Lootocracy finds a benchmark in Zuma, not a credible defence

THERE is a tendency to single out cadre deployment and Jacob Zuma’s poor leadership as the only causes of financial mismanagement in local governments. Not even municipalities under Democratic Alliance rule are well managed; not even the Cape Town metro received a clean audit, a blow to Helen Zille.

Local governments compete with national and provincial spheres and the private sector to attract competent municipal managers and chief financial officers. Incorruptible, qualified financial managers leave local government for more suitable and professional environments in the private sector, which also pays better than the public sector.

In no way am I suggesting that the private sector is not tainted with corruption — politicians cannot be corrupt without being induced by entrepreneurs and tenderpreneurs.

We must reject President Zuma’s analysis that poor governance and poor service delivery are a result of apartheid. People know that we cannot achieve a nonracial, nonsexist and well-oiled state in 19 years. What they reject is aloofness of leadership, a corrupt state and mismanagement of the public purse — they see the bling lifestyles of politicians, while they live in squalor.

Where I live, there has been a high increase in the employment of relatives, friends, spouses and buddies of councillors. Friends of ward councillors are employed in projects, thus deepening the kleptocracy. A promise to force ward councillors to report at least once in three or four months is not implemented, creating mistrust between governors and the people.

Financial mismanagement in local government is an indictment of the leadership of Zuma, whose R206-million palace stands gumtree-high above all scandals. These lootocrats find warmth beneath his wings. — Siyanda Mhlongo,

KwaDukuza

Not the man you paint him as THE obituary on former police commissioner Perumal Naidoo, “Top cop who failed to act on corruption” (August 11), leaves readers with the impression that Naidoo was a semi-literate police commissioner with a Standard 7 education. This is certainly not true. He matriculated through correspondence and subsequently attained a national threeyear diploma in policing, with distinction, studying part time.

Naidoo was a self-educated man who was very widely read, and knowledgeable in politics and current affairs. In his 20s he was an outstanding soccer player and is still remembered by many in Chatsworth for his soccer skills. — Mike Reddy,

Tongaat

Try being nailed in a scrum, bru DEAR R Kelly, just because you are rich and famous does not mean you have manners or look good with a cigar in the mouth, doing your nails. You must come play some rugby. Groete and welcome to ZA. — Gustav, Cape Town

Elevate transformation debate I CONCUR that in the discourse that has been precipitated by the chief justice's address to the Advocates for Transformation, entitled “The Duty to Transform”, the fundamental issue is about transformation of the judiciary. This is a profoundly important debate that must take place in a robust but also dispassionate manner. In his piece “Transformation is the real issue” (August 11), Kessie Naidu — in defending the chief justice’s attack on persons who challenge the manner in which candidates are recommended for appointment to the bench by the Judicial Service Commission — fails to provide a cogent argument in relation to the fundamental issue in this dispute, namely whether the chief justice should be involved in this public controversy at all.

In this regard, it is submitted that there are two schools of thought. Firstly, there is that school which is premised on a liberal constitutionalism, which has as its seminal premise the supremacy of the constitution. A fundamental tenet of this school involves the independence of the judiciary. The protagonists of this approach criticise the chief justice for making comments in his address, in which he declared his allegiance with and support for the JSC against its detractors. This school regards as a core principle in the operation of an independent and impartial judiciary that judges should avoid political and other controversy concerning which they or the courts in general may be called on to give judgment. According to this approach, the chief justice has also, by his alignment to and support for the JSC, done immeasurable harm to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Secondly, there is that school of thought based on the philosophy of transformation. This school appears to view transformation as so important that even the constitution is subject to it, or at the least must be purposely interpreted in accordance with it. This approach is informatively explained by Sipho Hlongwane, who contends that transformation is so fundamental that all arms of the government must transform the country to make it more equitable and just. He therefore asks further why our chief justice should keep his mouth shut concerning these issues of transformation. He also asks why the chief justice should rescind his right to free speech just to appease one faction.

It is submitted that both schools favour transformation. In South Africa we need to have a meaningful debate and discourse on these two schools of thought.

It is a pity that Naidu contributes little to a dispassionate discourse in his piece. Although he indicates that we must play the “ball and not the man”, he then proceeds to make an unbridled personal attack on Paul Hoffman by stating that Hoffman’s views constitute the worst case of “arrogance and conceitedness”. This also applies to “many white lawyers, [who] although accomplished and experienced, lack the humility and understanding of human frailties, about which volumes have been spoken by reference to [the late Pius Langa, a former chief justice]”.

Statements like this can hardly be deemed to be a rational contribution to a debate that cries out for a careful and introspective statement of the two opposing schools of thought. In effect, must the chief justice be bound by the liberal democratic concept of judicial independence or does the overriding consideration of transformation demand that he be commended for bringing up the contentious subject?

Regardless of what school of thought we adhere to, no one has in any contentious argument a monopoly on the truth, morality or intellectual humility. This requires that we listen carefully to the arguments of opposing views and attempt to understand them in an intellectually honest manner. Such an approach would result in a more elevated exchange of views, rather than a meaningless slanging match. — George Devenish, by e-mail

Enough of the knife-licking BACK in 1964 in Zambia, the forces of Lumpa religious leader Alice Lenshina were anointed to protect them against bullets, and hundreds of them died in a clash with police and the army forces of President Kenneth Kaunda. We covered the aftermath on ZTV and it was used internationally, causing Kaunda to threaten the station with nationalisation, which followed.

That is one way to control bad news. Another, in line with the philosophy that truth delayed is truth denied, is to appoint a commission of inquiry to find it. The Marikana commission has so far proved the point, and the media has hardly distinguished itself.

“What can we do about it?” asks eNCA. Well, for starters you can stop pondering the question against the backdrop of that now familiar miner licking a long knife in anticipation of battle. The score, I think, was 34-0. That is what should be a major focus of attention.

We have seen police footage many times, all very selective, and none of the more investigative footage shot at the time. No matter what the background music, that is not the way to “Lead South Africa”.— Pat Rogers, Somerset West

Misleading miscommunication CARRIED as it was on a full page of reports on parliament’s ethics committee report on former communications minister Dina Pule, the tiny article “Now to undo the minister’s damage” (August 11) is ever so misleading. It implies that I was in effect commenting on the ethics committee’s findings on my predecessor.

Contrary to what the article says, I was interviewed for this article the week before the ethics committee released its findings. No questions about Pule’s ethics case were raised.

Yes, I did say the department is “highly challenged”, but I also referred to its potential to deliver and dealt at some length with our strategy and programme. No, I did not say “the department’s image is tarnished” or that it needed to “regain credibility and focus after the sacking of Dina Pule”.

I did not counterpose myself to Pule at all. — Yunus Carrim, Minister of Communications, Johannesburg