Defend Truth

Opinionista

Only rogue states disobey the laws that govern the world

mm

Ismail Lagardien is a writer, columnist and political economist with extensive exposure and experience in global political economic affairs. He was educated at the London School of Economics, and holds a PhD in International Political Economy.

It is common for politicians to support the checks and balances, the accountability, the ethics and the scrutiny that are associated with democratic governance, but balk when these are applied to themselves. The withdrawal of support for the International Criminal Court is an especially good example of the ANC's duplicitousness, and its refusal to be held accountable for the things they once defended, at least rhetorically.

There’s a canard that is sometimes use to describe the relationship powerful or famous people have with the media. It goes something like this: Everyone wants to be famous and powerful, until they are.

Famous people, notably celebrities, and especially micro-celebrities who are famous only because they are famous (as opposed to people who invented cures for deadly diseases or who have actually, done something good for humanity), love using the press on their way to fame and power. Once they are in power, however, they would rather the press go away. Once they are ‘up there’, all famous and powerful, and they are examined for their indiscretions or deceitful ways with the same vigour and intensity as before, they would rather the press tell only the good stories.

Politicians, too, love to use the media – the news media, in particular – to expose their opponents as deceitful, and regimes or orders that they consider to be unjust or undemocratic. Before they are elected or in power, politicians appreciate the critical edge of good journalism, the muckraking, exploration, examination, speculation and commentary. Once they are in power, and the investigative lens is turned on them they lose all that commitment-to-a-free-and-independent-media stuff.

In other words, it is common for politicians to support the checks and balances, the accountability, the ethics and the scrutiny that are associated with democratic governance, but balk when these are applied to themselves. That’s when they expect the media to abandon their fundamental principles of scrutiny and shedding light on shady areas of governance and society. Of course, when that fails, they blame the press for all that is wrong with society; from crime to failures in the delivery of public goods and services. Sometimes politicians tell tales of conspiracies. At the best of times they resort to post-hoc reasoning and duplicity. This shape-shifting also happens in other areas of politics and society.

The withdrawal of support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an especially good example of the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) duplicitousness, and its refusal to be held accountable for the things they once defended, at least rhetorically. On the way to government, the ANC almost always supported human rights as the basis for international co-operation. Once in government, they hastily supported the ICC, but as soon as the court’s lens was focused on one of their allies, the ANC started petitioning for its dissolution.

Make no mistake, there are several things about the ICC that can be changed, or should have been changed at its inception, and during its lifetime. Much the same can be said for almost all the organisations and institutions of global governance established after World War II. However, the disingenousness of the ANC lies precisely in the way that they have, now, refused to accept the laws of the ICC, after being found to be in flagrant disregard of the court’s laws when they allowed Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir to visit the country, and then leave without hindrance.

The liberation movement that governs South Africa is, of course, not unique in its roguish behaviour. For instance, the US, the country that has probably invaded and dropped more bombs on sovereign and independent countries than any other in the history of the modern world, simply refuses to be held accountable by the ICC. The US will have everyone believe, of course, that Washington stands for everything that is good and gracious about humanity.

Closer to home, Zimbabwe, The Freest Country in Africa™, supported the creation of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal, until it was used against the ruling party for the violent expropriation of land by that country’s ‘war veterans’ – the equivalent of the ANC’s Umkhonto weSizwe veterans. One of the first cases before the SADC Tribunal was brought to the bench by a white farmer, Mike Campbell, in 2007. The tribunal found that the government of Zimbabwe was wrong to evict Campbell from his land, and that, on the basis of Zimbabwe’s constitution, the eviction amounted to de facto discrimination against whites. At this point, when the lens of the tribunal was turned on The Freest Country in Africa™, Zimbabwe withdrew from the SADC Tribunal and challenged its legitimacy. This has distinct parallels with ANC complaints about the ICC.

I should add, hastily, that this discussion is about compliance with the rule of law that everyone, including all transgressors, has agreed upon.

The laws that govern us – from the laws that govern air traffic, to the laws of the sea – should apply to everyone. The only ones who may disagree are rogue states of interests which benefit from the absence of laws: those which violate the sovereignty of others by dropping bombs on distant societies; those who aid and abet unjust regimes in the name of democracy promotion or regime change; those who invade and occupy communities and wantonly slay children; those who oppress their own people on the basis of religious dogma, and those who believe that agreed principles, laws of conduct and behaviour do not apply to them. It is especially duplicitous, when these states explicitly agreed to abide by laws, in the first place, and then want them changed, or insist that the rules of the game are rigged only after they have been caught in flagrante delicto.

This insistence on abiding by the rule of law is not conspiratorial, nor is it a colonial or European plot. To even suggest that we, Africans, do not believe in laws and institutions is just offensive. One of the defining features of Chinua Achebe’s thought is precisely the belief that Africans have historically accepted the primacy of the laws, ethical codes, cultural values and system of rewards and punishments that hold together communities.

Where, then, does this leave South Africa? Well, our leaders may want to dismiss this as ridiculous, but the country has lost the moral authority that was established under the Mandela presidency. There are powerful echoes between South Africa today and the Nigeria Achebe described in one of the last interviews he gave to the press before he died. In an interview with the Christian Science Monitor in January 2012, Achebe explained that Nigeria found itself in the hands of people “with very little vision for the nation or understanding of the modern world”.

“A period of great decline and decadence set in, and continues to this day.

“The first republic produced political leaders … who were not perfect, but compared to those that came after them they now appear almost ‘saint like’ – they were well educated, grounded politicians who may have embodied a flawed vision or outlook for the country …”

Whether we’re discussing the ANC’s approach to the media, its respect for international agreements and obligations, or the expectations of all South Africans (not just members of the party), a vast ethical chasm is opening up in the country’s politics. The liberation movement as government is increasingly depriving South Africans of the freedoms that they, themselves, so valiantly fought for during the previous era. In some ways, this is the cynosure of oppression.

The ANC would insist that they are and have always been fit to rule, and consider themselves the pre-eminent force for good in the country. They would, simultaneously, insist on precluding the judgment of others, or those over whom they preside. Domestically, the movement has placed itself beyond the reach and evaluation of the people of the country. Internationally, the ANC has placed the country on a collision-course with even the most progressive norms that many people have battled to establish in international relations.

The majority of people of South Africa, including most of the press, were fully on the side of democratic forces during the apartheid period. Most of us have not changed; we remained committed to democracy, emancipation and social justice. The liberation movement has changed. If that is hard to believe, consider one of President Jacob Zuma’s parting shots at the movement’s national general council meeting. The movement was determined, to “rebuild” and “renew the character” of a once glorious movement. Put bluntly, all that was good and great about the organisation is, then, in the past. DM

Gallery

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.