Security staff ‘squeezed’ Malema’s private parts
Zuma lost opportunity to emulate the stature of Tambo and Mandela
EFF leader Julius Malema grimaced in pain. Someone had snapped a picture. So Malema posted it on Twitter. He claims members of Parliament’s protection services grabbed his testicles as they tried to force him and his fellow-MPs out of the House ahead of the State of the Nation address on Thursday.
Surrounded by “white shirts” Malema is pictured with his eyes closed and the picture is captioned: “The bastard is squeezing my balls...jisses. They always go for my balls, this white shirts. They do this all the time, hai. No retreat fighters.”
Later in the day, the picture was retweeted by the South African Government’s official Twitter account, with the words: “Hahahahahaha”.
NOT too long ago, President Jacob Zuma opened most speeches with a quote from Nelson Mandela or, at the very least, used a Madiba quote in his speech.
This year he has been quoting Oliver Tambo liberally, understandable given that Tambo would have turned 100 in October.
But what Zuma fails to understand, and this was clear at the State of the Nation address on Thursday night, is that quoting great leaders does not make you a great leader.
Zuma fell very short of his publicly acknowledged heroes, Mandela and Tambo, not only in the delivery of the speech, which he began at 8.21pm, after three attempts and several disruptions. He was supposed to have started at 7pm but met fierce resistance in the House, mainly from the EFF.
After some of the worst scenes seen in Parliament, Zuma began by exclaiming “Finally!” before quickly settling into his trademark giggles and even an irritating “cheers” whenever he took a sip of water.
One supposes he felt comfortable because he was speaking mainly to ANC MPs and what was left of the public gallery where a chemical substance had earlier been used on some guests.
The EFF was forcibly removed from Parliament, as was Cope’s Willie Madisha, although less violently so, while the DA MPs walked out.
What was of more concern than the exit of the MPs was the behaviour of some ANC MPs who shouted “f*** you” when DA MP John Steenhuisen tried to speak and there were shouts of “racist” and “sell-outs” when the DA left the House.
Earlier some of the EFF MPs had made disparaging remarks about Zuma and Speaker Baleka Mbete. The EFF’s Mbuyiseni Ndlozi called Zuma a “constitutional delinquent” while Cope’s Mosiuoa Lekota called Zuma a “scoundrel”.
One expects far more from the people who are supposed to be our public representatives.
The drama in Parliament unfolded for three reasons: objections against Zuma’s legitimacy because of what his critics say are violations of the constitution, the Speaker’s refusal to allow a minute of silence in remembrance of the 94 patients who died in Gauteng recently, and the presence of soldiers in the parliamentary precinct.
While Zuma was delivering his speech inside the National Assembly in his normal deadpan way, the protests continued outside with tense stand-offs between the ejected MPs and the police. Parliament had never seen such a security force presence and intimidation of MPs and the media.
If Zuma really wanted to be like Mandela and Tambo he would have seized an opportunity to be statesman-like and would not just have expressed relief when he was finally allowed to begin his speech.
He would not have gone straight into his speech but would have made some off-the-cuff comments about what he had just seen and expressed his disquiet about it, not because of the disrespect shown to him, but the potential damage being done to Parliament and South Africa by the behaviour of the MPs and the police.
He would have appealed to his ANC colleagues to seek a political solution to a problem that refuses to go away. He might have said he would reflect on his own role in creating this situation and would try to think of ways in which he could assist in resolving the tensions in Parliament (but that’s just wishful thinking on my part). He might also have said the Speaker erred by not allowing a minute of silence in remembrance of the patients who died, or might have called on everyone to stand in silent prayer or meditation when he did mention their deaths in his speech.
Mandela, and especially Tambo, would have read their speeches before delivery to make sure they understood its content and would not have been floored by the pronunciation of difficult words or numbers. Zuma gave the impression that he was seeing the speech for the first time. There were too many times he looked confused about what he was reading or when he stumbled over his words.
By the time he delivered his speech, it was difficult to concentrate on what he had to say, not only because of the delivery but because of what had just happened.
In many ways, the contents of the speech were predictable. It was almost as though he was reading a report card of the government’s achievements but there was not much in terms of vision.
Zuma premised his speech on the ANC’s latest catch phrase, “radical socio-economic transformation”, and promised to correct the situation where black people were still, for the most part, detached from the mainstream economy.
He mentioned the National Development Plan and the ninepoint plan of the government once and spoke more extensively about the need to grow the economy to create more jobs, the successes of the regular interaction between government and business, his joy at the agreement on a national minimum wage, Eskom’s success in the power-generation sector, the government’s commitment to counter water losses, and efforts to eradicate mud schools and replace them with proper structures.
Zuma’s comments on the death of the patients was comprehensive and impressive, with a commitment that the government would implement the recommendations of Health Ombudsman Malegapuru Makgoba urgently. There was even a promise of the government’s support for the victims’ families.
One by one he ploughed through the work and achievements of various government departments, dealing with the Square Kilometre Array project, university students’ demands for free education, a commitment to lower the cost of data, improvements in road infrastructure, an increase in tourism and many others.
China featured prominently in Zuma’s speech, with news of a co-operation agreement with the People’s Republic of China to build the Moloto Rail Development Corridor. Zuma also made a commitment to the “One China Policy” and said the government considered Taiwan an “integral part of the PRC”.
It was when Zuma spoke about the government’s priorities that the assembled MPs and guests appeared to listen more attentively.
“Political freedom alone is incomplete without economic emancipation,” he said, quoting Tambo as saying in 1981 that “it is inconceivable for liberation to have meaning without a return of the wealth of the country to the people as a whole”.
Zuma defined “radical socioeconomic transformation” as “fundamental change in the structure, systems, institutions and patterns of ownership, management and control of the economy in favour of all South Africans, especially the poor, the majority of whom are African and female, as defined by the governing party which makes policy for the democratic government”.
He listed instances of how the economic situation had not changed in 22 years, including the gap in the household income of whites and blacks, the fact that blacks only own less than 10% of the top 100 companies on the JSE and the slow pace of transformation in the work place.
He outlined some steps the government would take to achieve transformation, including making it compulsory for big contractors to sub-contract 30% to black business.
If Zuma was being completely honest with the nation, he would have acknowledged the role the ANC had played in maintaining the economic status quo. In May 1987, at the Business International Conference in London, Tambo spoke about the challenges that would face the ANC when it became the government.
“As the vanguard movement of our people, the preoccupation of the African National Congress is, and should be, the relentless prosecution of the all-round struggle to achieve freedom and democracy in our country. At the same time, we have begun to face the responsibilities that flow from having to lead our people in the restructuring of our society under the conditions of freedom. At the heart of this process is the need to ensure that the hopes and aspirations of our people find realisation through programmes based on concrete socio-economic facts.”
Maybe Zuma should revisit that speech and ask himself why and how the ANC has failed to deliver on a mandate that its longest-serving president realised as long as 30 years ago. Let’s hope the ANC does not only quote Tambo this year, but also learns from his example.