Home Cheap jerseys Lindiwe Sisulu’s extraordinary attack on South Africa …

Lindiwe Sisulu’s extraordinary attack on South Africa …


He is a person with an impressive track record dating back to his training as an Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) executive specializing in security. She has been a Member of Parliament since 1994. A long-time member of the ANC National Executive Committee, Sisulu started in government as Deputy Minister of the Interior, after which she successively held the post of Minister of Intelligence; Defense; Civil service and administration; Human settlements; International relations and cooperation; Human settlements, water and sanitation; and now, Tourism.

Questioningly, in the article in question, Sisulu questions the scope of the rule of law, since apartheid and Nazism were also underpinned by the “rule of law”. She deplores the “sea of ​​African poverty” which persists despite the existence of the South African Constitution, which it dismisses as a palliative. We are trying to discern what exactly makes the Constitution the agency to deal with “African poverty” issues. And what, in this incarnation, makes him obsolete: perhaps a failure of his dispositions to tackle only “African poverty”?

Sisulu asks sarcastically, “What has this beautiful constitution done for the victims?” [of colonialism] except as a palliative (Panadol)? [sic]”

The logic of blaming the government’s failure to effectively tackle the plight of the poor on the country’s constitution is a bit obscure. As we know, it is the executive, and not the legislature or the judiciary, that carries the mandate and responsibility for poverty reduction. Whether one operates in a democratic, autocratic or fascist state, the rule of law is universal. It transcends concerns for the poor. It affects all persons, institutions and entities of the State, which entities are all responsible for the laws promulgated in public.

Sisulu expresses feelings of righteous indignation at the well-known evils of colonialism. She says: “Many years later Africans manage poverty while others manage wealth.

This articulation between wealth and poverty calls for some observations. For starters, it was the government, of which Sisulu has been an integral part for more than two decades, that has caused not only persistence but an escalation of poverty during the democratic era.

Among the factors which, unfortunately, explain this state of affairs, there is first and foremost a lackluster commitment to solving the scourge, but also inadequate budget allocations, poor planning and management and the sheer scale of the crisis. corruption.

Sisulu categorizes the impact of poverty in terms of “Africans” and “others”, and not, oddly enough, “Blacks” and “Whites”. It is undeniable that Africans have suffered the worst ravages of apartheid oppression and, as a result, a significant number of members of this group continue to need support.

However, it is also a truism that apartheid laws dehumanized and discriminated against apartheid laws classified as black and therefore second-class citizens. Recent reports from Statistics South Africa show that whites, as a group, are perched at the top of the wealth ladder, while the rest of the population – blacks in the progressive nomenclature – remain attached to the lower rungs, although at different levels.

Sisulu would therefore not have been wrong if, in her ranking, she cited the black group as a whole, rather than only Africans, among those said to “manage poverty”. But then, she may very well be meaning notice in terms of the stick exclusively for the poor Africans.

Sisulu says there have been calls for “a new Truth and Reconciliation Commission focused on economic justice.” But they have “been systematically ignored by those with the power to give effect to these calls.”

It is not clear whether the minister is suggesting that there may be ANC conference resolutions in support of such calls that have been ignored by the National Executive Committee or Cabinet. Since she is a member of these committees, she would hardly be able to blame others for “not following up on these calls.”

On the other hand, it is possible that Sisulu tried unsuccessfully to convince her colleagues of the plight of “poor Africans”, and that she is now asking the public for help.

But it is worse.

Sisulu also deplores “the co-option and invitation to the table of agents of political power, whose job it is to keep the masses silent in their suffering while they dine. [on] caviar with colonized capital ”.

Only desperation would lead a person of Sisulu’s stature to violate protocol and expose such wrongdoing to the public. A justification would probably be that his message is of national importance, but is ignored in the councils concerned. Otherwise, the breach would be inexcusable and merit a sanction.

On the lingering subject of the relevance of the rule of law for democracy, Sisulu refers to the situation in the United States where “almost half the country voted for a man. [former president Donald Trump] which seemed to mock democracy and the rule of law ”.

She adds: “At the deepest level, it’s not much different from South Africa.

“What it is about?” I ask myself as I continue reading. Is the reader being told that the South Africans who voted for the ANC (we don’t have a presidential electoral system, so we vote for parties) may have voted for a party that “Seems to mock democracy and the rule of law”? Or is it President Cyril Ramaphosa, perhaps, who is being compared to Trump?

Scary stuff, but anyway it’s a serious indictment for both the party and the president. Could there be other reasons behind these fulminations?

On the justice system, Sisulu shoots straight from the shoulder and takes no prisoners: she tells the reader that “Today at the highest echelons of our justice system are these mentally colonized Africans, who have settled down with the vision. of the world and the state of mind of those who dispossessed their ancestors.

And then: “The judgments against theirs speak [sic] loudly, while others, sure of their agenda, applaud behind closed doors. Sisulu says, without justification, what an ANC faction calling itself the RET, whatever that means, has also been saying since former President Jacob Zuma hopelessly interfered with the law. Like these notables, she believes that “there is a need to overhaul a justice that does not work for Africa and Africans”.

Sisulu also determined that “we have a neoliberal, foreign-inspired constitution …”

She asks: “And where is the African value system of this constitution and the rule of law?” If the law doesn’t work for Africans in Africa, then what good is the rule of law? “

With this kind of gibberish coming from above, beware of leaders! I am sure that Saint Matthew would not disapprove of this paraphrase: Small is the door and narrow the road that leads to organizational renewal. It is often strewn with thorns and thickets. DM