Why defend indefensible?

IT IS becoming an increasingly demanding task to come up with good news in South Africa. am not sure who President Jacob Zuma thinks believes him when he repeatedly refers to “a good story to tell”.

The Marikana massacre was an event in our history which seemed to have caught us completely off-guard. No one would have imagined that under a democratically elected government a labour dispute would turn into a massacre of the magnitude of Marikana.

But then I am not sure why we keep getting shocked by the extent of moral bankruptcy demonstrated by government at every opportunity. Surely a morally bankrupt government can only continue to make morally indefensible decisions and take morally indefensible actions.

It is funny though, how the same government attempts to provide some sort of moral cover for its morally deficient actions.

This somehow suggests even the government is aware of what is morally indefensible, and also that it recognises people, generally, are moral beings who want to live in a morally upright society.

The question is, if a government such as ours knows people are moral beings, and that morality has value to them, why does it not become apparent to that government that behaving in a morally upright manner is necessary to ensure the continued support of citizens?

Why take morally indefensible decisions and actions only to try to cover them up later in a lame attempt to appeal to the morality of the citizens?

The recent Marikana report is such a dismal attempt to present the government of the day as blameless in the massacre of miners when in fact, the decisions were taken completely on Zuma’s watch and that of his ANC.

Why does it even seem morally acceptable to this leadership for the man in charge to blame others and absolve himself from all blame?

This is exactly the same thing that happened when the shameful Nkandla report was given by a sweating Police Minister Nathi Nhleko. Blame was pushed as far away from the president and government of the day as was possible and all manner of flimsy scapegoats were presented in an attempt to defend an indefensible procedure.

Ironically, the Marikana report was read out by the president when the heat had not even cooled over the presence in South Africa of a man accused of conducting another massacre. Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir was not only knowingly allowed into South Africa, but once inside defended and then, miraculously, he managed to evade our border control mechanisms and “sneak out” of the country – in defiance of our laws, of our courts and of international laws.

How could our government choose to side with a leader accused of having so much blood on his hands?

But when we look at Marikana maybe we should not be surprised at all.

We have become a society in which the victims of a massacre are collateral damage.

It is also ironic that the ruling party, which always seems so eager to rule “till Jesus comes”, wants nothing to do with the decisions made by its deployees under its rule.

The lesson being taught to our young is it is all right to take action and to grab the credit when results are good, but when results are bad be quick to blame others.

How do you defend a leadership which consistently teaches this lesson to its people? It is particularly disturbing. Frankly, I have reached the point where I have decided not to be shocked by anything the current government does.

What needs to happen though, is for it to get a shock for a change.

Government is really begging for a, eh . . ., morally upright shock from its citizens!