Among the people who responded to the article I wrote about the Dalai Lama's visa saga, Paul Trewhela stands out as one person who tried to play the ball and not the man. He quotes what I said accurately, and does his best to interpret the thinking (my thinking) behind the question I posed: ‘Who does this bishop speak for?'

I need to commend him for this and as for the others, the glaring intellectual bankruptcy contained in their diatribe and responses were breath-taking. But who is Paul Henry Trewhela, ever quick to point out other people's flaws, shortcomings, in particular to cast aspersions on those who defend our government and by extension the ruling party?

Trewhela thrives on labelling others and is a self-styled expert on ANC matters, be it events in exile or inzile he doesn't have any limitations on knowledge thereof or so he would have us believe. He has arrogated to himself the status of being the defender of democracy or lack thereof in the ANC and thus a voice of reason.

And yet Trewhela spent the last 20 or so years away from the ANC intricacies and its processes therefore he doesn't know the ANC as intimately as he projects sometimes. Granted Trewhela is decorated, having previously been a Rand Daily mail journalist, a former editor of the ANC's exile newsletter Searchlight and a former editor of Ever Faster news based in London.

He is also a former political prisoner (at Old Fort Prison Complex, popularly known as Number Four, in 1964 albeit he was jailed for a much shorter sentence). Upon his release, he went into exile in Europe where he enjoyed much better living conditions compared to most liberation struggle prisoners.

More recently however Trewhela is an anti-Stalinist and capitalist-inclined historian who finds fault in everything that is socialist and that which the ANC stands for. Clearly Trewhela, it seems, has a serious issue to grind with the ANC and its leadership therefore it should be expected that he would rejoice whenever people poke fun at the ANC or spring to the defence of those who are offside like Archbishop Tutu.

What started his backlash was an article I wrote probing the representativity of Archbishop Tutu's pronouncements against the decision of the ANC government not to grant a visa to his friend, the Dalai Lama. But was it factually incorrect to surmise that the Arch's views are not representative?

Let me analyse my point of departure further which was to say that the government he was denouncing is a government that was elected democratically by close to two-thirds (or more), the majority, of the voting population of South Africa. This government then surely speaks for a very large majority of the people of this country, even when it makes decisions that can be criticized, it still does.

My question then was to ask as to who appointed Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the position that he seems to believe he occupies in our society? I asked again whether his participation in the marches and protests that were launched against the apartheid state then empowered him to allocate to himself the mantra of deciding what this elected government should or should not do?

Who, I ask still, does the Arch speak for? He is not a politician, nor a member of any political formation, but his appetite for making political speeches is prodigious.

He is, to my knowledge, a retired bishop of the Anglican Church. When he marched against apartheid, like numerous other people in this country some of whom died for it, he did so as an individual priest who opposed what was happening in our country.

His participation in those protests did not make him any different from the rest. Somehow though, he has been singled out as an icon of our struggle by those who seek to impose Christian leaders on us as our mentors and rewrite our history - historians like Trewhela.

The tragedy is that he himself has come to view himself as such. He has elevated himself to the position of one who, single-handedly, spoke to God and brought down the mighty National Party government!

Tutu threatened to do the same again and bring down the ANC government by calling on God to do his wish. The arrogance of this prelate seems to know no bounds. He brings down governments by communicating his wishes to God. 

We need to remind the bishop that an armed struggle was waged by ordinary men and women in this country. People were arrested, jailed, tortured and murdered while he was praying.

Leaders like Nelson Mandela and others spent twenty-seven years on the Island, while others like the late Bram Fischer died in prison. The very atrocities that were revealed at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (which he chaired) are testimony of the great sacrifices and suffering our people endured to make this land free.

This bishop reduces our struggle to what he calls ‘a miracle'. It was not the battles that we as freedom-fighters fought, the sacrifices of the striking workers, and the global support for our Cause that Oliver Tambo mobilised that freed this land; it is suddenly a private conversation bishop Tutu had with God....and lo and behold, the National Party collapsed. That is why he calls our liberation a miracle, reminiscent of the miracle at Cana, when Jesus changed water into wine!

Paul Trewhela tells us that ‘The Archbishop's rage at its(the visa) blockage was in good part a cry of despair at South Africa's slide away from the mainly liberal intent of its Constitution, drafted under the aegis of Emeritus President Nelson Mandela, and over which the Archbishop's spiritual leadership had been a guiding light.' So, the Constitution we have to-day in this country was crafted by the Archbishop!

Paul Trewhela possesses secret information some of us ordinary people did not know! We have a Constitution that was drafted by an Archbishop of the Anglican Church, not the ANC and National Party politicians? Very revealing. Thank you Paul!

Then Paul launches a direct attack against me, alleging the following: ‘Bopela's method of argument, I wrote, showed "political paranoia of a classic Stalinist type." ‘It consisted of menacing accusations about imperialists, counter-revolutionaries, and local politicians who are orchestrated from beyond our shores...engineered, financed and masterminded from overseas capitals.'

He goes further. ‘What Bopela expressed here, I wrote then, was a revival under ANC government of the tyrannical mindset of the ANC Security Department (Mbokodo, the grindstone) in its camps in exile, characterised by former members of Umkhonto WeSizwe as an "internal-enemy-danger-psychosis"'.

Paul attributes this ‘psychosis' and ‘Stalinist' thinking to the fact that I was trained in the USSR where all of us were brainwashed into what he calls ‘Stalinist thinking and behaviour'. He tells the readers that people like me, and I in particular, are accusing people like Bishop Tutu and other politicians, of being agents of foreign countries.

He concludes this way because I asked who this bishop speaks for. I have explained at the beginning of this article that my question, who the bishop speaks for, sought to discover the source of his authority and representativity of his views against a democratically- elected government.

An opposition politician has a right to criticize the ANC government decisions, because he/she is a politician and has the right to speak for the supporters of his/her organization. I have not heard that bishop Tutu is a politician and has a seat in Parliament.

I have also not heard that Trewhela is an expert on South African politics and history, or am I missing something? All elected representatives of a section of our population have a group of people that elected them to the positions they hold in Parliament...and thus have the right to express opinions and criticize the government. That was the tenor of my question about the bishop's status as a politician.

Piet Rampedi, in an article in the City Press of 16 October 2011, on page 33, states ‘Tutu goes too far'. In the article Rampedi cautions the bishop in this manner: ‘Being a global icon with impeccable human rights and anti-apartheid struggle credentials comes with some burden of responsibility. Not only do you have to guard against those who might try to hijack your iconic stature and public platforms to further selfish ends, but you have to be vigilant against being unwittingly or wittingly used as a pawn in political games you may not be aware of.'

In another paragraph he states: ‘Our Nobel laureate is gradually turning into a reckless populist, eager to use genuine socio-political and economic concerns to parrot "white fears", cast aspersions on the legitimacy of a democratically elected government, campaign for opposition parties or push for regime change.' Need I quote more?

I do not know Mr. Rampedi, and I do not know whether he, like me, was also trained in the USSR. What he is saying though is, in essence, what I asked and sought to discover when I asked who the bishop speaks for.

Mr Rampedi is more explicit; he says the bishop is parroting white fears. Is Mr Rampedi a Stalinist also? Do his statements reflect a political paranoia of a classic Stalinist type?

Was Mr Rampedi a member of the ANC Security Department, Imbokodo? I doubt very much. But, are Mr Rampedi and myself the only ones who think that this bishop is out of his depth in the matters that he is dabbling in?

Yonela Diko has this to say in his article, ‘The Arch's pulpit politics are self-indulgent.'

‘Desmond Tutu has reduced our country to a sound bite of for or against - making governance no longer a matter of weighing trade-offs between competing goals. This is why the uncompromising demands of religion and morality must always be separated from matters of state. Simplicity in politics, unlike in moral imperatives, is not a virtue.' Ouch!

He concludes: ‘I reject this orthodoxy that purports to leave any lover of democracy marooned because they question the wisdom of allowing the Dalai Lama into our country. In politics, compromise is strategy, not weakness.' (Yonela Diko, City Press 16 October 2011, page 33)

What a coincidence! People who do not know each other, are asking the same questions and drawing the same conclusions about our ‘struggle icon, Emeritus Archbishop Desmond Tutu'. Paul should also respond to what these gentlemen have said on this issue. I am sure they did not train in the USSR, where like me they ‘imbibed the Stalinist paranoia' he alleges influences my thinking. Yonela Diko concludes his article with these words:

‘Eighty years on, Tutu still does not possess the maturity to balance idealism and realism. He has no idea of the cost of government mandate. He has never had a real job that required harder decisions than moral imperatives. He possesses a rigid doctrine that is reminiscent of old-time religion, which slices everything between good and evil.'

I am not going to assign a label to Paul Trewhela or try to psycho-analyse him as he has done to me apart from stating the obvious. I play the ball, not the man. The Bill of Rights allows him to write what he believes, in the same manner as it allows me, and Bishop Desmond Tutu. Our opinions, once we place them in the public domain, are subject to attack and refutation.

That is the manner of intellectual discourse. In criticizing what we say or others say in public, it is not necessary to resort to name-calling and labelling. It reveals a peculiar barrenness in the ability of the name-caller to handle intellectual discourse, something that we run into frequently in this country in the writings of many who venture to spill their vitriolic hatred of anybody and anything associated with the African National Congress, China, Cuba or the Soviet Union.

In Rhodesia, when the Ian Smith gang sought to defuse the struggle for liberation they produced a bishop, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, and touted him as the true and acceptable leader of the people of Zimbabwe. There was also the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole.

When COPE broke away from the ANC a bishop was found to lead this organization, Bishop Mvume Dandala. He found the heat in the COPE kitchen too hot and left quickly.

There is Bishop Desmond Tutu whose claim to the status of an icon is that he joined the marches and protests that the people of South Africa launched against the Apartheid government. Any yet Tutu can't man his household - what with his son Trevor not paying alimony for his child.

Tutu chaired the TRC, that exercise that saw Apartheid malefactors and murderers being granted pardons for murdering activists. When the white students from the University of the Free State fed black old women food they had urinated on, the Archbishop and Professor Jansen sprang to their defence, urging blacks to forgive them...even before they had apologized! Barack Obama, another ‘house nigger', has named both these people ‘moral titans'.

Afrikaner dominees and predikants (except Oom Bey) never raised a voice against apartheid atrocities that were being perpetrated on black people; instead, they dubbed apartheid as God's creation and blessed it. Their chaplains prayed for the victory of the SADF against what they called ‘communist hordes' coming to destroy Christianity and Civilization.

They blessed the weapons of the soldiers who went out to do battle with us. The NG Kerk has never been brought before the TRC to confess their sin, which if they had done, would have found our Archbishop ready to forgive them on our behalf.

Somebody needs to explain to us what it is that makes white priests condone and bless the violence of oppressive regimes, while their black counterparts vigorously preach forgiveness of malefactors when the oppressed rise to overthrow these oppressive regimes.

It is quite puzzling. Maybe the role black priests play in our liberation movements needs to be analysed. Where do our religious leaders learn their theology because clearly it is very different from that of their white, Afrikaner counterparts?

Paul Trewhela questions how a person like me could be Head of Security at Parliament when he ‘ a civil servant, can with impunity write an article that makes such ferocious aspersions against certain Members of Parliament and members of political tendencies with whom he disagrees'. He asks where the neutrality of the civil servant is.

Paul seeks to promote the myth that civil servants are neutral politically. It is a myth. Why do policemen, soldiers and other civil servants vote during election time?

It is because they have political views and are allowed to vote for the parties they support. The policeman who supports the ANC, DA or IFP, in the execution of his duties will not show favour or bias when he/she needs to arrest a criminal, who maybe a member of the organization they both support. In the execution of my duties at Parliament, Members of all political persuasions were given the highest level of protection and safety.

Paul apparently believes that if somebody wanted to place a bomb inside DA or IFP offices, Head of Security, Thula Bopela, would allow it. If you believe that, Mr. Trewhela, you can believe anything. Suffice to say that during my stint as Head of Security at Parliament, from 2005 to 2010, not a single incident of security violation happened. Even COPE leaders enjoyed the protection guaranteed to them by the Protection Services unit at parliament.

Thula Bopela writes in his personal capacity, and all the views and opinion contained in this article are his.