Ousted Prez: Thanks and goodbye
Steve Hayes
National Prosecuting Authority’s decision to charge ANC leader Jacob Zuma, and
he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
Announcing his resignation as president last night, Mbeki defended his legacy,
which suffered a major blow when a Pietermaritzburg High Court judge ruled
that he and his cabinet had interfered with the work of the independent
prosecuting authority.
"We have never done this and therefore never compromised the right of the NPA
to decide whom it wished to prosecute or not to prosecute. This applies
equally to the painful matter relating to the court proceedings against the
president of the ANC, comrade Jacob Zuma," Mbeki said.
The ANC decided to "recall" Mbeki at its national executive meeting this
weekend following a damning judgment by Judge Chris Nicholson a week ago
suggesting that his government was involved in a political conspiracy against
Zuma.
In his address, Mbeki refuted these claims: "More generally, I would like to
assure that our successive governments since 1994 have never acted in any
manner intended to wilfully violate the constitution and the law ... In this
context, it is most unfortunate that gratuitous suggestions have been made
seeking to impugn the integrity of those of us who have been privileged enough
to serve in our country’s national executive."
Mbeki said he had tendered his letter of resignation to national assembly
speaker Baleka Mbete yesterday and that the resignation would be "effective
from the date" determined by parliament.
Mbeki said he had accepted the ANC’s decision as a "loyal" member of the
party.
Amid claims that his supporters are now planning to break-away from the ANC
following his sacking, Mbeki was at pains to explain his commitment to the
party and said his work in government was based on ANC principles.
"This service has at all times been based on the vision, principles and values
that guided the ANC.
"Wherever we are and whatever we do, our actions must contribute to a free and
just society.
"This is a vision of a South Africa that is non-racial, non-sexist and
prosperous. Based on the age old values of Ubuntu," he said.
Mbeki spoke about his government’s successes on the economic front, having
presided over South Africa’s longest economic growth cycle.
"We as government embarked from 1994 on policies and programmes aimed at
pulling the people of South Africa out of the morass of poverty.
"We transformed our economy resulting in the longest period of sustained
economic growth in our country," he said.
Mbeki did acknowledge that this growth had not benefitted all.
"I would be the first to say that even as we ensured consistent economic
growth, the fruits of this growth are not shared among all the people. We must
admit that we are still faced with many challenges in this regard.
"We must all act in a manner that respects the dignity of every human being,"
he said.
With the ANC decision having divided the nation, Mbeki said he had received a
lot of support from the public.
"I have received many messages from South Africans from all walks of life … I
thank all of you fellow South Africans for these messages.
"I would like to say that gloom and despondency have never defeated adversity.
," he said.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=848203
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
>OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with the
>National Prosecuting Authority’s decision to charge ANC leader Jacob Zuma, and
>he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
The manner of his leaving invites comparison with Tony Blair who left in
similar fashion last year. Mbeki and Blair were also contemporaries.
My take on it is in my blog at:
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/mbeki-thank-you-and-goodbye.html
for anyone who may be interested.
Stephen Adams
>OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with the
>National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge ANC leader Jacob
>Zuma, and he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
Maybe, maybe not. But it is absolutely certain he aided and abetted
Mugabe, and for that, I'm glad to see him go.
-Stephen
--
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Bob Dubery
> Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with the
> >National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge ANC leader Jacob
> >Zuma, and he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. But it is absolutely certain he aided and abetted
> Mugabe, and for that, I'm glad to see him go.
>
What seems clear to me is that Mugabe is a pretty wriggly eel. Both
Mandela and Mbeki had good reason to believe that they had secured
concessions from Mugabe only to find out that they had been duped.
Personally I think that Mbeki might have been a little more outspoken
about Zimbabwe. He did, on occasion, disagree or expressed
disagreement via the Presidency, but he always did so very quietly.
Other than saying something like "We consider that actions taken by
President Mugabe are distasteful and certainly do no reflect our own
values" I can't see that he could have done much else.
Stephen Adams
>On Sep 22, 12:17=A0pm, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>> Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with th=
>e
>> >National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge ANC leader Jacob
>> >Zuma, and he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. But it is absolutely certain he aided and abetted
>> Mugabe, and for that, I'm glad to see him go.
>>
>How is that so certain?
>
>What seems clear to me is that Mugabe is a pretty wriggly eel. Both
>Mandela and Mbeki had good reason to believe that they had secured
>concessions from Mugabe only to find out that they had been duped.
Because, at least according to The Economist & BBC, Mbeki was standing
in the way of the rest of the OAS that wanted Mugabe out. He was, by
insisting on negotiations that would leave Mugabe some power, helping
Mugabe by providing a shelter.
>Personally I think that Mbeki might have been a little more outspoken
>about Zimbabwe. He did, on occasion, disagree or expressed
>disagreement via the Presidency, but he always did so very quietly.
Not a little more - a lot more. And he should have sided with the
countries that were working to help the real winner of the elections
take office as he should have and put an end to Mugabe's kleptocracy.
>Other than saying something like "We consider that actions taken by
>President Mugabe are distasteful and certainly do no reflect our own
>values" I can't see that he could have done much else.
Agreeing to sanctions and refusing to deal with Mugabe would have been
the correct course of action.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Sep 22, 12:17=A0pm, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
> >> Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> >OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with th=
> >e
> >> >National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge ANC leader Jacob
> >> >Zuma, and he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
>
> >> Maybe, maybe not. But it is absolutely certain he aided and abetted
> >> Mugabe, and for that, I'm glad to see him go.
>
> >How is that so certain?
>
> >What seems clear to me is that Mugabe is a pretty wriggly eel. Both
> >Mandela and Mbeki had good reason to believe that they had secured
> >concessions from Mugabe only to find out that they had been duped.
>
> Because, at least according to The Economist & BBC, Mbeki was standing
> in the way of the rest of the OAS that wanted Mugabe out. He was, by
> insisting on negotiations that would leave Mugabe some power, helping
> Mugabe by providing a shelter.
Until recently there wasn't much pressure from the AU on Zimbabwe.
>
> >Personally I think that Mbeki might have been a little more outspoken
> >about Zimbabwe. He did, on occasion, disagree or expressed
> >disagreement via the Presidency, but he always did so very quietly.
>
> Not a little more - a lot more. And he should have sided with the
> countries that were working to help the real winner of the elections
> take office as he should have and put an end to Mugabe's kleptocracy.
Until the most recent elections I don't think it was unarguable that
there was another winner. Mugabe was very good at playing the old game
of redrawing constituency boundaries, knowing that in the Westminster
system seats count but seats do not equate to popular vote. One might
argue that this is cynical politics, but Mugabe would not be the first
to play that game - and it is a LEGAL game.
In the most recent elections the MDC won the parliamentary vote and
that result was upheld in Zimbabwe by Zimbabwean courts. The MDC got
the results of the Presidential election wrong. And I have to be
honest and say that I thought Tsvangarai blew that one. Yes, it was
getting ugly, but if he'd stood in the second round he'd have had a
good chance of winning - or Mugabe's hand would have been forced and
he'd have to explain to the world why whatever accident befell the man
who'd secured the most votes in the first round. Tsvangarai chickened
out. And so he became part of the problem, and had to negotiate from a
position he needn't have been in.
>
> >Other than saying something like "We consider that actions taken by
> >President Mugabe are distasteful and certainly do no reflect our own
> >values" I can't see that he could have done much else.
>
> Agreeing to sanctions and refusing to deal with Mugabe would have been
> the correct course of action.
Tony Blair faced similar criticism at one time. He argued against
BRITAIN imposing sanctions Doing that would not have any real effect
and might disadvantage British companies. Agreeing to be party to
sanctions imposed by a broad international community would be a
different proposition. BUT to do that would require legal changes. He
could not just tell British companies to disinvest from Zimbabwe. Much
of this applies to Mbeki. It's not 5 minutes work to impose sanctions
on another country - not if you live in a democracy. And one country
doing this by itself would not achieve much.
If SADEC or the AU had decided to impose sanctions then that would be
a different matter. In any event Mugabe's regime would have had
political and material support from Zaire and Equatorial Guinea in
Africa and also from China.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Tony Blair faced similar criticism at one time. He argued against
>BRITAIN imposing sanctions Doing that would not have any real effect
>and might disadvantage British companies. Agreeing to be party to
>sanctions imposed by a broad international community would be a
>different proposition. BUT to do that would require legal changes. He
>could not just tell British companies to disinvest from Zimbabwe. Much
>of this applies to Mbeki. It's not 5 minutes work to impose sanctions
>on another country - not if you live in a democracy. And one country
>doing this by itself would not achieve much.
I fail to see what sanctions would have accomplished. Mugabe's own actions and
policies were far more effective than any external sanctions that anyone could
have applied.
>
>If SADEC or the AU had decided to impose sanctions then that would be
>a different matter. In any event Mugabe's regime would have had
>political and material support from Zaire and Equatorial Guinea in
>Africa and also from China.
>
>
>
--
Bob Dubery
> I fail to see what sanctions would have accomplished. Mugabe's own actions and
> policies were far more effective than any external sanctions that anyone could
> have applied.
If you wanted to wreck the economy, yes. If you wanted to force change
then no.
This reminds me of an article that I read in the International Herald
Tribune last year. The columnist opined that Osama Bin Laden didn't
need to do anything to wreck America because America was running it's
economy so recklessly that given enough time they'd wreck the country
without any outside assistance.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 23, 6:50 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see what sanctions would have accomplished. Mugabe's own actions and
>> policies were far more effective than any external sanctions that anyone could
>> have applied.
>
>If you wanted to wreck the economy, yes. If you wanted to force change
>then no.
It's not so much what you "want" as what you actually achieve.
Sanctions are based on the idea that people would rather change than wreck the
economy. Mugabe has shown that he has no qualms about wrecking the economy, as
long as he stays in power. Sanctions will have no effect on causing such a
person to want to change.
>This reminds me of an article that I read in the International Herald
>Tribune last year. The columnist opined that Osama Bin Laden didn't
>need to do anything to wreck America because America was running it's
>economy so recklessly that given enough time they'd wreck the country
>without any outside assistance.
Seems he was right.
Bob Dubery
> Sanctions are based on the idea that people would rather change than wreck the
> economy. Mugabe has shown that he has no qualms about wrecking the economy, as
> long as he stays in power. Sanctions will have no effect on causing such a
> person to want to change.
Which is why the EU tried to impose sanctions targetted at the ruling
clique. If selected carefully and applied rigorously those could have
hurt Mugabe himself. I'd agree that a blanket trade embargo wouldn't
have bothered him that much, as long as he could move money around and
put fuel in a plane when he needed to.
It would have been difficult. Mugabe was very good at maximising
opportunities presented to him. EG The mercenaries apprehended at
Harare airport were handed over to Equatorial Guinea in return for a
large amount of oil.
Bob Dubery
> Sanctions are based on the idea that people would rather change than wreck the
> economy. Mugabe has shown that he has no qualms about wrecking the economy, as
> long as he stays in power. Sanctions will have no effect on causing such a
> person to want to change.
PW didn't seem that keen to get the message. FW was keener on being a
citizen of a healthy country than king of nothing and took the
pragmatic long term decision. SA owes a big debt to FW, and I hope
that history will be kind to him.
Stephen Adams
>On Sep 23, 12:23 am, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Sep 22, 12:17=A0pm, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >> >OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with th=
>> >e
>> >> >National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge ANC leader Jacob
>> >> >Zuma, and he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
>>
>> >> Maybe, maybe not. But it is absolutely certain he aided and abetted
>> >> Mugabe, and for that, I'm glad to see him go.
>>
>> >How is that so certain?
>>
>> >What seems clear to me is that Mugabe is a pretty wriggly eel. Both
>> >Mandela and Mbeki had good reason to believe that they had secured
>> >concessions from Mugabe only to find out that they had been duped.
>>
>> Because, at least according to The Economist & BBC, Mbeki was standing
>> in the way of the rest of the OAS that wanted Mugabe out. He was, by
>> insisting on negotiations that would leave Mugabe some power, helping
>> Mugabe by providing a shelter.
>
>The OAS? Don't you mean the AU?
Yes, sorry.
>Until recently there wasn't much pressure from the AU on Zimbabwe.
Which had a lot to do with the faiure of Mbeki to take a strong stand.
>> >Personally I think that Mbeki might have been a little more outspoken
>> >about Zimbabwe. He did, on occasion, disagree or expressed
>> >disagreement via the Presidency, but he always did so very quietly.
>>
>> Not a little more - a lot more. And he should have sided with the
>> countries that were working to help the real winner of the elections
>> take office as he should have and put an end to Mugabe's kleptocracy.
>
>Until the most recent elections I don't think it was unarguable that
>there was another winner. Mugabe was very good at playing the old game
>of redrawing constituency boundaries, knowing that in the Westminster
>system seats count but seats do not equate to popular vote. One might
>argue that this is cynical politics, but Mugabe would not be the first
>to play that game - and it is a LEGAL game.
Yes, it was. But a bad guy using good tactics doesn't make him a
good guy! That said, he DID lose the last election. And then tried
to steal it after the fact.
>In the most recent elections the MDC won the parliamentary vote and
>that result was upheld in Zimbabwe by Zimbabwean courts. The MDC got
>the results of the Presidential election wrong. And I have to be
>honest and say that I thought Tsvangarai blew that one. Yes, it was
>getting ugly, but if he'd stood in the second round he'd have had a
>good chance of winning - or Mugabe's hand would have been forced and
>he'd have to explain to the world why whatever accident befell the man
>who'd secured the most votes in the first round. Tsvangarai chickened
>out. And so he became part of the problem, and had to negotiate from a
>position he needn't have been in.
I'm of the opinion that Tsvangarai beat the 50% he needed to win. It
certainly is supported by the significant delay in releasing the results.
Tsvangarai didn't have the support he needed from South Africa - support
that might have pushed Mugabe out. Since Mugabe knew he could get away
with it, he tried. As for 'chickening out' - when one side has all the
guns, and is willing to use them, it's hard to fight.
>> >Other than saying something like "We consider that actions taken by
>> >President Mugabe are distasteful and certainly do no reflect our own
>> >values" I can't see that he could have done much else.
>>
>> Agreeing to sanctions and refusing to deal with Mugabe would have been
>> the correct course of action.
>
>Tony Blair faced similar criticism at one time. He argued against
>BRITAIN imposing sanctions Doing that would not have any real effect
>and might disadvantage British companies. Agreeing to be party to
>sanctions imposed by a broad international community would be a
>different proposition. BUT to do that would require legal changes. He
>could not just tell British companies to disinvest from Zimbabwe. Much
>of this applies to Mbeki. It's not 5 minutes work to impose sanctions
>on another country - not if you live in a democracy. And one country
>doing this by itself would not achieve much.
And right there you have the recipe for allowing people like Mugabe a
free hand. "We can't do anything because nobody else has already done
it." Well, SOMEBODY has to be first. And Mbeki had an opportunity to
lead and he failed miserably.
>If SADEC or the AU had decided to impose sanctions then that would be
>a different matter. In any event Mugabe's regime would have had
>political and material support from Zaire and Equatorial Guinea in
>Africa and also from China.
That would not have been sufficient, and China had to worry about the
Olympics.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Sep 23, 12:23 am, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
> >> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >On Sep 22, 12:17=A0pm, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
> >> >> Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> >> >OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with th=
> >> >e
> >> >> >National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge ANC leader Jacob
> >> >> >Zuma, and he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
>
> >> >> Maybe, maybe not. But it is absolutely certain he aided and abetted
> >> >> Mugabe, and for that, I'm glad to see him go.
>
> >> >How is that so certain?
>
> >> >What seems clear to me is that Mugabe is a pretty wriggly eel. Both
> >> >Mandela and Mbeki had good reason to believe that they had secured
> >> >concessions from Mugabe only to find out that they had been duped.
>
> >> Because, at least according to The Economist & BBC, Mbeki was standing
> >> in the way of the rest of the OAS that wanted Mugabe out. He was, by
> >> insisting on negotiations that would leave Mugabe some power, helping
> >> Mugabe by providing a shelter.
>
> >The OAS? Don't you mean the AU?
>
> Yes, sorry.
>
> >Until recently there wasn't much pressure from the AU on Zimbabwe.
>
> Which had a lot to do with the faiure of Mbeki to take a strong stand.
the end, of course. Notably Botswana. But that was only pretty recent.
So for most of the time the AU, wrongly or rightly, either didn't give
a rodent's rear end, hoped the problem would just go away or were all
going the quiet diplomacy route.
Mbeki was certainly never going to force his own idea of a solution on
Zimbabwe. Quite right too. Like it or not, like what it's government
does or not, it is a sovereign state.
>
> >> >Personally I think that Mbeki might have been a little more outspoken
> >> >about Zimbabwe. He did, on occasion, disagree or expressed
> >> >disagreement via the Presidency, but he always did so very quietly.
>
> >> Not a little more - a lot more. And he should have sided with the
> >> countries that were working to help the real winner of the elections
> >> take office as he should have and put an end to Mugabe's kleptocracy.
>
> >Until the most recent elections I don't think it was unarguable that
> >there was another winner. Mugabe was very good at playing the old game
> >of redrawing constituency boundaries, knowing that in the Westminster
> >system seats count but seats do not equate to popular vote. One might
> >argue that this is cynical politics, but Mugabe would not be the first
> >to play that game - and it is a LEGAL game.
>
> Yes, it was. But a bad guy using good tactics doesn't make him a
> good guy! That said, he DID lose the last election. And then tried
> to steal it after the fact.
Yes. But that's the only one he visibly lost. Or, as he might put it,
came close to losing. Because whilst the MDC secured the largest share
of parliament - a decision that was upheld within Zimbabwe -
Tsvangarai did not actually win the first round of the presidential
race.
>
> >In the most recent elections the MDC won the parliamentary vote and
> >that result was upheld in Zimbabwe by Zimbabwean courts. The MDC got
> >the results of the Presidential election wrong. And I have to be
> >honest and say that I thought Tsvangarai blew that one. Yes, it was
> >getting ugly, but if he'd stood in the second round he'd have had a
> >good chance of winning - or Mugabe's hand would have been forced and
> >he'd have to explain to the world why whatever accident befell the man
> >who'd secured the most votes in the first round. Tsvangarai chickened
> >out. And so he became part of the problem, and had to negotiate from a
> >position he needn't have been in.
>
> I'm of the opinion that Tsvangarai beat the 50% he needed to win. It
> certainly is supported by the significant delay in releasing the results.
People other than I have pointed out that the MDC's count of the
presidential results was incorrect. They did have the most votes out
of any of the contesting parties, and despite the delays that position
was upheld. They did not end up with less parliamentary seats than
they expected. So if you were going to cook the results, how did that
happen? Even if Mugabe had been returned as President he would have to
deal with a house where his party did not have a majority.
> Tsvangarai didn't have the support he needed from South Africa - support
> that might have pushed Mugabe out. Since Mugabe knew he could get away
> with it, he tried. As for 'chickening out' - when one side has all the
> guns, and is willing to use them, it's hard to fight.
Why should South Africa, or Mbeki, have taken sides? How could Mbeki
claim to be an honest broker if he did that? Mbeki, rightly I believe,
did not start by forming his own idea of a desirable outcome and then
try to force that into being. To do that would have been to play the
same game that many said Mugabe was playing and that they found
distasteful.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Other than saying something like "We consider that actions taken by
> >> >President Mugabe are distasteful and certainly do no reflect our own
> >> >values" I can't see that he could have done much else.
>
> >> Agreeing to sanctions and refusing to deal with Mugabe would have been
> >> the correct course of action.
>
> >Tony Blair faced similar criticism at one time. He argued against
> >BRITAIN imposing sanctions Doing that would not have any real effect
> >and might disadvantage British companies. Agreeing to be party to
> >sanctions imposed by a broad international community would be a
> >different proposition. BUT to do that would require legal changes. He
> >could not just tell British companies to disinvest from Zimbabwe. Much
> >of this applies to Mbeki. It's not 5 minutes work to impose sanctions
> >on another country - not if you live in a democracy. And one country
> >doing this by itself would not achieve much.
>
> And right there you have the recipe for allowing people like Mugabe a
> free hand. "We can't do anything because nobody else has already done
> it." Well, SOMEBODY has to be first. And Mbeki had an opportunity to
> lead and he failed miserably.
So did Blair. So did several other heads of state. Some of them had
been quite happy to send the troops into a sovereign state on the
flimsiest of pretexts.
And you've ignored my other point. That Blair or Mbeki (or Bush for
that matter) cannot just tell businesses in his country that they may
not trade with some country or other. Blair pointed out, quite
correctly, that he did not have the authority to tell another British
subject where he could or could not play sport. He might prefer that
they didn't play against Zimbabwe or Zimbabweans or in Zimbabwe, but
British subjects had the right to make those choices for themselves
and he could not just take that right away. Such things can be done,
of course, but they require laws to be enacted in a proper way. And
there was never the clear moral case against Zimbabwe that there was
against South Africa. For example Mugabe was not disenfranchising
citizens on the basis of their ethnicity.
There was also the tricky question of how one could bring sanctions
against the Mugabe regime and still justify trade and diplomatic
relations with China. Or a war mongering USA. Or with countries like
Russia that were meddling in the affairs of neighbouring states.
All of which Mugabe was probably banking on.
And then there was that unfortunate letter from the Blair government,
early in their first term, that gave him the smoking gun that he
needed.
>
> >If SADEC or the AU had decided to impose sanctions then that would be
> >a different matter. In any event Mugabe's regime would have had
> >political and material support from Zaire and Equatorial Guinea in
> >Africa and also from China.
>
> That would not have been sufficient, and China had to worry about the
> Olympics.
Oh please! Firstly Mugabe was not interested in sustaining a country,
he was interested in sustaining his own position. That required
substantially less support.
And the olympics were not such a diversion that China could not do
anything else. China are resource hungry at present, and they have
been buying up mineral rights all over the place and exploiting them.
Even whilst considering their preparations for the Olympics.
Moira de Swardt
While you are rather inclined to be sympathetic to Mbeki, I have found
his whole attitude to be quite arrogant thoughout his term of office.
I am unable to forgive his idiocy on three important issues in South
Africa. The first is that of HIV. I have written enough on the
subject. Mbeki is an idiot. Zuma is no better in this regard. The
second major issue is that of the Zimbabwean situation. The third
issue is probably a minor issue, but still an irritation. He once
said that if his sister did something he'd beat her. He later said he
was joking. I understand the joke. But I consider it inappropriate
in a society where violence against women and children is rampant.
As far as I'm concerned his going is not a catastrophe. However I
remain concerned despite Zuma's assurances that this is not
unconstitutional. I suspect it is.
And I don't like having to learn to pronounce a new name. I'm too old
for change. :-(
Bob Dubery
> As far as I'm concerned his going is not a catastrophe. However I
> remain concerned despite Zuma's assurances that this is not
> unconstitutional. I suspect it is.
Mbeki tendered his resignation - which is allowed for. So on the face
of it there's no problem.
To force the issue requires a vote in Parliament. 2/3 is needed to
carry the motion. But it didn't come to that.
The interesting question is WHY it didn't come to a vote in the house.
Post your speculations here....
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 22, 7:30 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:59:16 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >OUSTED President Thabo Mbeki yesterday denied that he interfered with the
>> >National Prosecuting Authority’s decision to charge ANC leader Jacob Zuma, and
>> >he described as "gratuitous" claims that he abused his office.
>>
>> The manner of his leaving invites comparison with Tony Blair who left in
>> similar fashion last year. Mbeki and Blair were also contemporaries.
>>
>> My take on it is in my blog at:
>>
>> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/09/mbeki-thank-you-and-goodbye.html
>>
>> for anyone who may be interested.
>While you are rather inclined to be sympathetic to Mbeki, I have found
>his whole attitude to be quite arrogant thoughout his term of office.
>I am unable to forgive his idiocy on three important issues in South
>Africa. The first is that of HIV. I have written enough on the
>subject. Mbeki is an idiot. Zuma is no better in this regard. The
>second major issue is that of the Zimbabwean situation. The third
>issue is probably a minor issue, but still an irritation. He once
>said that if his sister did something he'd beat her. He later said he
>was joking. I understand the joke. But I consider it inappropriate
>in a society where violence against women and children is rampant.
Hi Moira, nice to see something from you -- haven't seen anything from you on
Usenet for ages and ages (well, six months at least).
Well I did liken him to Blair, and I wasn't at all sympathetic to Blair. And
it was mainly in comparison with people like Blair and George Bush that I
thought he was a better leader, which isn't saying much.
And, as I said, the biggest problem was that he surrounded himself with
yes-men, and yes, he dithered over things like Aids and Zimbabwe.
>As far as I'm concerned his going is not a catastrophe. However I
>remain concerned despite Zuma's assurances that this is not
>unconstitutional. I suspect it is.
I don't think it is unconstitutional, but there are some things that the
constitution isn't too clear about, and it hasn't taken fully into account the
implications of proportional representation, though in that regard floor
crossing is a more important issue.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 24, 11:18 pm, Moira de Swardt <moir...@wol.co.za> wrote:
As they used to say in taglines about 15 years ago, I suspect Mbeki woke up
one morning and thought "Sometimes it just isn't worth gnawing through the
straps."
Roger Conroy
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pjmd4lq7mj0rbgmg...@4ax.com...
Floor crossing is dead. It was abolished a few months ago.
Unfortunately don't have time right now to look for a good cite.
Roger Conroy
"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gbg7f0$k6j$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Steve Hayes
<rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Floor crossing is dead. It was abolished a few months ago.
>> Unfortunately don't have time right now to look for a good cite.
>Correction - weeks, not months, ago
Well that's nice to know.
Gary
Do you think democracy would be better served if the president were
elected directly by popular vote rather than indirectly by the "robot"
parliament (where the robots are representatives who have to do their
party's bidding)?
Lance
Bob Dubery
> Do you think democracy would be better served if the president were
> elected directly by popular vote rather than indirectly by the "robot"
> parliament (where the robots are representatives who have to do their
> party's bidding)?
The ballot for President is a secret one, so if somebody votes against
the party's recommendation nobody will know. Well they might know that
SOMEBODY did, but not who.
Doing it the way that you suggest means that the President is not
beholding to the party as he is now. But it would require substantial
constitutional changes as laws around electing, appointing a cabinet,
death or resignation of a President, impeachment and votes of no
confidence would need to be changed.
Wether or not the public would make a different decision, let alone a
BETTER one is arguable.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> I don't think it is unconstitutional, but there are some things that the
>> constitution isn't too clear about, and it hasn't taken fully into account the
>> implications of proportional representation, though in that regard floor
>> crossing is a more important issue.
>>
>
>Do you think democracy would be better served if the president were
>elected directly by popular vote rather than indirectly by the "robot"
>parliament (where the robots are representatives who have to do their
>party's bidding)?
Possibly -- I believe some couontries, like France, do it that way.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Bob Dubery
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Gary <LanceG...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Do you think democracy would be better served if the president were
> >elected directly by popular vote rather than indirectly by the "robot"
> >parliament (where the robots are representatives who have to do their
> >party's bidding)?
>
> Possibly -- I believe some couontries, like France, do it that way.
Zimbabwe too. So does that method promote democracy? Or is it just
another method?
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 26, 6:48 pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's just another method. And whether it promotes democracy or not depends on
how free and fair the elections were -- which, of course, in Zimbabwe they
were not.
Bob Dubery
> It's just another method. And whether it promotes democracy or not depends on
> how free and fair the elections were -- which, of course, in Zimbabwe they
> were not.
Many systems have a concept of two houses and/or centers of power. One
house reflects the popular vote, the other is supposed to be less
subsceptible to sentiment and the need to get re-elected.
EG in Britain the Lords, in theory, do not have to worry about re-
election and thus act as a check to the Commons which does. But Labour
have severely reduced the size of the Lords and it's ability to impede
(as some one would see it) Commons in recent years.
In a system with seperate but simultaneous votes for President and
Parliament, the President does not get appointed directly by the party
with the majority of seats, and so should not be beholding to the
majority (or any other) party for his position.
In this country we used to have seperate PM and State President, with
the State President actual head of state. PW unified the two posts,
and it probably made little practical difference at the time. It might
even have been his undoing as he resigned as head of the NP but not as
President, but found his hand forced by the party in any event.
I would think there are many variations on the theme, with different
degrees of accountability to and control by the house elected by
popular vote.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sep 29, 7:32 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> EG in Britain the Lords, in theory, do not have to worry about re-
> election and thus act as a check to the Commons which does. But Labour
> have severely reduced the size of the Lords and it's ability to impede
> (as some one would see it) Commons in recent years.
>
more state control - the introduction of CCTV cameras, ID cards, ASBOs
and police powers for traffic and litter wardens to persecute people
[whilst diminishing the power of the police to affect the economically
useful criminal sector] has been achieved by preventing the Lords from
opposing all these repressive totalitarian policies so beloved of the
'left'.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sep 29, 7:32 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's just another method. And whether it promotes democracy or not depends on
>> how free and fair the elections were -- which, of course, in Zimbabwe they
>> were not.
>
>Many systems have a concept of two houses and/or centers of power. One
>house reflects the popular vote, the other is supposed to be less
>subsceptible to sentiment and the need to get re-elected.
>
>EG in Britain the Lords, in theory, do not have to worry about re-
>election and thus act as a check to the Commons which does. But Labour
>have severely reduced the size of the Lords and it's ability to impede
>(as some one would see it) Commons in recent years.
I've sometimes thought that instead of a "Council of Provinces" we should have
one house elected by proportional representation and the other elected on the
constiuency system. The latter could even allow floor crossing.
>In a system with seperate but simultaneous votes for President and
>Parliament, the President does not get appointed directly by the party
>with the majority of seats, and so should not be beholding to the
>majority (or any other) party for his position.
>
>In this country we used to have seperate PM and State President, with
>the State President actual head of state. PW unified the two posts,
>and it probably made little practical difference at the time. It might
>even have been his undoing as he resigned as head of the NP but not as
>President, but found his hand forced by the party in any event.
Originally the State President simply replaced the Governor-General as the
representative of the Queen, and became a nice way of kicking retire party
hacks upstairs. It would perhaps avoid some of the problems we have now, where
people who despised Mbeki's policies were accused of showing disrespect to the
head of state.
Steve Hayes
ASBOs?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:04:42 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
>
>
> <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 29, 11:21 am, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 29, 7:32 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> EG in Britain the Lords, in theory, do not have to worry about re-
> >> election and thus act as a check to the Commons which does. But Labour
> >> have severely reduced the size of the Lords and it's ability to impede
> >> (as some one would see it) Commons in recent years.
>
> >It has been, of course, no accident, but a deliberate policy to enable
> >more state control - the introduction of CCTV cameras, ID cards, ASBOs
> >and police powers for traffic and litter wardens to persecute people
> >[whilst diminishing the power of the police to affect the economically
> >useful criminal sector] has been achieved by preventing the Lords from
> >opposing all these repressive totalitarian policies so beloved of the
> >'left'.
>
> ASBOs?
>
bad behaviour, seldom used for serious offenders it seems, but useful
for harassing people who drop a sweet wrapper.
Steve Hayes
Sounds right Big Brotherly.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:48:44 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
> >On Sep 30, 5:05 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> ASBOs?
>
> >Anti-Social Behaviour Orders - tickets that are handed out to prevent
> >bad behaviour, seldom used for serious offenders it seems, but useful
> >for harassing people who drop a sweet wrapper.
>
> Sounds right Big Brotherly.
>
think he worries too much about who his employers want to put up
against the wall first.
Bob Dubery
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:48:44 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
> >On Sep 30, 5:05 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> ASBOs?
>
> >Anti-Social Behaviour Orders - tickets that are handed out to prevent
> >bad behaviour, seldom used for serious offenders it seems, but useful
> >for harassing people who drop a sweet wrapper.
>
> Sounds right Big Brotherly.
You have no idea. Households with an ASBO against them, or a member of
the household, end up with cameras mounted so that the authorities can
see who goes in and who comes out. Of course those cameras don't
record only the activities of the ASBOed party but pretty much
everything that goes on in the street.