SOUTH AFRICA CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER LOST GENERATION

University campuses have been transformed from places of learning to places of turmoil. Lawlessness, disruption and violence are now the catalysts driving student unrest under the transformation banner. Tertiary education has become captive to violent lawlessness that threatens the very foundation of transformational goals. Peaceful protests have been jettisoned in favour of increasingly militant confrontational methods fueled by racism. Transformation at tertiary institutions has and continues to be an agonisiingly frustrating and emotionally painful experience for black students. Besides the lack of adequate housing, tuition debt, and subsistence living, black students also face academic challenges due to poor language, analytical and cognitive skills not cultivated in earlier formative years. The cumulative effect is a breeding ground for anti-social behavior, as well as a new disturbing development which can be described as 'parent culpability syndrome'. The rationale for parent culpability advocated by radical "born frees" rests on the premise that the older black generation sold out their descendants when the Rainbow Nation came about through an ill-conceived negotiated settlement. To these radicals it was a capitulation in which "Mandela was used as a silencing tool for black pain and dissension". Just the opposite, the settlement was agreed upon based on the recognition that a peaceful transition to majority rule trumped catastrophic civil war. It was not a sell-out by ANC leaders demanding regime change. Rather a realistic assessment of ANC options, including the military option which paled against the capabilities of the apartheid regime. As a general rule one can forgive the irrational exuberance and lack of maturity of radical "born frees", but disparaging their elders without an overall appreciation of their momentous contributions pre and post-apartheid is offensive. Students are engaged in an uprising reminiscent of 1976. Back then it was against an illegitimate government, whereas today, students can freely interact with government and university management. They must step up and constructively engage otherwise the term "lost generation" will have new meaning.

GWEDE MANTASHE - TELL US YOU ARE NOT THAT STUPID

ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe addressed the party faithful at the party's recent march for "unity, democracy, and non-racialism" in Pretoria. Mantashe stressed that the march was not a protest but a positive initiative for a united society. If so, there was a gaping disconnect between the so-called initiative and his fighting words that had nothing to do with unifying South African society. Mantashe urged ANC members to never take any advice from their enemies, and accused the US government of attempting to influence regime change in the country. What does the advice issue, and the accusation against the US government have to do with creating a united society amongst the people of South Africa? The simple answer - nothing at all. But, seeing Mantashe "opened the door" a brief observation on both issues is appropriate. Mantashe admonishes ANC members never to take advice from its enemies. Surely common sense dictates that one does not take advice from one's enemy. On the other hand, issuing a public warning to ANC members seems to indicate otherwise. Also, Mantashe does not identify enemies of the ANC, leaving one to speculate that opposition parties, the business community, banks and some of the media are likely enemies of the ANC. Mantashe's claim that the US government is attempting to influence regime change is laughable. He was referring to the Mandela Washington Fellowship, which was part of the Young African Leadership Initiative. A bemused Patrick Gaspard, US ambassador to South Africa responded by reminding Mantashe that he had invited him to recommend young ANC leaders for a six week fellowship. I am reminded of the rantings, some 54 years ago, of Albert Hertzog, a cabinet minister in the apartheid regime. He accused the American Field Service Scholarship Programme of indoctrinating young South Africans sent to the US to further their studies. Not much has changed in 54 years in this regard. According to Mantashe the march was a positive initiative promoting "unity, democracy and non-racialism". By injecting issues more akin to a political rally, Mantasha relegated the noble concepts of unity, democracy and non-racialism to the sidelines. A prime example of poor judgment, and for the proposition that wisdom does not always come with old age.

A CLASSIC CASE OF HOBSON'S CHOICE

There are currently two candidates ostensibly vying to head up the ANC after Jacob Zuma steps down in 2019. They are Cyril Ramaphosa and Zuma's ex-wife Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. The winner will be President of the country. Both appear competent contenders when contrasted with the empty shell leadership of the current president. In a perfect parliamentary system a ruling political party chooses its leader within a framework requiring a focus on the long-term good of the country - this means a leader vested with statesmanship as opposed to being just a politician. As a prerequisite to statesmanship the qualities of integrity, responsibility accountability, conscience and character are essential. Having enunciated the qualities of leadership, the question arises whether the contest between Ramaphosa and Dlamini- Zuma will be determined based on their respective leadership qualities. The political dynamic in the ANC for replacing Zuma in 2019 is a power struggle between competing factions. The presence or absence of leadership qualities is a non-sequitur. All that matters is factional self-interest between those who support Dlamini-Zuma or Ramaphosa - principally the three provincial premiers, and Zuma for the former; the trade unions for the latter. All of the above begs the question: who will be better for the country? There are those who predict that Dlamini-Zuma will be much like her ex-husband. Also, her actions while minister of health in promoting a "quack" cure for AIDS based on a toxic industrial solvent , and purging the country's drug-safety authority when it objected to it, should summarily disqualify her. That leaves Ramaphosa - the well-connected billionaire politician who does not need the trappings of the state to enrich himself. He acquired his riches by becoming a major beneficiary through gratuitous empowerment deals. He is beholden to his party for his wealth, and refuses, in the name of party loyalty, to distance himself from Zuma and his political chicanery. Instead he blindly supports and defends Zuma by dishing up rhetoric over reality. His lack of political will and independence raises concerns about his ability to effectively govern. The French political philosopher Alexis du Tocqueville observed that we get the leaders we deserve. What did we do to deserve the current incumbent, and the ones now positioning to control our futures? It is a rhetorical question because we reap what we sow.

ZUMA'S MISSED OPPORTUNITY

Imagine if President Zuma  commenced his Sona speech with the words:  "The state of our nation is strong and rests on the bedrock of good governance".   Although this representation flies in the face of stark reality, Zuma and his government have had ample opportunity to make it happen.  Instead they have jointly and severally crippled the country's economy that likely foreshadows recession and the downgrading of its credit rating to junk bond status.

There was little substance in Zuma's address to the nation that would instill confidence, or anything suggesting a positive reaction to the speech from rating agencies.  It was essentially a cut and paste version of previous addresses with some exceptions. His attempt to address profligate spending by cutting down on government junkets, and canceling a scheduled dinner following  the budget speech later this month was paltry in contrast to the cost of public sector corruption, and other exigent crises attributable to Zuma's political chicanery, and the freewheeling  reckless spending of the ANC government.  Also, raising the issue of moving parliament to Pretoria as a cost cutting measure was a red herring - nothing new, other than flogging a dead horse.

Zuma's address to the nation, to quote Winston Churchill, "was a special moment when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered a chance to do a very special thing. . . " That special thing was for Zuma to apologise to the nation for defying the public protector, and causing the irreparable fiscal meltdown following the firing of then Finance Minister Nene.

It would have been a golden opportunity for Zuma's to possibly salvage his  political career, and restore some level of credibility to his tattered image.  Sadly, he failed to do so, and more so, as South Africans are a forgiving people.

A LESSON IN MISPLACED LOYALTY

Mathews Phosa, a former premier of Mpumalanga and member of the ANC's National Executive committee recently addressed a group of some 60 business leaders.

His address focused on the ruling party and government taking responsibility for their actions in  leading "to the global impoverishment of our political and economic currency".  In essence, Phosa urged the government and ruling party to come clean by admitting its mistakes and correcting them.

Phosa's address to business leaders was by no means earth shattering.  Business leaders have known the deleterious consequences of the ANC government's incoherent policies, best described in terms of the dramatic construct, forever and a day.  In fact, inasmuch as Phosa's address was intended to win-over converts, it was a wasteful exercise - he was preaching to the choir.  Would it not then have been more constructive for Phosa to address a closed meeting of comrades to express his concerns?  Yes indeed, but then Phosa would not have been on a centre stage.

In spite of his criticism, Phosa  said he nevertheless would vote for the ANC .  He added: "Where individuals leaders make a mistake, we should say we are making mistakes. . . I will vote ANC. It is individuals who are corrupt, not the ANC".

If it was simply honest, or even incompetent mistakes, forgiveness is a consideration, but so-called individual leader "mistakes" cannot be substituted for the ANC's collective deep-seated predilection for corruption.

Phosa cannot now separate, or distance himself from the collective contagion that has resulted in the country's political and economic impoverishment he speaks of.  As a leading ANC collective fellow traveler, he should rather think about seeking absolution from the electorate, accompanied by a mea culpa for good measure.

ZUMA - A BAD PENNY CLOAKED IN NARCISSISM

President Zuma met with business leaders on the day the Nklanda case was taking center stage at the Constitutional Court. His meeting with business leaders was presumably intended to create the impression of diligently attending to matters of state, as if the Nklanda court hearing was a non-issue. Inasmuch as the court proceeding was televised, one assumes Zuma took time out of his busy schedule to witness his spurious arguments, and those of his hung out to dry sycophants (Mbete, Nxesi and Nhleko) being torn to shreds. To many in Zuma's position, it would be a clarion call to resign and quietly retire to the pastoral life of Nklandla. Not so - Zuma is like a bad penny that turns up again and again. Zuma has no conception of political reality. Just a few days ago he remarked that people are happy with his performance. His misguided and inordinate fascination with himself adds new dimensions to narcissistic egocentrism. Zuma will not willingly leave the political stage. That leaves the ruling ANC to oust him. Although there are signs of ANC discontent for Zuma , and resultant tightening of his reins, the approaching municipal elections will forestall any decision to oust him. The ANC cannot afford the huge embarrassment of ousting him in the interests of upsetting apocryphal party unity. At best, Zuma's role will fall into the lame-duck category with decisions emanating solely from the back rooms of Luthuli House. Barring unforeseen events, political reality will call for the ruling party to confine Zuma to serving out his full term as simply a figurehead president whose authority has been emasculated. But then again, do not summarily dismiss "the bad penny" haunting metaphor.

BLACK LAWYERS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME

The Black Lawyers Association (BLA) has criticised President Zuma for retaining white counsel to represent him in the Nklanda case before the Constitutional Court. The BLA asserts that Zuma has "no faith in black advocates". There is merit in the BLA's assertion of a "lack of faith in black advocates". Consider the glaring whiteness of legal counsel appearing on behalf of certain parties before the Constitutional Court. It is symptomatic of the pervasiveness of white counsel retained in complex litigation disputes in preference to black counsel, because of the latter's perceived lack of sophistication and experience in such matters. The private and public sectors are equally at fault in perpetuating the stereotype. Our legal system is structured to provide litigants with the right to freely retain legal counsel of their choice. It is an unfettered right primarily based on public perceptions of counsel's legal competence, skill and reputation. The fact that Gauntlett was white played no part in Zuma's decision to retain him. He was retained solely because of his perceived expertise, competence and experience. Zuma's decision to hire Glauntlett was simply predicated on self-interest. The stakes were too high to place his trust in black legal practitioners not yet ready for prime time. The bumbling antics and incoherent submissions of Speaker Mbete's counsel at the Constitutional Court on the Nklanda case is a quintessential example of unpreparedness for prime time. Black legal practitioners have been historically disadvantaged and deprived of the entrenched privileges enjoyed by their white colleagues. It will take meaningful mentoring before black legal practitioners are able to run with the pack. Until then their ability will remain suspect.

NENE TURNS THE OTHER CHEEK

Former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene has resigned as an ANC Member of Parliament. Previously he was removed as finance minister to allegedly facilitate his appointment to the New Development Bank. When Nene's resignation as an MP was announced, one assumed it was in reaction to the politically obscene circumstances surrounding his removal as finance minister. Publicly he stoically accepted his inauspicious removal, but one suspects, he must have experienced humiliation, violative of his dignity and respect. Without question, there are those who, if faced with the same circumstances, would have on principle, digitally symbolized their contempt for Zuma, but not Nene. Not only is he stoic, but also a patient man. He has yet to be appointed, even though, according to Zuma, he had to be urgently removed as finance minister to facilitate his appointment. I The extraordinary delay in appointing Nene, according to the DA, "is increasingly looking like a blatant lie manufactured to explain away the catastrophic decision to fire him in 2015". Whether Nene will be appointed is an open question. One thing is clear, however, Nene had a choice to make in either resigning as an ANC MP, on principle, or doing so based on ANC hive-minded collective loyalty in furtherance of his appointment. He has opted for the latter. To paraphrase Dwight D. Eisenhower: a man who values misguided loyalty above principles soon loses both.

PAYBACK TIME FOR ZUMA ?

We all know, and Jacob Zuma agrees, he is not an educated man. But, his lack of education is offset by savviness and old fashioned horse sense. Zuma's street-smarts have served him well during his presidency in sidetracking a host of alleged misdeeds. In doing so, his cabinet and the ruling party have willingly acted in concert with him. On February 9, 2016, the Constitutional Court is expected to hear the action brought by the EFF to compel Zuma to implement the public protector's recommendations regarding non-security upgrades to Nklanda. In a surprise move, Zuma, through his lawyers, informed the court that he was willing to pay back taxpayer money on non-security upgrades to Nklanda, based on a proposed methodology for repayment. Zuma's proposal, as far as the court is concerned, is a non-starter. Any first year law student knows that settlement falls strictly within the realm of the litigants. Once a settlement is concluded, the court may, at the request of the parties, approve the settlement to facilitate enforcement of the settlement terms. If Zuma believed his settlement proposal would preclude the case from going forward, he has finally out-smarted himself. More significantly, Zuma's proposal has far reaching political ramifications. No matter what legalese the settlement proposal is couched, it will be regarded as a gigantic admission of wrongdoing, and a sign of political weakness. Furthermore, the admission will impact on those who vociferously asserted that Zuma was not responsible or obligated to reimburse the taxpayer. They will be seen as either stupid or dishonest. It is simply no longer "pay back the money", but rather "payback time" in more ways than one.

ZUMA - A PATSY FOR THE GUPTA CONGLOMERATE

President Zuma's appointment of Des van Rooyen as finance minister was the equivalent of an uncontrolled wild fire with devastating results. Fortunately Zuma bowed to pressure, but too late to forestall further harm to the country's already fragile economic landscape. By all accounts, Zuma appointed van Rooyen without consulting senior members of his cabinet, or any Luthuli House comrades. He apparently followed the same course when appointing Mosibenzi Zwane to the cabinet post of mineral resources minister. Zuma, as president, has the unfettered right to appoint various officials, including cabinet ministers, listed in the Constitution. He is vested with constitutional power to independently do so, and has not been circumspect in exercising his prerogative. Therein lies the problem - Van Rooyen and Zwane's ministerial appointments were not based on the calibre of their credentials - they had none for their respective posts, but rather on alleged Gupta family influence. Even the ANC secretary-general recently expressed the need to "deal decisively" with "people outside the state" impacting on government decisions. In fairness, the drafters of the Constitution could not have predicted presidential power appointment abuse now evident. In hindsight, a system of checks and balances should have been included to vet presidential nominees. Amending the Constitution to now do so would seem to be a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. In any event, the political will to amend the Constitution is not on the cards, if at all. One more reason for the rot to continue.