers with proper medical aid and retirement benefits.
4. All JSE companies and all companies in South Africa should implement the principle of equal work for equal pay for all workers irrespective of race, class and background.
5. All companies and corporations that have majority of its businesses in South Africa should have the primary listing in the JSE and their Head Offices in South Africa.
6. All companies in the JSE must procure the upstream and downstream goods and services from township and rural based economic role players owned by historically disadvantaged individuals.
7. All the retail stores in the JSE should source a minimum of 70% of their goods and services from South African producers, particularly food, confectionery, beverages, textile, leather, furniture, plastic, and many other basic products that are traded in South Africa.
8. Urgent action plans and programmes from all companies and corporations in the JSE on how to increase and sustain the labour-absorptive capacity of their companies. Thoroughly drafted human resources, skills transfer, and training and education provision with sustainable care programmes should accompany this.
9. Each and every company in the JSE should adopt a minimum of 5 schools in townships and rural areas and make that each adopted school has access to quality services, including computer labs, laboratories, libraries and access to high speed internet.
10. Each and every listed company with the total turnover of R1 billion and above should adopt one of the Technical, Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Colleges and assist with all the basic necessities of a TVET college.
11. Each and every company in the JSE should adopt a minimum of 100 students and assist with their higher education and training programmes and bursaries from registration, tuition, residence, food, books, and transport money for their adopted students.
12. All companies in the JSE should make massive investments in all parts of South Africa with the aim of decentralizing economic activities and industrial programmes to all parts of the country.
13. Urgent action plans on how to decentralize South Africa’s economic development from the existing centers of economic development to other parts of the country.
14. Urgent development and implementation of Corporate Social Investment Plans, which will bring real value and benefits to communities where business operations happen.
15. All JSE companies should have all their trading bank accounts with South African banks and should be willing to be subjected to scrutiny on illicit financial flows, transfer pricing and profit shifting.
16. End to expatriation of profits to developed countries, and mandate all companies and corporations to declare publicly transactions between subsidiaries in details for the tax authorities to access necessary information to collect maximum tax due to public purse.
17. All JSE companies should commit to usage of South African based professional services, such as those for auditing, accounting, legal, marketing and all other basic services.
Today's march:
(NEWS24 SA) The Great EFF Mass Protest March
Chris Kanyane
By Chris Kanyane
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
We have seen the jihad launched by university students across the country last week. And today, this Tuesday, with EFF mass protest action across Gauteng we witnessed something that is even staggering in terms of sheer appeal, high level organizing that made the mass protest march very peaceful.
The City of Johannesburg was swimming under the blockbuster red sea of EFF juggernaut supernova protest march. The protest march in terms of its reach, depth, creativity and scope was unprecedented. The atmosphere was livid.
It was a 16 kilometres long walk of raw passion.
One lady who participated in the march expressed her personal exuberance as follows:
“I was just out there in the red sea of thousands and thousands of people, holding hands with strangers. What a sensation I felt! I felt like I belonged. I was so excited – so inspired. A young guy whispered in my ears “this is history, this is history”. I smiled and wiped my face with a comfort cloth. I just wanted to become part of something beautiful”.
photo eff
EFF is an explosive big tent protest movement that has surely energised people on the grassroots. It encapsulates the raw passions of grassroots communities from all age groups but on the main it is powered by youthful energy and dynamism. Members and supporters are passionate, emotive in their participation. But there are not from Mars – these are simple ordinary folks, Jabulani, Sipho, Themba, Mpho, Tebogo, embracing a cause that they believe in.
There has been a false theory that has clouded our view and the surging of the EFF. We base the premise of our analysis of the EFF on the charisma of Julius Malema as the leader. But it seems every person involved with EFF brings some spark of charisma. The charisma seems to be evenly spread across the members and the supporters. And when they gather there is a national sensation.
The movement has no baggage and no cronyism. That makes it exciting for every person to participate freely. Passion and exuberance defines participations. Within those passions are aspirations and hopes.
The grand meeting place for the EFF protest march was central Johannesburg – the Mary Fitzgerald Square , the cosmopolitan cultural mecca of South Africa. The Square is thus named after Mary Fitzgerald. A woman considered to be the first trade unionist in the country.
Just a brief overview bio of Mary Fitzgerald so as to contextualise the great EFF march. In 1912 and 1913 with a burst of enthusiasm Mary Fitzgerald led arguably the first major protest march in South Africa – leading the miners in front.
With the miners increasingly organised through her efforts there was a need for a communication. Mary Fitzgerald founded and edited the radical publication known as The Voice of Labour. She used the publication as a vehicle for confronting capitalism as expressed through financial institutions.
Mary Fitzgerald further organised burial societies for the Black miners who were dying in large numbers due to poor working conditions underground. The workers were working under appalling conditions, with mine accidents and deaths ever accumulating.
The EFF mass protest march included in its key demands freed education from crèche to university. That is the currency of the time that has caught the national conversation since last week.
Early in the morning people across Gauteng, from townships such as Soshanguve, Mamelodi, Soweto and so on started self organising – sporadic small groups coalescing on street corners waiting for the transport that they organised and paid from their pockets. This notwithstanding that majority are poor and live in conditions that should not exist in the 21st century.
By about time going to noon tens of thousands of people were on the move, flooding the streets in central Johannesburg- self organising themselves.
Today some people tend to consider mass marches, sit-ins, demonstrations as scary, unruly and out of fashion, so mass protests on the scale of EFF should be denounced. I invite those who suffer this fixation to realise that genuine change is made from bottom up – people feeling the pain expressing it in its raw form.
We can consider what was achieved last week by #FeesMustFall movement. If there was no such protest march to Parliament and the Union Buildings students could not have forced the hands of the authorities for 0% increase in university fees in 2016. Through sheer swarm intelligence the students outfought and outbeat the authorities and emerged victorious.
Who can forget what happened in Cape Town? The swarm intelligence that went into the conception, planning and execution and ultimate storming of Parliament; the thoughtful, meticulous reading of the police movements by students and then launching a push: outsmarting, outflanking the armoured police and soon within a few minutes they were knocking on the doors of the National Assembly. It was a victory for them.
Today’s bad economic conditions (with the growing ranks of the poor) are undermining the very idea of progress and prosperity.
A sense of history demands us moving away from being fiction makers and start addressing in a sober – sobering practical reality, the worsening conditions of people on the ground – the masses are steeped in grim lives, trapped by poverty and depression.
As a nation we tend to equate countless promises with achievement. After piles of promises made we go into a spree of premature celebration, as if just by making those promises achievement is made. And that is where we are with persistent waves of uprisings, at the ward level, community level, and national level.
A country, like a person, cannot leave on luck perpetually. Luck and chance can only carry a person or a nation so far. As of now we have exhausted our stock of luck.
Labels: ANC, CHAMBER OF MINES, EFF, JULIUS MALEMA, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE, NEWS24 SA) Malema says Mugabe is a blameless, exemplary African leader
02/07/2015 00:00:00
by News24
PROBLEMS in Zimbabwe are not caused by its long-serving President Robert Mugabe but by "capital", South Africa's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema said on Thursday.
"President Mugabe is the only leader who knows for the real change to come, Africans will have to go through the necessary pain, exactly what Zimbabweans are going through now," he told reporters in Johannesburg when asked about his relationship with Mugabe.
"We don't see what's happening in Zimbabwe as anarchy. We don't blame it on President Mugabe, we blame it on capital... [It is] because they disagree with him politically, they use their economic muscle to punish the people of Zimbabwe."
Malema said Mugabe was the only African leader who continued to stand up against the west and who understood what it meant to be a real African.
He said the EFF might not agree with Mugabe on some issues, but from a broader perspective, the Zimbabwean leader represented the kind of Africa people wanted.
"How do you say a man who has won elections is a tyrant? He has never preceded over any massacre of our people; he continues to lead a party that advocates for very radical economic policies in Zimbabwe."
Malema lambasted those who felt Mugabe had over-stayed his welcome as president and that presidents should only stand for two terms.
It was fine for the rest of Africa to have presidents serve more than two terms, but not in South Africa, he said.
"I don't care if a president in Africa goes for a third term or for the fourth term, but not in South Africa.
"They can do it everywhere else if they want to do it... It won't work here in South Africa. Here it is two terms and go home."
Malema said he believed Africa should be governed by one leader, a leader like Mugabe.
"We want an Africa where trade will happen freely. We want an Africa that will one day have one currency and have one president and one government which will preside over this continent.
"We are one. These borders were imposed on us by colonialism."
Labels: EFF, JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM, ROBERT MUGABE
Read more...
(EYE WITNESS NEWS) Malema Slams Capitalism, Praises Mugabe
* Julius Malema (C) surrounded by other senior EFF leaders at a media briefing in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 9 January 2014. Picture: Govan Whittles/EWN.
Govan Whittles & Vumani Mkhize | 4 days ago
JOHANNESBURG – Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema on Thursday said his party plans to win this year’s general elections, despite what he calls an uneven playing field. The controversial politician along with senior party leaders held a media briefing in Braamfontein in central Johannesburg.
EFF revealed campaign plans while using the event to slam capitalism and praise Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. Malema says his fighters are ready to galvanise support for the EFF.
“Since the official launch in Marikana, fighters, commissars and organisers of EFF have been on the ground establishing structures.”
He says they have been preparing the election machinery in order to conduct “one of the most vigorous” campaigns this year.
Malema says the EFF has been inundated with support from all over the country.
“We can now announce that all provinces have no less than 10,000 EFF volunteers who will be engaged in community meetings, door-to-door [campaigns], motorcades, mini-rallies, rallies and house meetings.”
At the same time, the EFF leader hit out at capitalism, saying the system failed the people of South Africa.
He said the system further widened the gap between rich and poor in South Africa resulting in increased poverty levels.
Malema also argued in favour of Mugabe and the land reform programme adopted in that country.
Defending Mugabe’s rule, Malema said detractors should remember the effects of capitalism in the country before criticising other nations such as Zimbabwe.
“There’s no system that has worked successfully for Africans, except the Zimbabwean system. The Zimbabweans today can be hungry and poor, but at least they own property. You are eating pap and vleis here in South Africa, [but] you have nothing to show as proof that you belong to South Africa.”
Malema also suggested struggle stalwart Winnie Madikizela-Mandela should be made president of the country to lead it through a long cooling-off period.
He says he regrets ignoring warnings by Madikizela-Mandela ahead of the 2009 polls not to support President Jacob Zuma.
But he dismissed rumours the party would try to recruit Nelson Mandela’s ex-wife.
While the ANC launches its manifesto in Mbombela, Mpumalanga at the weekend, Malema says his party will be doing something more tangible by opening a house built by the EFF in Nkandla - Zuma’s hometown.
He says EFF will launch its election manifesto on 22 February in Tembisa on Gauteng’s East Rand.
(Edited by Craig Wynn)
Labels: ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS (SA), JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
(EYE WITNESS NEWS) Malema Slams Capitalism, Praises Mugabe
* Julius Malema (C) surrounded by other senior EFF leaders at a media briefing in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 9 January 2014. Picture: Govan Whittles/EWN.
Govan Whittles & Vumani Mkhize | 4 days ago
JOHANNESBURG – Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema on Thursday said his party plans to win this year’s general elections, despite what he calls an uneven playing field. The controversial politician along with senior party leaders held a media briefing in Braamfontein in central Johannesburg.
EFF revealed campaign plans while using the event to slam capitalism and praise Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. Malema says his fighters are ready to galvanise support for the EFF.
“Since the official launch in Marikana, fighters, commissars and organisers of EFF have been on the ground establishing structures.”
He says they have been preparing the election machinery in order to conduct “one of the most vigorous” campaigns this year.
Malema says the EFF has been inundated with support from all over the country.
“We can now announce that all provinces have no less than 10,000 EFF volunteers who will be engaged in community meetings, door-to-door [campaigns], motorcades, mini-rallies, rallies and house meetings.”
At the same time, the EFF leader hit out at capitalism, saying the system failed the people of South Africa.
He said the system further widened the gap between rich and poor in South Africa resulting in increased poverty levels.
Malema also argued in favour of Mugabe and the land reform programme adopted in that country.
Defending Mugabe’s rule, Malema said detractors should remember the effects of capitalism in the country before criticising other nations such as Zimbabwe.
“There’s no system that has worked successfully for Africans, except the Zimbabwean system. The Zimbabweans today can be hungry and poor, but at least they own property. You are eating pap and vleis here in South Africa, [but] you have nothing to show as proof that you belong to South Africa.”
Malema also suggested struggle stalwart Winnie Madikizela-Mandela should be made president of the country to lead it through a long cooling-off period.
He says he regrets ignoring warnings by Madikizela-Mandela ahead of the 2009 polls not to support President Jacob Zuma.
But he dismissed rumours the party would try to recruit Nelson Mandela’s ex-wife.
While the ANC launches its manifesto in Mbombela, Mpumalanga at the weekend, Malema says his party will be doing something more tangible by opening a house built by the EFF in Nkandla - Zuma’s hometown.
He says EFF will launch its election manifesto on 22 February in Tembisa on Gauteng’s East Rand.
(Edited by Craig Wynn)
Labels: ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS (SA), JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Malema lauds Zim’s land reform
January 13, 2014
Tichaona Zindoga Herald Reporter
COMMENT: Also see: (EYE WITNESS NEWS) Malema Slams Capitalism, Praises Mugabe -
MrK
South Africa’s opposition Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema says Zimbabwe’s land reform is a model system for Africa as it empowered people to own property. SA media last week quoted Malema, who is championing a radical cause for the nationalisation of mines and land expropriation without compensation, effusive in praise of the Zimbabwean system.
He said: “There’s no system that has worked successfully for Africans, except the Zimbabwean system. Zimbabweans today can be hungry and poor, but at least they own property. You are eating pap and vleis here in South Africa, (but) you have nothing to show as proof that you belong to South Africa.”
He said whites should not be compensated for the land they will lose because the stalled land reform since the end of apartheid in 1994 should be regarded as compensation enough.
“The 20 years of not taking the land should have been regarded as compensation because the land should have been taken in 1994. So we have compensated them (white people) enough,” he said. This is not the first time that Malema, ex-president of the ANC Youth League, has urged South Africans to take a leaf from Zimbabwe.
Addressing the media last year at the launch of his party in Johannesburg’s Constitution Hill, he told South Africans to brace for a painful revolution, as happened in Zimbabwe with white capitalists punishing the country if it dared redress the land question.
“There will be a time when you will wake up without bread and that will be the day you will know how to make to your own bread at home and you will realise that you do not need these people,” he said.
Malema visited Zimbabwe in 2012, to attend the wedding of Zanu-PF youth league members Tendai Wenyika and Mike Gava in Harare.
South Africa is saddled with the land question as the minority white population continues to hold on to land at the expense of the black majority.
A willing buyer-willing seller model of land reform has not been able to address the skewed land ownership.
Labels: JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
(THOUGHTLEADER SA) Black diamonds could vote EFF
By Ntombenhle Khathwane
There has been much speculation as to where the black middle-class vote will go. What is evident is that there is no party that totally encapsulates the aspirations of these people. Under the current political and economic landscape, the black diamonds could vote EFF as a protest vote against the ANC or because the EFF speaks to their aspirations.
I was surprised at myself for flirting with the idea of voting EFF this year as I had definitely scoffed at the idea of a political party led by Julius Malema when it was first formed. I was even more surprised when I attended an EFF meeting for professionals a few weeks ago and the room was overflowing. On my way to the Midrand venue I had imagined the room would be half-empty, so I was pleasantly surprised that it was full. It got me thinking about whether the black middle class would vote EFF. When political pundits (and even Malema himself) speak about who will vote EFF they focus on the working class and poor, they never mention the black diamonds.
With the demise of Cope, the failure by Mamphela Ramphele to clearly distinguish Agang, the majority of the black middle class is left considering voting the ANC or the newly formed EFF. The recent publicised spats within the DA make it obvious that even white politicians guising themselves as liberals do not understand the need for affirmative action in order to create a level playing ground from which we compete fairly for opportunities. If white politicians don’t get it, then corporate South Africa and the majority of whites won’t get the dangers posed by economic inequality and why it is a problem that the current structure of the economy prevents blacks from participating fairly and gaining ownership of the economy.
Political equality has not created an environment where opportunities can be competed for fairly. Whites have the upper hand in almost every sphere from academia to the world of finance. The black middle class is mainly constituted by educated and hard-working people who are the first to reject the idea of using race or gender to get ahead. These are people who are first to value meritocracy. Yet, as soon as they get into the working world they realise that this value doesn’t exist, especially in corporate South Africa. Race is what gets white people ahead and patriarchy is what keeps women from advancing.
The people who attended the meeting for professionals called by EFF and headlined by Dali Mpofu were professionals from all sectors, lawyers, engineers, bankers and academics mostly working in the corporate sector or running their own businesses. Those in corporate South Africa are clear that race keeps them from advancing fairly. Those in business know that business from corporate South Africa goes to whites and business from government goes to those who are politically connected. Those in academia face their own challenges in these institutions and civil society that are also racial in nature; these challenges prevent black academics from participating fairly in the knowledge economy.
The EFF leaders have not fully articulated their policies so there’s no clear understanding of what they mean by their broad statements or more importantly how they will implement them. This is important because most of us love ANC policies but have seen that implementation has been the challenge for a number of reasons ranging from corruption to interference by trade unions. The EFF speaks as if it will zoom in on certain aspects and do better than the ANC has done. This appeals to the black middle class because after 20 years it is clear that race prevents fair economic participation and economic redistribution and that something drastic has to be done to change the status quo ASAP!
When the EFF speaks of nationalising the mines, whether it’s a good idea or not, this does not affect the middle class directly because very few if any own mines. Although it could affect them indirectly depending on how this nationalisation is supposed to work and how it affects the economy as a whole. The issue of nationalising land also does not affect the black middle class directly because very few if at all own large tracts of valued land. Yet they could benefit indirectly should EFF choose to give all those living on tribal land title deeds and therefore giving economic value to that land. Although the majority of the black middle class live in suburbs they are still very connected to their rural and township roots, therefore they too want to see conditions improve for the black working class and poor. A portion of income earned by the financially overburdened middle class also finds its way back towards supporting family in townships or villages.
The black diamonds find it easier to make decisions on changing political affiliation. Like every other class they vote to further their aspirations. The working class is tied to the parties determined by the unions they are affiliated to. The lower class is tied to the ANC for guaranteed social grants and other basic social benefits such as food, housing, education and health. Whichever political party vies to govern, the ever growing black middle class remains very important because it is this group that will drive economic growth through supplying skilled labour; establishing big corporations that can employ larger numbers of people at commensurate wages and absorb the increasing numbers of unemployed youth.
Ntombenhle Khathwane is an Afro-optimistic social commentator, student of politics and pan-Africanist who believes Africans hold the key to their own development. An entrepreneur and black business activist.
Labels: ANC, ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS, JULIUS MALEMA
Read more...
(NEWS24 SA) Malema: Gold mines too expensive to nationalise
2013-12-22 21:06
Mbombela - He was four hours late, but EFF commander in chief Julius Malema was met with ululation and praise songs when he arrived at a fund-raising gala dinner in Nelspruit on Saturday night.
He joked that he could not risking getting another speeding ticket after his arrest on Friday night, then gave an 80-minute speech that ended just before midnight, a Sapa correspondent reported. Malema said the EFF was a government in waiting, and he outlined the party's policies on mines and banks, and land reform.
"An entrepreneur must be able to do business no matter who is in government. A real businessman doesn't lose sleep over whether the [National Party], ANC or EFF is in power. You do not rely on tenders. Tenders are not sustainable business," he said.
Malema said Black Economic Empowerment encouraged the sale of black skin.
"You sell your colour as if black is cheap and can be sold at any time."
He said BEE supported only individuals and their families, and not communities.
"Rather give that money meant for BEE to the community, to build schools and clinics," he said.
Land
He said land should be returned to communities free of charge, since it had been taken without payment. The act of buying back the land was the same as buying stolen goods.
Land beneficiaries should also not be pressured into doing anything with their land, he said.
"You don't have to explain anything to anybody. It's your land. What you do with your land is nobody's business."
He said fears about the nationalisation of the mines were unfounded as the government had proved that it could manage businesses, citing Transet and Denel as examples.
He suggested nationalising only easy, profitable and uncomplicated mines, like platinum, which was found near the surface of the ground.
Gold
"We only want to nationalise profitable national resources. Not gold. Gold is very expensive to mine," he said.
He said the government needed to keep all mineral rights, and that the mines should give 60 percent of their ownership to the state.
Only this would generate enough money to provide free education, healthcare and sanitation.
Nationalised banks would run themselves, and without focusing on maximising profits, would keep their interest rates low so that all South Africans could afford a house and car.
Malema said local industry be protected so it was not undermined by cheap imports, and that the state should help people acquire basic skills.
He accused President Jacob Zuma and his government of not being accountable to the people.
- SAPA
Labels: GOLD, JULIUS MALEMA, NATIONALISATION
Read more...
(AMANDLA MAGAZINE) Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters and the South African Left
Benjamin Fogel | November 15th, 2013
In geographer Gillian Hart’s excellent Rethinking the South African Crisis, she points to a rather curious phenomenon as part of her engagement with the figure of one Julius Malema and the ‘populist’ turn he represents. She notes that for a change the far left and liberal right’s politics converge in the sense that they both share the same critique of the ex-Youth League president and current commander-in-chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).
It is not often that analysts of such diametrically opposed ideological tastes as Terry Bell and Gareth van Onselen agree, one being a left-leaning labour analyst and the other being a die-hard freemarket liberal, but they do in the case of Malema. Both Bell and van Onselen have made the case that Malema and the politics he espouses can be broadly categorised as ‘fascist’ or ‘fascistic’ in character. Mamphela Ramphele went as far as to compare Malema to Hitler in a public statement, a sure-fire way to justify ignoring both the tone, form and content of an opponent’s politics.
Their argument can be boiled down to this: The composition of social forces assembled behind Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters is a mix of ‘lumpen’ or young unemployed voters. These ‘born frees are attracted to his militant rhetoric amidst a hopeless situation’. In effect both the images of masculinity and militarism are summoned in both the aesthetic and rhetorical strategies utilized by Malema.
Secondly the contention is that the calls for nationalization and other perceived ‘radicalism’ made by the EFF represent in effect the demands of a certain fraction of the emergent BEE-linked bourgeoisie, who want a bail out after their mining ventures failed miserably. Together they fit a definition of fascism as an alliance between the lumpen proletariat and an alienated faction of the bourgeoisie.
Some also add that the EFF’s position on Mugabe and Zimbabwe also disqualifies them from being ‘on the left’. The EFF professes open support for Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and in particular their land-reform program. One of the central items of the EFF’s agenda being the expropriation of land without compensation and the symbolism of land occupations, given the history of dispossession in South Africa, making such open support for Mugabe and Zanu-PF is unsurprising.
Leaving aside the complexities of Zimbabwean politics, one can hardly argue that the EFF is not ‘left’ because it supports a position they disagree with. Most of these people would hardly deny the late Hugo Chávez the right to be left — despite the fact he was an open supporter of Mugabe. The more serious case to answer is the ‘composition’ argument.
There is not a single historical example or paradigm of a fascist movement or party describing itself as ‘Marxist-Leninist-Fanonian’. A movement which has set out a manifesto closer to an old Trotskyist transitional programme, instead of barely coherent ramblings about national purity or vast international Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracies. In describing the above as Fascistic one essentially either claims that all this Marxist talk is part of a conspiracy to hide the fascistic tendencies of the EFF or one ignores all the written statements of the EFF altogether.
Fascism is a notoriously difficult concept to define and through frequent misuse its power and meaning has dwindled. It is often used to slander one’s political opponents rather than in a precise analytical fashion, from the Republican party labeling Barack Obama as akin to Hitler or those on the liberal left describing George Bush’s republican party as fascist.
The definition of fascism used to attack the EFF emerges out of debates on the origin of fascism in Europe, but whether this definition can be applied in a postcolonial context is not at all dealt with in these critiques of the EFF.
This critique doesn’t engage whether the models or definition of fascism, which emerged from a specifically European historical context, can be applied elsewhere in a country like post-apartheid South Africa – which doesn’t resemble the Weimar Republic or pre-Mussolini Italy, in which fascism arose in the context of the ruling classes’ fear of a strong international communist movement, or to put down a militant trade union movement after a devastating war.
Furthermore it makes no attempt to grapple with the complexities and nuances of South African nationalism or postcolonial nationalism in general, in which a number of movements and leaders from elements of Zanu-PF to Sankara in Burkina Faso have championed very similar programmes and used very similar rhetoric to Malema and the EFF. Surely such movements represent a paradigm closer to the EFF rather than copying and pasting what is already a loosely defined concept in the current South African political context?
There is hardly an established historical paradigm of fascism emerging in a post-colonial context from a ‘radical’ split from the ruling nationalist party. The closest to a ‘fascistic’ split one can locate is of a politics based on ethnic or religious identity. EFF clearly doesn’t fit into that paradigm with its appeals to pan-Africanism, and loosely speaking taking up the BC definition of black as an identity which moves beyond ethnicity.
The liberal right position makes sense; of course, liberals would want to delegitimize all left forces that could potentially either channel political energy away from certain liberal civil society projects or that great liberal party known as the DA. Van Onselen, himself an ex-DA official, has a vested stake in attempting to portray the EFF as a potentially murderous and reactionary force, preventing the DA from leaking actual or potential voters to the EFF.
The far left position also seeks to delegitimize the EFF, but for what reason? It is due to either a fear of having the ‘radical space’ in the South African political scene seized by a collective of corrupt opportunists or, less charitably, a fear of the left space that certain careerists on the left have sought to monopolize on their being seized by a group of upstarts.
The worst thing about this argument is that it labels the dispossessed black unemployed youth – or in other words those who have been worse affected by South Africa’s neoliberal trajectory – as an essentially reactionary social bloc that is full of ‘fascistic tendencies’ or as lumpen, surplus or criminal in nature. This position is often racialized to the extent that it reads as the middle-class terror of the ungovernable, unwashed and uncouth young black masses demanding such things as the nationalization of key industries, radical land reform and ‘economic freedom’. All things which, it should be noted, the left traditionally supports. One would also think that the left views this grouping as a potential base rather than a threat.
The significance of EFF is that it marks a break from the current political consensus, both in terms of our established political parties and the lobbying and legalistic strategies currently pervasive through ‘civil society’, which it has with such venomous opposition. The EFF marks a break with the established consensus because they explicitly reject the rhetoric of ‘social cohesion’; they reject the line that we need a social compact based on wage suppression to ward off a forthcoming apocalypse and the panacea of Foreign Direct Investment as the solution to our economic woes.
Whatever the case, to claim the EFF is not left and is some sort of proto-fascist grouping doesn’t stand up to any analytic scrutiny. This doesn’t mean that it should be immune from criticism from the left; there are a number of issues one could call the EFF out on ranging from its leaders’ less than commendable stance on women’s rights in the past to the questionable finances of its other leaders and rather xenophobic comments directed towards those of Indian descent. This does not mean that the EFF cannot be another form of left sounding; opportunism, bad political choices and corruption are by no means the monopoly of the right and centre. Those on the left can also make mistakes and be in politics for less than commendable reasons, but these criticisms do not undermine the significance of the EFF as a whole.
In essence, they mark a break with the fuzzy hangover of sentiment emanating from what’s left of the rainbow nation nationalism of times past. They claim to be the authentic representatives of the ‘radical Freedom Charter’ rather than the current dominant liberal reading – a Freedom Charter which outlays the beginnings of a socialistic or statist economic program.
The other strength (and potential weakness) of the EFF is that they mark a reconstitution of the two dominant black political traditions on the left in South Africa – namely Chartism and Black Consciousness. They have successfully managed to incorporate both BC and Chartists under the same political roof, potentially opening up the space for a birth of a new form of black radical politics. Whether or not they can succeed in keeping this alliance together after next year’s elections remains to be seen and perhaps marks the biggest internal political challenge for the movement.
It is this that has enabled EFF to find traction amongst a not insignificant segment of the population. Exactly how much traction they have remains to be seen. It is also because of this traction that the independent left will have to drop their own sectarianism and seriously engage with the EFF and its members as fellow travelers rather than unwelcome intruders. Whether it is to point out the limitations of the EFF or to attempt to influence their political line, such engagement should be done in a comradely fashion rather than joining the liberal right in attempting to delegitimize the EFF as a political project.
* This is an edited version of an article that appears in the latest issue of Amandla! Magazine.
Benjamin Fogel is the assistant editor of Amandla Magazine. Currently based in Cape Town, he is a journalist with a particular interest in labour and political journalism. You can follow him on Twitter: @BenjaminFogel.
Labels: ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS, JULIUS MALEMA, SOUTH AFRICCA
Read more...
(AL JAZEERA) Q and A: South Africa's Julius Malema
Al Jazeera interviews the populist politician about his thoughts on Mandela's life and death.
Azad Essa Last updated: 11 Dec 2013 10:46
COMMENT - Classical Julius Malema, classical Al-Jazeera: "AJ: Won’t you scare people off? Malema: Which people? AJ: Foreign investors. " :)
Julius Sello Malema is a South African politician, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters. He also is a former president of the African National Congress Youth League and was a member of the ANC until his expulsion in 2012. Described as a "fascist" and a "demagogue" by his critics, he has always been able to hold a wide approval rating among some black South Africans. He has been convicted twice of hate speech. Al Jazeera's Azad Essa sat down with the controversial figure to get his thoughts about Nelson Mandela and South Africa.
Al Jazeera: Madiba has passed on, what will be the impact on this country [South Africa]?
Julius Malema: Madiba's passing away is going to serve as an education of the younger generation, particularly of where we come from and where we are heading to and whether what Madiba stood for has been achieved. So it has by and large been a reflection period. We need to continuously reflect on whether we have sold out on Mandela's legacy or have we lived up to it. And what needs to be done to make this legacy last forever, for generations to come.
AJ: What about your feelings about Mandela's legacy?
Malema: Mandela's legacy is a very good legacy. It has laid a foundation, for a total emancipation of our people. It serves as a beacon of hope, and it serves as a building bridge towards the attainment of economic freedom, because Madiba ushered in political freedom – and political freedom without economic freedom is incomplete. Before he died, he said the struggle continues and we should have asked the question, which struggle. The struggle for economic emancipation of our people continues. And that is the terrain with which we decided to occupy ourselves as the economic freedom fighters. The people, especially generations choose their missions. Madiba's mission was freedom in our lifetime. And he never betrayed that mission. He stayed true to it. And what is the mission of our time? It is economic freedom in our lifetime. We are not going to betray that mission, which has been informed by the foundation laid by Madiba and his generation.
AJ: So you have no doubt that Madiba completed his task?
Malema: He did. He did. There is no doubt Madiba played his role up to the finish line and handed over the baton to this generation and the baton landed in Zuma’s hand. And Zuma with not knowing how the race goes, he went back instead of running with the baton to give to the next generation, reversing the achievement of Nelson Mandela. If there is anybody who achieved his existence in society, it’s president Nelson Mandela and he was sold out by those that came after him.
AJ: What was the turning point for you regarding your support for Jacob Zuma?
Malema: The turning point for me against President Jacob Zuma was when he made an acceptance speech and press conferences he addressed subsequently, when he said that nothing would change economically. And remember, we elected this person on the ticket that he was going to bring fundamental change. And he says nothing is going to change economically, and he goes to London and reassures the queen and everybody else, that no, in South Africa things will remain the same. That is what the Boers said even before negotiations. They said, "OK, we are going to un-ban the ANC and other political parties. They must do away with the rhetoric, then the negotiations start and business will continue as usual." And President Mandela agreed to that because he knew once we grab the political leaver of power, then we can use that to change the living conditions of our people. Those who came after him, sold out completely.
AJ: There are certain pressures on the South African president and the presidency, and the governing parties from outside forces, when it comes to the World Bank and the IMF. How is the South African government supposed to deal with these pressures when it comes to outside powers?
Malema: We must reject the World Bank and we must look for the World Bank as well. We must look for an alternative market as well. We must look at what the World Bank has done in Africa, the creation of unemployment, the creation of inequality. If the IMF and the World Bank were really acting in the interest of African people, we wouldn’t be in the crisis we are now. The crisis we find ourselves in today is not of creation by the African leadership. The creation of international financial institutions which gave terms the did not benefit African people but the multinational companies that came to exploit the resources of Africa. So why listen to people who have no history of helping you anywhere else in Africa, except to milk your resources.
AJ: Why are people supposed to trust you … when there is so much controversy around you, with people accusing you of corruption etc? Why will people trust you to take the cause forward?
Malema: I have never refused to go to court. I’m a law abiding citizen. I believe in accountability. Allegations will always be there against leadership. But, how leadership deals with allegations, is very important. So you can trust a man who is not scared to be answerable before the courts of law.
AJ: What’s next? What is the next stage of this revolution according to you?
Malema: The next stage is the nationalisation of mines, banks and strategic sectors of the economy. Nationalisation of the land.
AJ: Won’t you scare people off?
Malema: Which people?
AJ: Foreign investors.
Malema: When you say foreign investors, you want to say white people. Because there is no black African foreign investors. If they go, let them go. We’ll look for alternative markets. The Asian tigers are waiting to come in.
AJ: And you trust the Asian tigers to follow your interests?
Malema: They will invest in Africa and South Africa through our terms. Anyone who is not willing to comply with our terms, we will not open a space for that person. The Zimbabweans are doing it. Look at them. Despite the fact that they’ve gone through pain, they’re coming out of that pain. They’re becoming one of the fastest growing economies in Southern Africa and Africa. And the Zimbabweans, in the next 10 years are going to be the only Africans who own their own land, in the whole of Africa. And that is an achievement. The struggle means pain.
AJ: How important would this event be, with regards to next year’s elections?
Malema: It will help us in great way. As I said, it will help the country to engage in a self-reflection mood. We must use Madiba to remember where we come from , where we are and where we are going. Did we achieve what Madiba stood for? That’s what this elections is going to be about? Madiba’s death reminds us of how those in power today undermined what Madiba represented. And it is going to be very tough. And it is going to be very tough. People say they will use Madiba’s death to blackmail people. And invoke emotions of people. They are going to do that if we are not there.
We will use Madiba to remind people of the wrongs that these ones have done. Madiba did not build a one million kraal [homestead]. Madiba has never built a 500,000 [rand] spaza [informal] shop for his beautiful wife. Remember, beautiful wife, who deserves everything else. Madiba didn’t use the money of the people to do that. Madiba did not use the money of the people to build a 2.5 million [rand] swimming pool for himself. Despite the fact that he knew how to swim. People build swimming pools, in the whole family, no one knows how to swim, but they build a 2.5 million [rand] swimming pool for their families. That’s not who Madiba was. Madiba never used the state resources for self-enrichment. Madiba’s children, all of them, are still struggling until today, but the current crop of leadership – they are rich even before they are born.
Labels: AL-JAZEERA, ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS, EFF, JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
(CITY PRESS SA) Booing at FNB Stadium belongs exclusively to ANC – Julius Malema
Poloko Tau @City_Press #Mandela 11 December 2013 16:50
Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema has taken to Twitter to defend his party against suggestions that its members were booing President Jacob Zuma at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service at the FNB Stadium yesterday.
In a reply to his followers who engaged him on Twitter earlier today, Malema said: “I’ve taken responsibility at all times for our action. The booing at FNB Stadium belongs exclusively to the ANC.”
He tweeted again: “We have seen people in ANC colours booing. Whatever you have against the EFF should not blind you please.”
His comments come in the wake of suggestions that EFF members had been responsible for booing Zuma. However, several media reports said Zuma was booed by a general crowd who were also making gestures suggesting a change or substitution when Zuma’s presence was acknowledged by ANC deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa.
The Sowetan newspaper reported that police had thrown out members of the rowdy crowd. City Press journalist Lesley Mofokeng saw a group of presumably EFF members in red T-shirts and signature red berets “disappear”. They were promptly replaced by mourners in civilian clothes.
Attempts to get hold of Malema, who said on Twitter yesterday that he was following the memorial proceedings on television, were unsuccessful.
He tweeted at about the same time Zuma was booed yesterday: “The writing is on the wall, the defiant spirit of Madiba continues to speak to us.”
Despite the EFF’s well-documented dislike of Zuma, party spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the party was not responsible for what had happened at the stadium claiming it was, in fact, “ANC members (who) were quoted in the media saying they will continue to boo” Zuma.
Ndlozi referred to several media reports which he said made it “clear that the booing (was) non-partisan”. He said any suggestions that EFF members booed Zuma was “scapegoating in the public arena”.
Meanwhile, Ndlozi said Malema was planning to attend Mandela’s funeral in the Eastern Cape on Sunday.
He said today the “commander-in-chief was expected to be in Qunu” for the funeral.
Labels: ANC, ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS, EFF, JACOB ZUMA, JULIUS MALEMA
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE, SAPA) ANC trying to silence me: Malema
18/11/2013 00:00:00
by SAPA
EFF leader Julius Malema has accused the ANC of trying to silence him by bringing fabricated charges against him.
"They accuse me of stealing because they are failing to match my thinking capacity," he told his supporters outside the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane on Monday shortly after his corruption trial was postponed to next year.
"They thought arresting me would silence me... They are arresting me with the hope that nationalisation would die... They say we stole money in the department of roads and works, I have never worked there."
Malema said a forensic team had found no evidence against him, and despite this he was arrested for nothing.
He said police arrested him, despite him co-operating and stressing he would appear in court.
"I don't know why they gave me police escorts, I know the direction to court," he said.
'I will never betray you'
Malema has denied stealing from South Africans, saying he has no criminals in his family.
"I will never betray you. I did not steal from you. I will never steal from you. I will never do that to you.
"In my family, I don't have a history of criminals... there is no black sheep."
He described the African National Congress as the "apartheid ANC" and labelled President Jacob Zuma a criminal.
He thanked those who came out to support him at court.
"Comrades who came from all different areas to give me support, I salute you. I don't take your support for granted. I stand before you with humility. I will never be arrogant."
Charges
The former ANC Youth League leader appeared after allegedly making nearly R4m from corrupt activities. He is out on bail of R10 000 and faces charges of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and racketeering.
Malema's co-accused are his business associates Kagisho Dichabe, Lesiba Gwangwa, Helen Moreroa, and Makgetsi Manthata. They are out on bail of R40,000 each.
The State alleges Malema and the others misrepresented themselves to the Limpopo roads and transport department, leading to a R52m contract being awarded to On-Point Engineering.
According to court papers, Malema had business ties with Gwangwa, a director of On-Point Engineering. Malema's Ratanang Family Trust was an indirect shareholder in On-Point.
The department paid the company R43m. According to the charge sheet, Malema substantially benefited from this payment, using it to buy a farm and a Mercedes-Benz.
His trial has been set down from 30 September to 31 October next year.
Malema, however, will make representations to a judge next Thursday and Friday in a bid to get the charges dropped.
Labels: ANC, ANC YOUTH LEAGUE, JULIUS MALEMA, NATIONALISATION
Read more...
(EYE WITNESS NEWS) Malema Slams Capitalism, Praises Mugabe
* Julius Malema (C) surrounded by other senior EFF leaders at a media briefing in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 9 January 2014. Picture: Govan Whittles/EWN.
Govan Whittles & Vumani Mkhize | 4 days ago
JOHANNESBURG – Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema on Thursday said his party plans to win this year’s general elections, despite what he calls an uneven playing field. The controversial politician along with senior party leaders held a media briefing in Braamfontein in central Johannesburg.
EFF revealed campaign plans while using the event to slam capitalism and praise Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. Malema says his fighters are ready to galvanise support for the EFF.
“Since the official launch in Marikana, fighters, commissars and organisers of EFF have been on the ground establishing structures.”
He says they have been preparing the election machinery in order to conduct “one of the most vigorous” campaigns this year.
Malema says the EFF has been inundated with support from all over the country.
“We can now announce that all provinces have no less than 10,000 EFF volunteers who will be engaged in community meetings, door-to-door [campaigns], motorcades, mini-rallies, rallies and house meetings.”
At the same time, the EFF leader hit out at capitalism, saying the system failed the people of South Africa.
He said the system further widened the gap between rich and poor in South Africa resulting in increased poverty levels.
Malema also argued in favour of Mugabe and the land reform programme adopted in that country.
Defending Mugabe’s rule, Malema said detractors should remember the effects of capitalism in the country before criticising other nations such as Zimbabwe.
“There’s no system that has worked successfully for Africans, except the Zimbabwean system. The Zimbabweans today can be hungry and poor, but at least they own property. You are eating pap and vleis here in South Africa, [but] you have nothing to show as proof that you belong to South Africa.”
Malema also suggested struggle stalwart Winnie Madikizela-Mandela should be made president of the country to lead it through a long cooling-off period.
He says he regrets ignoring warnings by Madikizela-Mandela ahead of the 2009 polls not to support President Jacob Zuma.
But he dismissed rumours the party would try to recruit Nelson Mandela’s ex-wife.
While the ANC launches its manifesto in Mbombela, Mpumalanga at the weekend, Malema says his party will be doing something more tangible by opening a house built by the EFF in Nkandla - Zuma’s hometown.
He says EFF will launch its election manifesto on 22 February in Tembisa on Gauteng’s East Rand.
(Edited by Craig Wynn)
Labels: ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS, JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM, WINNIE MANDELA
Read more...
(STICKY) (HERALD ZW) Malema lauds Zim’s land reform
January 13, 2014
Tichaona Zindoga Herald Reporter
COMMENT: Also see (EYE WITNESS NEWS) Malema Slams Capitalism, Praises Mugabe -
MrK
South Africa’s opposition Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema says Zimbabwe’s land reform is a model system for Africa as it empowered people to own property. SA media last week quoted Malema, who is championing a radical cause for the nationalisation of mines and land expropriation without compensation, effusive in praise of the Zimbabwean system.
He said: “There’s no system that has worked successfully for Africans, except the Zimbabwean system. Zimbabweans today can be hungry and poor, but at least they own property. You are eating pap and vleis here in South Africa, (but) you have nothing to show as proof that you belong to South Africa.”
He said whites should not be compensated for the land they will lose because the stalled land reform since the end of apartheid in 1994 should be regarded as compensation enough.
“The 20 years of not taking the land should have been regarded as compensation because the land should have been taken in 1994. So we have compensated them (white people) enough,” he said. This is not the first time that Malema, ex-president of the ANC Youth League, has urged South Africans to take a leaf from Zimbabwe.
Addressing the media last year at the launch of his party in Johannesburg’s Constitution Hill, he told South Africans to brace for a painful revolution, as happened in Zimbabwe with white capitalists punishing the country if it dared redress the land question.
“There will be a time when you will wake up without bread and that will be the day you will know how to make to your own bread at home and you will realise that you do not need these people,” he said.
Malema visited Zimbabwe in 2012, to attend the wedding of Zanu-PF youth league members Tendai Wenyika and Mike Gava in Harare.
South Africa is saddled with the land question as the minority white population continues to hold on to land at the expense of the black majority.
A willing buyer-willing seller model of land reform has not been able to address the skewed land ownership.
Labels: ANC, ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS, JULIUS MALEMA, LAND REFORM, WINNIE MANDELA
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) Manheru: When a Fool is my Colour, Name, Totem
09/11/2013 00:00:00
by Nathaniel Manheru
THE past three weeks have seen the articulation of four key thoughts for me, all of them taking the African debate a rung up. Don’t get me wrong, describing them as “key” thoughts is in no way endorsing them. I have very vigorous views on each of the four thoughts and that will hopefully come through in this article and two others to follow hopefully in as many weeks.
The key thing is to relate these thoughts to Zimbabwe, my country, our country together. I will give you all the four thoughts in this instalment, but will comment on just one for now.
The first thought came from Thabani Nyoni, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition spokesperson. He told participants to a three-day civic groups’ Ideas Festival exhibition show held in Bulawayo last week that it was a hallowed vocation of civic groups to seek regime change in Zimbabwe, adding such a pursuit is lawful.
Changing Thabani’s regime
In his words, or more accurately in the words of those who sent him: “As civic society it is our role to push for regime change. There is nothing illegal, that is why we have elections in this country. Why would we go for elections if you don’t want to change government or governance? We are really proud to push for regime change.”
He became even more bellicose: “We will not apologise for our push for regime change because there is nothing wrong with that, in fact we are now seeing the fruits of regime change. I was in rural areas in Tsholotsho recently and I saw Zanu-PF people telling their colleagues not to politicise food aid. That is something that was unheard of.”
And he proceeded to situate his principals’ thinking in the just-ended seismic poll:
“The elections have come and gone and left many realities that we have to deal with. It is therefore important as a country that we stop and think about what kind of republic we want and what kind of Zimbabwe will work for us.”
What colour is your rose?
The second key thought came from Strive Masiyiwa, Econet’s boss and one of the five African businessmen lined up for Forbes Person of the Year Award. He is a Zimbabwean and rumoured to be a billionaire. Last week he addressed the Obasanjo Foundation and told African leaders that the colour of the investor no longer mattered as focus on the continent must now shift to employment creation. I will let Masiyiwa speak:
“More than 50 percent of the population of African countries is below the age of 25. That means we have to create more than 500 million jobs over the next 10 years. If you ask me what sometimes makes me wake up at night, it is that challenge. It is not just the purview of politicians to worry about these things; it’s about jobs, jobs, and I mean decent jobs. Last year, Africa got about $50bn in direct foreign investment, and whilst this was 10 times what it was a decade earlier, the truth is, if we are to address the problem of poverty and youth unemployment we need to be running at 10 times that level, NOW!”
When the cat has no colour
He skilfully played the colour metaphor, initially literally, factually:
“As a company, we are “foreign” investors, in some 17 countries around the world (except Zimbabwe my homeland). Even in other African countries, we are technically foreign investors, there are no special considerations given for the fact that we are an African multinational . . . The world has changed; foreign investors are no longer just companies from western countries. In our business, our most fierce competitors come from countries like China, India, Mexico, the Middle East, Nigeria, as well as South Africa. For these companies, America and Europe are no longer off bounds, to invest in. We for instance have business interests in Europe, New Zealand and the US, and yet we are an African company; the world has changed.”
And then colour metaphorically:
“One of the most inspiring leaders of the 20th Century was Deng Zhaoping of China who in opening the door to foreign investment, said, “I do not care what colour the cat is, as long as it catches mice”. For me the “mice” are “decent jobs” for the youth. I shudder to think what China, would have been like, if he had not opened up the country to massive investment, and creation of jobs.” He contrasted Rwanda’s sparse resource endowment with its leadership’s thought expansiveness, evidenced by a refocus on jobs. Nigeria, too, was hailed for its pro-investor policies which Strive regards as enlightened.
Marikana and the scarlet colour
The third thought came from South Africa, our neighbour, at the very least geographically (after President Zuma’s exhortation to his people not to think like Africans, I am a bit unsure!). Advocate Dali Mpofu has left the ANC for EFF, Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters. There is frantic speculation about the Sandton lawyer’s latest move, a few moons ahead of South Africa’s crucial, potentially directional poll. Dali shot to fame following a leak that amorously linked him to Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, then wife to Nelson Mandela, the anti-apartheid icon. Today he consolidates his fame by representing the survivors of Marikana shooting at the ongoing Farlam Commission of Inquiry. The miners were shot at the behest of London Minerals, a multinational investor which unlike Masiyiwa’s cat, gave South Africa a scarlet colour.
Only a few months back Dali represented Malema in a disciplinary hearing of the ANC, a hearing which got Malema ousted from the Youth League initially, and from the ANC subsequently. But Dali never lost colour after it all. Before that Dali had successfully represented a Free State faction of the ANC that sought to interdict the Free State delegation from voting at the elective Mangaung Conference of the ANC. It should not be difficult for my readers to understand why Dali’s joining of the EFF can only be so fraught. Stephen Grootes, a well-known anchor to South African talk radios, and a senior political correspondent for Eyewitness News, went as far as suggesting Dali’s desertion of ANC and subsequent joining of EFF could be an augury to more high-profile detections from the ANC to the EFF. And the speculation has been on Winnie Madikizela-Mandela who is well linked to both Dali and Julius — politically linked, that is.
Hanging on to a sentiment, a name
But all that is not my interest. My interest is the reasoning which Dali shed in leaving the ANC, or the converse, in joining the EFF. Among other things he said: “Internal paralysis (in the ANC) is such that it’s a question of time before it (the ANC) renders itself irrelevant to the broader revolution.” And he names the revolution: “I believe that the radical policies that are needed should deliberately favour the poor, the working class . . . and those who have not enjoyed the fruits of freedom. We have to accept that addressing the needs of those people (the poor of South Africa) has to be done at the expense of those who have, so that we can have the hope of achieving stability.”
He asserts that the ANC’s adoption of government’s National Development Plan at the Mangaung elective conference put on the saddle an era of “neo-liberal” vision for a South Africa so deeply fractured by racial inequities: “The path we are going to follow between now and 2030 is in my view the wrong prescription . . . So I don’t think we have to wait until 2031 to say this was not the correct prescription. By then the patient we are dealing with may be dead”. And he foresees more resignations from the ANC, adding: “My only prediction is that in the fullness of time, they (those still in the ANC) will see that they are just hanging on to the sentiment and the name”.
Mugabe’s out-of-wedlock son
The last key thought is in the latest issue of the Afro-centric magazine, New African. It comes from a very unlikely voice, Yahya Jammeh, the President of The Gambia. By age and pre-presidential profession (a middle-rank soldier), I never associated him with a thought of such continental expansiveness. Never! And today I call him Mugabe’s out-of wedlock son, politically that is. He has just taken his country out of the Commonwealth, stressing:
“I am saying we are not going to be part of any institution or organisation that has that legacy (of colonialism) or that is a representation of the colonial era, because colonialism brought us nothing but poverty, backwardness, exploitation, and slavery. In fact, we cannot in today’s age, continue to be associated with a country that was responsible for slavery in the first place. And while the Jews have been compensated and other people are being compensated, nobody is doing that for Africans. We have not even received an apology from Great Britain, which orchestrated slavery in the first place, and then brought us colonialism. Colonialism and slavery go together”.
When Africa needs a billion years
And he puts his bitterness in historical perspective: “The British were here in The Gambia for 400 years, and in that time they built only one high school (Armitage High School named after a British colonial governor, Cecil Hamilton Armitage) . . . So let us do the mathematics: if one high school was built in 400 years, how many years would it have taken us to add a college or a university? Nearly a billion years?” He cannot think of any African country that has been prospered by colonialism. Or its post-colonial variant, neo-colonialism: “Africa’s relationship with the West has seen Africa losing and the West gaining, and that will continue as long as we do not take a stand.
But for me and The Gambia, we are no longer going to follow anybody else, but our religion, our culture, and our beliefs. We need to question and act on why Africa is the richest continent in terms of mineral resources, but the poorest in terms of the bank balance. Everyone knows the status quo and that the current relationship has not benefited any African country but the Europeans. Now who are the Europeans that they should always teach the Africans what to do? From colonialism to now, they think that they are the gods of Africa, and that they should continue to tell us what we should do. The Gambia is saying no to that.”
One hell of a trip
He takes a dig at African leadership and its propensity to join any cause, any value, any principle, any institution, with remarkable thoughtlessness. Such as the International Criminal Court about whose operations Africa recently congregated to review: “We become members at a stroke of a pen, ratify our allegiance first and then read the text later, and only then do we realise what we have got ourselves into”. And he clinches it beautifully through a bus metaphor: “We jump into every bus (sic) without knowing the destination. And then when the driver stops in hell and asks the Africans to drop off, we find ourselves asking: why are we here? We have accepted everything created by the West without even questioning anything”. And his moral to Africa: “If you follow others, you can never lead”.
The real regime change
On July 31 this year, Zanu-PF won the harmonised elections resoundingly. Today it revels in that victory which has ravaged its enemies at home and abroad. The two MDCs are in throes, bickering bitterly around own leadership crisis which this stunning Zanu-PF victory has triggered. That means the ruling party has not just stunned its opponents; it has trounced the foundational values and personages around which its adversaries revolved. A real regime change in the MDC formation, if you ask me! Or at least the beginnings of it. Its victory has triggered a real fundamental question in the opposition, a scurrying for new values. Abroad, the British have admitted to being stunned, which is not quite the same as saying they have accepted defeat. Empires don’t accept defeat from their underlings. They only suffer them for a while; they withdraw to fight another day. And, if their underlings are not careful, they may win some day. They have a long-term view of conflicts. So, Caveat Emptor!
When parties no longer matter
And this sense of a continuing western challenge to Zanu-PF is key. It qualifies the July 31 result, does it not? Zanu-PF’s victory may have scattered its opponents, but it has not removed opposition. And opposition need not assume the form of parties or organisations, at least for now. After all parties are just but one form of organising opposition, of challenging values and a given hegemony. It is significant that the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition and other NGOs got together for an Ideas Festival at which Zanu-PF emerged the target and butt. Who needs MDC formations in such a situation? And with a bold warrior like Thabani Nyoni, who needs a Morgan Tsvangirai? But this teaches Zanu-PF to look beyond adversarial parties in its threats assessment. Today western oppositional ideas are being pursued under different organisational forms, through different discourses, different speakers.
Of course Thabani Nyoni is plain wrong, or simply duplicitous in equating a change of government to a change of regime. Regimes are never changed by superficial events like elections, even though electoral outcomes could very well point to, manifest or even precipitate a change of a regime. It takes deeper processes, more sustained processes to change regimes if these are conceived of in ways that Thabani never does, or can’t do. And to change a regime is not quite the same as to change a government. It is to overthrow an obtaining value system, to dismantle the ramparts of an order that has endured, that was a reigning ethos.
Where governments change, and regimes don’t
In economics we talk of shifts in demand as opposed to changes in demand. And you are always told that a shift changes direction, that a shift is seismic, a real departure from a given curve, while a change in demand is some mere movement along the demand curve. Thabani would or should know that 2008/9 changed a government without changing the core values, the core rules or ethos around which the Zimbabwean society is founded, constructed.
Those elections, Thabani, changed a government without changing a regime. This is why MDC formations came unstuck in the recent polls. They failed to dislodge the Zanu-PF ethos the same way that the 2008 hung result did not amount to, or become the same as hung values, a hung ethos, a hung experience, a hung perspective for Zimbabwe or Zimbabweans. Similarly, until about 2000, the regime of the colonial phase of this country remained intact under a Zanu-PF government inaugurated through the 1980 election, and repeatedly reinstated in five year electoral intervals. The 1980 electoral landslide did not become a regime landslide or landfall. Regime change is something more fundamental than disappearing into a ballot box for a few seconds, much more than a vote count.
And when the colonial regime finally changed here, the theatre was the countryside, the booth an old farmhouse, the voter an axe-wielding war veteran. And hey Thabani, the regime preservers were NGOs, were NGO personalities of various shades. Like You, Sir! Today we have new rules, new values, new personalities, new practices, new experiences, new property relations in that key realm of our lives. Yet even then we only have an enclave of a changed regime, never a regime change.
The regime that stayed
The British and their American cousins have never equated regime change in Zimbabwe to MDC electoral successes. Such successes would only mean the capturing of government, no doubt in itself a significant gain and resource for those working towards regime change. One key factor for those intent on regime change is capturing levers of the State, of which Government is one such. That was the reasoning at Lancaster when the Patriotic Front felt a transfer of power amounted to a minimum gain which could be leveraged later for maximum gain. But as they soon discovered, gaining political power gave them a mere potential for regime change, never the change of regime itself. Significantly President Mugabe for a long time spoke about the coexistence of socialism with capitalism, causing commentators like Andre Astrow to speak of a “revolution that lost its way”.
Equally, the policy of reconciliation was a way of placating the old order which could not be wished away. Zanu-PF’s interpretation of taking over the commanding heights of the economy amounted to a baneful inheritance of Ian Smith’s loss-making parastatals. And of course land, itself the pillar of the Rhodesian regime, was constitutionally protected for a good 10 years, the same way that white minority seats were entrenched for the first seven years.
Changing tact, changing discourse
Significantly, the West’s campaign for regime change has focused on key areas of property relations, goals and the value systems, and affinities and alliances. The attack on national leadership, party leadership, security leadership, the war veterans, national institutions and nationalist parties have all aimed at removing enablers to this unwanted property, value and alliance regime. Try and look at Zidera from this angle, and much gets revealed.
Zdera has never been a prescription or manual for democracy. It has always been about preventing or dismantling a new, nationalistic bundle of values, rules and goals, has always been about dismantling a nationalist regime where it has taken root, pre-empting it where it seeks establishment, in the process imperilling a neo-colonial setup.
If not why would elections here constitute “a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to US interests”? And from 2000, we have noted how the campaign message from the West has been changing more and more towards a less dissembling, more brazen discourse.
In the early 2000, the message was democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law, all of them fads and facades. The accent was on rule of law because western interests still wielded properties here which needed a pliant State that would police the environment for the safety of those interests. Then, the hope was that with a little pressure, Zanu-PF could be nudged into running a neo-colonial State it had adopted at Independence. A little later, we saw a campaign that was pitched on the mantra of “sound macroeconomic policy”, and which exhorted Zimbabwe to account for its policies through international financial institutions.
The strategy was to use the Bretton Woods institutions to change the book of economic rules here in a way that would pre-empt Zanu-PF’s attempt at overwriting old rules, writing new rules. It is not fortuitous that President Mugabe’s last campaign message this year challenged western economic orthodoxy with its overemphasis on capital, know-how and technology, all at the expense of natural resources which would shift the balance of power in favour of resource-rich Third World countries. Of course war veterans became the face of the alleged State profligacy when in reality the idea was to break affinities between a people and its fighting force in order to make reconquest easy, easier.
A Parapet for negative forces
Much later we saw a shift towards a more value-led campaign initially crudely named “de-Zanufication” and a little later, Security Sector Reform. The latter was more elaborately thought out and featured prominent Rhodesian soldier-thinkers and white thought institutions in Britain, America and South Africa. Both phases in this value-led campaign sought to overthrow a whole value system and tradition that fed into and stoked up the spirit of national resistance to imperialism. A key contribution to imperialism by the MDC formations was not so much their entry into Government after 2008; it was their role in writing a new rule book called the Global Political Agreement (GPA) which gave the pursuits of imperialism some semblance of national legitimacy.
The GPA allowed the West to excoriate and nudge Zanu-PF towards a neo-colonial setup while appearing to be acting within the law, consensually in national terms, and in good faith vis-a-vis its adversaries-turned-partners. Conversely, it allowed the two MDCs — pawns of the West — to push forward this borrowed imperialist agenda with some modicum of national respectability, away from their quisling identity. More significantly, it gave right wing, anti-liberation tendencies within Sadc and Africa a comfortable platform for opposing a sister State and/or sister Liberation movement without losing face or grounding in the eyes of their peoples.
The benchmarking of Zimbabwe’s electoral processes on Sadc and AU judgment by the West was founded on an expectation of using Africa and its processes to legitimise the destruction of an African revolution. Another key contribution by the MDC formations to imperialism was by way of the new Constitution whose drafting tellingly boiled down to a battle of values and direction, a battle between a neo-Rhodesian, a neo-liberal agenda and on the one hand, and values of the liberation struggle on the other.
Leadership and regime change
Of course there was a thrust to attack personnel and institutions which imperialism had marked as responsible for engendering anti-neocolonial values, or for implementing or defending them. Foremost was President Mugabe whose removal became a necessary and wished-for endgame, one pursued even in terms that suggested his physical removal. Beyond the many sinister plots against the President which shall be written about one day, imperialism’s death-wish for the President took the repeated form of fawned concern about his health in ways that were meant to naturalise his demise should it come as they hoped it would, or at the very least in ways that would make it thinkable.
As in countries like Lumumba’s Congo, Nkrumah’s Ghana and Allende’s Chile, in western propaganda terms, the removal or demise of Mugabe became synonymous with improved prospects for Zimbabwe. The idea was to create within Zimbabweans a reflex of wishing their leader dead or out of the way. When nature proved a coy or reluctant player, the focus shifted to knocking him out of the race through constitutional provisions.
That, too, did not work although all this confirmed Mugabe’s centrality in the defense of a nationalistic regime in Zimbabwe. I can also cite figures in the military, principally Chiwenga, Shiri, Nyikayaramba, Chedondo and Mugova who came under sustained attack, with clear suggestions to have them dropped from the military to enable security sector reforms, itself a key pillar in changing a regime, its values, its defences. Jabulani Sibanda became the butt of the anti-war veteran campaign. Nor was that all. The Judiciary came up for round attacks, with the Chief Justice, Judge President, Justices Bhunu, Hlatshwayo and others coming under attack. The institutional thrust of the attack should be all too obvious by now, and clearly showing a thrust to change the national ethos, not government as Thabani superficially thinks.
When imperialism grants a fool
All of which means what? Well, that either Nyoni does not understand what he is talking about or that he was sent on a bravery mission that didn’t require him to comprehend anything except to heroically naturalise and make mundane a very sinister agenda of imperialism. And both are very likely. How else is one to understand the courage that comes with articulating such a dumb position, and in public too? Or the quiescent acceptance of it all by his interlocutors. Something else but intellect appears to have been at work in the minds of both the sender and the receivers. Otherwise why would self-respecting Zimbabweans tolerate such a brazen, anti-nation message? Unless it has itself authored the knowledge, imperialism prefers ignoramuses to push its national agenda.
They are never restrained by knowledge or scruples. We saw the crudest form of that in Idi Amin of Uganda; saw that here in the internal settlement arrangement where ignorant bishops and chiefs were turned into “key” players. We have seen it in the leadership types chosen to lead the MDC formations, principally MDC-T whose leader America tells us requires “massive hand-holding”. I don’t know how literate this Nyoni boy is. But if for him an election, any election, which changes governments is the same as the pursuit and fulfilment of regime change, then one safely concludes that he is a very basic tool in foreign hands.
Even his own words rebel against him, as does his own argument. If going for elections legitimises and meets the requirements of regime change, then why proudly seek the same a mere four months down the line? And if we are already eating the fruits of “regime change” by way of Zanu-PF people telling their colleagues not to politicise food aid, then the polls changed the regime by keeping it the same! And if the people polled for a change that preserves the same, who, really is stopping to think with Thabani about “what kind of republic we want and what kind of Zimbabwe will work for us”? Who is “we”, who is “us”, this “us” who appears not to have participated in changing the regime on July 31, who appears not to have been represented by the outcome of July 31 polls? Indeed he who appears to reside outside of the people of Zimbabwe who voted, but who appears more important than all of them as to still want and deserve regime change after an electoral one?
The joke is on us
Nyoni appears to represent interests inhabiting a realm outside the national one outside one inhabited by its populace and filled by its national processes. For these interests, the July 31 result did not yield a regime change; rather, it yielded “many realities that we have to deal with”. That seems to do two contradictory things. At one level it seems to repudiate the efficacy of elections as a source of regime change, indeed as marking the fulfilment of one. Yet at another level it seems to suggest a deeper grasp of the “regime change” notion than what the functional Nyoni may be allowed to have.
He was sent to tell all those employed in the western-sponsored NGO sector that the July 31 elections were superficial vis-a-vis the endgame of regime change, indeed a mere faint marker of an effete phase in an old campaign that must continue. This is a very good warning to Zanu-PF which has been behaving as if it has reached “the end of history”. But a warning whose ironic twist is both comical and tragic. Comical in that the purveyor of the warning is a man who exhibits monumental ignorance at an Ideas Festival. Why did he, a cripple, join such an intricate dance? Tragic in that the ignoramus is a black Zimbabwean, is one of us. Hark, I hear peals of white laughter! That means the joke is on us, does it not? Icho!
nathaniel.manheru@zimpapers.co.zw
Labels: JULIUS MALEMA, NATHANIEL MANHERU
Read more...
