Populists skirt real issues
LISTENING to the reckless populist talk from the extreme left wing and the ANC’s ultra-right wing, in the forms of the two most awkward political players, Irvin Jim and Jacob Zuma respectively, leaves one in a state of anxiety.
Jim launched his road-map speech for South Africa’s revival at the memorial service of popular unionist Buyile MacVicar Dyasopu, who was respected across the highly divided political spectrum.
Jim used the opportunity to call for what he described as “revolutionary change”. He called for blanket nationalisation, the implementation of the Freedom Charter in its totality and the immediate ushering in of a socialist order.
Jim wants all the forces of production immediately to be transferred to “workers’ control”.
Zuma, on the other hand, was speaking at the KwaZulu-Natal provincial January 8 celebration in KwaDukuza. In his speech, he focused entirely on the ANC succession debate and the internal strife in the party.
He made no mention of the appalling matric results, the shedding of jobs in the poultry and textile industries, and other factors affecting the country’s human development index negatively. Instead, he spoke about old-fashioned conspiracy theories, as if he was living in the middle of the Cold War.
In his speech, delivered in Zulu, the president launched a pre-emptive strike against other factional leaders, especially those who want to contest the ANC leadership at the end of this year. He said those who put themselves forward as potential candidates were driven by ambition and were divisive.
The president said nothing about the pathological symptoms of his rule. His tenure has been characterised by avoiding responsibility by using the blame game, excuses and the dodging of accountability.
Instead he dishes out more unrealisable promises like the 2.5% growth for this year (January 8 speech). No-one knows where he found that figure.
The president and his supporters have resigned themselves to measure his legacy by the number of speeches he made live and by the crowd sizes that attended his public meetings.
Listening to both these leaders was mind-boggling. Jim is a stalwart and a hardened fighter for workers’ rights. He has done that without dishing out any concessions or compromises.
His credentials as a fighter for workers’ rights are impeccable and he is certainly a trustworthy leader. He is prepared to live an exemplary life by living his talk.
However, his dogmatism and the romanticising of outdated communist philosophy is scary. He calls for revolutionary change and a revolutionary agenda.
Jim’s speech was superior to that of Zuma, in that he delved into critical and broad issues such as free education, China’s dumping of goods and exchange controls. He appreciates the urgency of these matters if we are going to avoid a national catastrophe.
He touches on the actual issues that affect our people daily, that is education, unemployment, lawlessness, corruption and state capture. He also suggests means to do away with these social and economic ailments.
On the other hand, Zuma spoke for more than 40 minutes and said nothing about these burning and urgent issues. He concentrated in his speech on two items: first castigating those who want to contest the election this year and the second issue was playing the race card.
In last year’s January 8 speech he blamed all our ailments on the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in 1652. What was bizarre was the fact that he was explaining the Eskom power outages.
There are times when the president forgets that being in charge of the country means that you are responsible for solving all governance problems. You cannot outsource your task to those you hate.
He has put South Africa in a precarious position. The economy is not growing because he does not believe in any of the economic policies or programmes that his party and government support, such as the NDP (National Development Plan), nor does he touch on the fact that close to 2 000 citizens died on the national roads in a space of 30 days.
Instead, he delves into attacking his fellow leaders and imaginary foreign enemies. The most destabilising factor in the country is actually his lack of leadership.
After listening to these two leaders, I came to the conclusion that they refuse to choose the best possible solutions to deal with our problems.
Therefore it goes without saying that they both lack understanding, analysis and the conceptualisation of our grave state of the nation.
The political fragmentation of our land since the Polokwane tsunami will leave South Africa polarised, divided and isolated internationally for a long time. In recent times we have seen our people being divided, dehumanised, and left directionless and leaderless.
The speeches by the main contentious forces show us how deep the trauma has eaten into our social fabric and national identity.
We will only be able to save South Africa from this unmitigated disaster by repudiating this period and by taking the country in the opposite direction. That can be done by a vigilant nation and a pragmatic leadership.
Mao Zedong’s pragmatism is what leaders like Jim should emulate. It was he who led China out of the Soviet domination in the 1950s.
It was he who at the height of the Cold War reached out across the ideological divide and built a de facto alliance with the United States. That pragmatic move by Mao paved the way for China’s engagement with the West, which was one of the propellers of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms.