‘Not flip-flopping on death penalty’
NEW DA leader Mmusi Maimane yesterday rejected criticism that he was flip-flopping on the death penalty because he wanted to win public support in his spirited campaign last week.
Maimane said while he was wrong to have said he would support a referendum on the death penalty, he was simply arguing for South Africans’ right to express an opinion on any issue.
DA federal chairman Athol Trollip defended Maimane, saying it was the party leader’s right to change his mind.
In a television debate with DA leadership competitor Wilmot James last week, Maimane said he would support a referendum on capital punishment, should South Africans ask for it.
This was heavily criticised by James, who said it showed that Maimane did not fully understand the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
But Maimane has backtracked, with critics accusing him of flip-flopping.
Maimane said: “My argument during the debate was that people should be allowed to express their opinions.
“I do not support capital punishment. I would never vote for capital punishment.
“That is not DA policy and DA people do not believe in it.”
Asked whether he had said it to gain public support from those fed up with crime, Maimane said: “That was not about being popular.
“What I was saying is that people have a right to express their opinion and I respect that.
“But I do not support capital punishment,” he said.
Trollip said Maimane was allowed to change his mind like anyone else.
“We are all human. None of us is infallible,” he said.
“If he thought about what he had said and decided to change his mind, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.
“My personal opinion is that I don’t think it is right in a constitutional democracy to be running referendums on the death penalty, because tomorrow it will be referendums on whether I should pay my taxes.
“It is a slippery slope, but that is my opinion,” Trollip said.
Political analyst Mcebisi Ndletyana, of the Mapungubwe Institute, believed Maimane’s blunder did not dent his credibility as a leader.
Politicians were known to backtrack all the time, he said.
“It would be very inaccurate to judge him on that. We will have ample time to assess Mmusi’s character now that he is the leader of the DA.
“We should not rush to judge his character.” AN attempt to get the DA to support calls for traditional medicine to be registered in South Africa was shot down at its federal congress at the weekend.
Gauteng delegate and traditional healer Abraham Letsise’s plea to give the resolution the thumbs-up was rejected by the majority of members at the conference at the Boardwalk in Port Elizabeth on Sunday.
The motion received a resounding no from the 1 425 voting delegates on the grounds that traditional medicine was not scientifically tested and approved.
Letsise could not be reached yesterday.
On Sunday, he pleaded with the congress, saying voting in favour of the amendment would send a strong message that the DA respected different traditions.
“Most people think the Democratic Alliance does not care about traditions,” he said.
“I am a registered traditional healer. So I am in support that the [DA] should also start to recognise traditional healers, knowing that we move forward with them and we [traditional healers] are not sidelined.”
The DA’s shadow health minister, Wilmot James, proposed that the amendment be rejected because traditional medicines were not scientifically tested.
“In order to assess ... that the medicine is safe to use and it works, it has to go through clinical trials and, quite right, we don’t want to get a medicine that has not been tested,” he said.
“It is inconsistent with DA policy and it is inconsistent with modern medicine, so therefore, I recommend we reject it in its entirety.”
The resolution was proposed by George DA member Gail Daus-Van Wyk, who wanted the congress to adopt it as a DA policy to recognise the right of individuals to choose their form of medication, while also protecting citizens from fraud and safety issues.
Yesterday, she said: “I don’t believe the party looked into it in enough detail.
“I feel congress misunderstood what the motion was about because afterwards a lot of people said [to me] they were unhappy with how the voting went.
“I have not given up. I am still trying to persuade people ... to look into it again.”