That these agents of chaos chose to select only one slide out some 20-odd ones, four of which listed individuals and organisations in the same category of democracy abusers like the EFF, serves to confirm the point I was making in the presentation: the EFF is increasingly showing a flagrant disrespect for the freedom of expression, a central tenet of democracy. For the record, Vodacom officials had absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject matter of my talk. The powerpoint slides were only loaded at the start of the function. For the benefit of Daily Maverick readers the following was the content of my speech:

“Democracy is a word we often use without giving much thought to core meaning, as defined by Cleisthenes, the Athenian lawgiver credited with the reformation of the Constitution of the city state of Athens in 508 BC. “Demos” in “democracy” stands for “common people” and kratos for strength or power.

So, at the inception of democracy in Classical Greek political and philosophical thought, democracy was conceptualised with the accent on power or strength belonging to the mass of the common people rather than the nobility.

In this regard, the rallying cry of the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies in the early years of the struggle for liberation couldn’t have been more apposite. Amandla! (Power!), the convener of the gathering would call out to the uproarious response from the masses of: “Awethu”! meaning “It is ours!” That traditional salute still rings in the contemporary political organisation and has been adopted by several political parties, including the Democratic Alliance.

Titanium Mining in Xolobeni – Amandla!

The 22 November 2018 North Gauteng High Court ruling that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) could not issue a mining rights permit without the full and informed consent of the Xolobeni residents in the Wild Coast, Eastern Cape, represents an advancement of our democracy as envisaged in the Constitution. This was a historic victory not only for the Xolobeni community that had struggled for over 15 years against mining the titanium-rich coastal dunes in their communal land but also for communities that are similarly placed vis-a-vis mineral exploration interests.

In her conclusion in the cited High Court case Judge Annali Basson stated that while the informal land rights of customary communities were previously not protected by the law, the community now had the right to decide what happens to their land. While the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 makes the state the custodian of all mineral resources in South Africa, the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, passed in 1996 already, specifically protects the community’s rights over reserve land.

Had the Xolobeni community lost the case, they and their livestock would have had to be relocated to goodness knows where, and the Australian company would have moved in to mine the titanium deposits without the people’s say-so. Menial jobs would have been offered for a number of years until the depletion of this non-renewable resource. Those ecologically critical dunes would have disappeared with unpredictable consequences to the environment. The people’s preference was ecotourism and agriculture.

Gwede Mantashe, the ANC chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources, is perturbed by the decision of the North Gauteng High Court, its import apparently lost on a man who routinely opens his party’s meetings with the cry: power to the people! Perhaps, like Donald Trump, he might be oblivious to the reality of climate change, global warming and other phenomena the understanding of which is central to the management of ecological processes. Importantly, too, if mining was considered a viable option, there is no indication as to what tangible benefit would be on offer to the people who own the land. Yes, the land is theirs.

The Social Justice coalition

Another welcome advancement of our democracy can be seen in the case of the ten Social Justice Coalition activists who, in 2015, chained themselves to the railings of the Civic Centre in Cape Town as an act of disobedience in support of better sanitation in Khayelitsha. The number of protesting people ended up being in excess of fifteen for which number, according to the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993, the organisers were to have given the South African Police Service (SAPS) notice of their protest.

In breach of an apartheid-era law that was clearly created to suppress protest and demonstrations – civil liberties – the organisers were convicted of contravening this Act. The Western Cape High Court ruled that that section of the Act was invalid and unconstitutional. SAPS, headed by an ANC Minister, appealed the judgment and the matter was referred to the ConCourt, which upheld the High Court decision. In the triumphant words of Zackie Achmat, “The right to protest (had) been freed from its colonial shackles.”

Nkandla Case – the abuse of Democracy

On 31 March 2016 the full bench of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, handed down its unanimous judgment on the infamous Nkandla case in which taxpayer money was used to build structures that had nothing to do with security in the then president Jacob Zuma’s homestead. Confirming the Public Protector’s power to recommend remedial action, the justices agreed with the EFF that Jacob Zuma had to pay back the money. The apex court found that Zuma, in his handling of his Nkandla case, had breached his oath of office, and had failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution.

Following this indictment, those who did not know Mr Zuma well thought he would tender his resignation as President of the country. Indeed, expectations were raised when on April Fools day Mr Zuma made a special television announcement to the effect that he was sorry for the misunderstanding he had caused regarding the Nkandla case.

For their part, the ANC Members of Parliament used their majority in the National Assembly and voted to keep Mr Zuma in office. Voting to remove him would have given effect to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Concourt decision. Dololo!

Instead, the ANC MPs chose to subvert democracy by using the strong mandate they had been given by the people to subvert democracy.

The Arms Deal

Once upon a time, our popularly elected government decided to put together something that was officially referred to as the Strategic Defence Package (SDP). In ordinary people’s language, it was the Arms Deal. This surprise decision to bolster the country’s already strong military capabilities was taken at a time when the ordinary people’s needs for good housing, water and sanitation, basic education and an acceptable public health system were in a sorry state following years of apartheid neglect. It was taken when South Africa had no known enemies to justify a project of the magnitude of R30-billion (1999 rands) that subsequently ballooned to R43-billion.

In its days as a pariah state South Africa, possessed arguably the strongest military force In Africa but now the “frontline states” of yesteryear had become the Southern African Development Community, peaceful and friendly to newly born democratic South African state. The corruption that surrounded the arms deal didn’t help. It has been said that the SDP marks the time when the ANC government lost its innocence.

EFF An Abuser of Democracy

The EFF gained deserved popularity when it led what most people thought was a fight against corruption. They fearlessly called on Jacob Zuma to pay back the money and to resign. They made parliamentary proceedings exciting for citizens to watch. They won the hearts of many young people while the ANC Youth League leadership was caught up in the factional wars of the mother body, with others seriously engaged in state capture.

The EFF exuded what appeared to be positive and constructive energy. They took up the cause of tertiary education students, dislodging the ANC-affiliated student organisation from the leadership of the majority of Student Representative Councils in campuses across the land.

And then something went frightfully wrong. There have been

• strong allegations of corruption implicating specifically its two top leaders, Julius Malema and Floyd Shivambu;
• Rudeness, insults, abusiveness, thuggery and bullying of journalists and others who disagree with the EFF appear to be the new modus operandi;
• Racist language has become their stock in trade. Athol Trollip has to be removed from the mayorship of Nelson Mandela Metro Municipality not because he is considered incompetent but because he is white; Ismail Momoniat, despite his unquestionable credentials and progressive politics is targeted because he is an Indian; similarly with Pravin Gordhan, the man who arguably more than anyone else stopped the capture of National Treasury state capture, is suddenly attacked viscerally as an enabler of state capture; his daughter is attacked because she is his daughter. Not so in the VBS scandal. Floyd Shivambu should not be accused of whatever wrongdoings his brother may or may not have done.
• The making of contradictory statements about individuals who are praised when it suits Malema and condemned when his mood changes.

There is disturbing resemblance between the behaviour of Julius Malema and that of the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

The EFF behaviour is nothing if not a blatant abuse of democracy.

Role of the media

The media and the judiciary are widely acknowledged to have contributed significantly towards the strengthening of democracy in RSA, with good reason:

• Fearless journalism exposes corruption, mainly in the public sector but also in the private sector. Names that come to mind are those of Max Du Preez, Barney Mthombothi, Redi Tlhabi, Palesa, Mondli, Ferial Haffajee and many others; critical editorial commitment;
• The #Guptaleaks were given extensive publicity – the role of Trillian, KPMG, Mckinsey Company, etc.

Media getting it wrong sometimes

Unethical journalism has ruined the lives of many innocent people who do not have funds to challenge the injustice; ordinary citizens have had their reputations destroyed by reckless reporting. I am one such example, having on three occasions seen allegations about me for the first time in the media.

• Journalists breaking what must be their basic code of ethics and sub-editors allowing publication of stories simply because they sell copy.
• Sunday Times has been roundly condemned for its shameful role in Sars rogue unit saga. They have apologised. Some feel they should do more.
• Quality of reporting can improve – there are journalists who can’t even string sentences together.
• Poor judgement: giving undue publicity to destructive causes – the EFF demonstrations outside the building where the Zondo Commission has been sitting. (The media needs to) tell the nation they are there but don’t give them the oxygen they need to engage in destructive activities. It’s a question of the right balance but it is for the media to make the judgement call as part of its own contribution to the consolidation of our democracy platform to insult people; publicity is the oxygen it needs to survive as a party. DM