Sparks meant negative sense of ‘smart’

I REFER to your editorial, “Not smart” (The Mercury, May 11), commenting on Allister Sparks referring to HF Verwoerd as “smart”. I make no apology for Verwoerd, who more than than anyone else was the architect of grand apartheid and brought into being the republic in 1961.

What I think Sparks was trying to convey with the word “smart”, which, depending on the context, can be used in a negative connotation is that Verwoerd was cunning in a Machiavellian manner, and thereby out-smarted his political opponents to promote his policies of rabid nationalism and institutionalised discrimination.

Machiavellianism, conceived by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his book, The Prince, by definition means the employment of cunning and duplicity in state craft or general conduct.

In this regard a case can be made against Verwoerd, who in 1959 was forced in relation to South Africa’s continued occupation of the mandated territory of South-West Africa, now Namibia, to provide at the International Court of Justice a moral defence for the policy of apartheid being applied in the mandated territory.

At the time, the extant policy was referred to as baasskap or domination in perpetuity.

Verwoerd knew such a crude policy was incapable of a moral justification, so he decided that the ultimate fate of the Bantustans would be complete independence by means of a process of internal decolonisation, thereby emulating the process of decolonisation by the European powers.

Four of these Bantustans – Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei and Venda – did ultimately achieve such nominal “independence”. He hoped that South Africa would obtain moral credit and respectability for the policy of grand apartheid. This can be described in a sense as Machiavellian.

This policy was one of unilateral partition of South Africa, which as part of the policy of overall apartheid, resulted in the intense oppression of the indigenous people of South Africa and all people of colour.

In relation to the all-white referendum for the republic in 1960, Verwoerd disenfranchised the coloured people, but allowed the whites in South-West Africa to vote, thereby obtaining a majority by the skin of his teeth.

This is the kind of conduct that Sparks apparently has described ob- viously in its negative connotation as “smart”. Sparks’s critics have lambasted him because, according to them, he has given some kind of credibility to Verwoerd, which was not his intention.

Sparks is a brilliant, world-class veteran journalist who, over about 60 years, has made a phenomenal contribution. GEORGE DEVENISH

Durban

Sparks’s critics have very short memories

I AM appalled at the level of criticism aimed at Allister Sparks over his speech to the DA this past weekend.

Peoples’ memories are so short. Has the media, in particular, forgotten about how extraordinarily brave Sparks was in his fight against the apartheid government for the rights of all people of colour in this country? Time and again, he put himself at risk on their behalf. This is social media at its very worst.

As Peter Barrett said in his letter of May 13, “smart” is a morally neutral word. It seems that there is a lack of understanding of English terminology among journalists and others who have manufactured this outrage.

Eusebius McKaiser, Zapiro, Justice Malala and all the rest of you hysterical critics, you should be ashamed of yourselves. JILL STORRAR

Gillitts

Compassion informs the right to die lobby

THE sad death of Robin Stransham-Ford, the decision by the judge and intention to appeal against that decision by the ministers of Health and Justice refers.

Many years ago in the British Weekly Telegraph, there were two letters to the editor printed side by side.

The first was from a doctor who said assisted suicide should not be permitted or condoned. His reason: a cure might be found.

My belief is if a person has weeks to live, it is not a cure that is needed but a miracle. The other letter was from a married man. Both he and his wife had been married before, and both had lost their spouses to dreadful diseases. He had watched his first wife drown in her own blood. He and his second wife made a pact that if either should become terminally ill, and express their wish to die, irrespective of the consequences, they would assist the sufferer to end his or her life.

Of the sentiments expressed in the letters, which displays the most compassion? I know what I think. PETER HILLS Durban North

Chiefs and Pirates get all the attention

KAIZER Chiefs and Orlando Pirates will continue to dominate the Premier Soccer League (PSL) for many years to come because of the massive financial resources at their disposal.

They have these resources because of the exposure they are receiving from electronic media. All the games involving these two teams are televised and, as a result, they attract lots of sponsorships.

It is not the fault of Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates, though. It is the PSL’s responsibility to make sure all teams get equal exposure, but it is not doing that. I also do not understand why other club owners are not raising these issues as they affect their teams.

It is no use to claim they cannot dictate to broadcasters which games the broadcasters should televise.

At the end of day if only two teams get all the exposure, it means that the playing fields are not level.

The champions who win under such circumstances fail to win the respect of their competitors.

And the credibility of the PSL may, in turn, be affected because there will always be those who will say, “but these champions won because they are being favoured”.

The broadcasters also need to come to the party.

They know that whatever they do needs to be fair in the eyes of the public. They must ensure that all PSL teams are given equal exposure. ROMANIUS ZULU

Morningside

Privatise these slack parastatals

WE REALLY need to privatise the stable of state-owned enterprises like Eskom, SAA and the post office, to name just a few.

The reasons are many, but mostly just to provide proper services to consumers. If private airlines and energy producers can operate profitably without billions of annual bailout funds, and still provide what they are supposed to, then surely the government has no place in such industries?

What’s more, no parastatals contribute taxes as they are government– and usually run at massive losses that require huge taxpayer funding.

Why not sell all of them to private operators and allow competition to create viable employment and keep prices as low as economically possible, and customer service at its best, and create jobs?

Corruption is also minimised in private-sector operations as the shareholders can fire offenders, whose CVs are ruined forever. ROBERT NICOLAI

Howick