Sense of loss behind anti-Mbeki tirade:
South Africans should take note of the opposition's bitter analysis of an honest leader

KADER ASMAL

Sunday Independent April 8 2001

In four days' time, I will be returning to Dublin to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. The year 1977 was a fraught one. In Ireland; the government had introduced a detention without trial law and there were demands for an inquiry into police brutality against political detainees.

Without the support of the main organ of opinion, the Irish Times, the new civil liberties body would never have made any impact. Douglas Gageby, the redoubtable editor of the Irish Times, had a scrupulous regard for facts. The reason why Gageby had such regard for the truth was that he adhered strictly to the principle that the integrity of the state and its institutions should not be subverted. Even 50 years after the establishment of the Irish state, Gageby's view was that gossip, rumour and innuendo must not destroy the cement that held the state together.

After intense internal discussion the Irish Times broke the story of the police "Heavy Gang", which had an enormous impact on proposed legislation. Respect for the constitutional order never precluded running of stories of national importance.

Ours is an infant democracy. James Myburgh could look at Gageby's ground rules with profit. The attempt by Myburgh at psycho-analysis in his article, "Mbeki and the total formula", in The Sunday Independent of April 1, is reminiscent of intelligence reports of the cold war era. One of the preoccupations of some intelligence agencies then was how to breach the Iron Curtain to understand The Leader and hopefully the system he presided over.

What should hurt any honest South African is that researchers of the official opposition adopt such a vindictive and biased approach with regard to their own president. According to Myburgh, there are absolutely no redeeming features attached to our president. Yet, in fact our country, under Mbeki's leadership, is coping admirably with new and inherited challenges. Our president plays a leading role in continental Africa, chairs the Commonwealth, heads the Non-Aligned Movement, takes the initiative on central African affairs, is phoned for advice by heads of state and is lauded at home and abroad.

Myburgh ignores all this, for a number of profound reasons.

Firstly, the political elite at the head of the Democratic Alliance (DA) is used to centuries of lording over South Africa. To this elite the attainment of democracy is like an amputated leg that suffers from phantom pains. As white South Africa outgrows this mindset, members of this elite find themselves in a quandary. Like doctors of old, they inject their constituency with curare and exert pressure at the amputation wound, hoping that the pain to which the curare-drugged patient cannot respond would result in anger directed at individuals other than themselves.

And so, they feed South Africa with fables to generate fear, anger and suspicion so that white South Africa should not see itself as part of the project of change. To this elite, the new government and its leadership are "a closed book". They are on the other side of the Iron Curtain. To understand them one has to resort to fortunetelling from dark rooms.

The second reason shows itself in the protest by Myburgh that "much of the press has fallen back, relieved, into sycophancy". In other words, the norm in media discourse should be the kind of attacks the president and the government were subjected to during the course of last year (some of which still continue). The fact that there is a better understanding of the government's approach to the HIV/Aids pandemic, and that such sectors as big business now appreciate the government's handling of the problems in Ziinbabwe is something the DA decries.

The time for a final rout had come. Why then should the media undermine this by not being as virulent as last year while, according to Myburgh, the government's and Mbeki's "goals are what they were yesterday"? But there is a third and critical explanation. On the same day that the Sunday Independent ran Myburgh's piece, Rapport reported serious tensions in the DA, backstabbing, lost computers and documents detailing how one of their leaders was to be marginalised.

This is in addition to reports that have been doing the rounds for a while, most of which directly concern The Leader; his arrogant style, his unwillingness to listen, and a reported declaration at one of the DA's caucus meetings that if any of the MPs did not realise that they were there because of The Leader; they should walk through the door and close it behind them.

From these episodes then, one simply has to replace the name Thabo Mbeki with Tony Leon in Myburgh's piece, and the description fits snugly.

For his analysis of Mbeki, Myburgh relies on Ken Owen, whom he condemns for being critically supportive. He then quotes Paul Trewhela, who complains that Mbeki is "an organisation man through and through". Wasn't the same abuse hurled at Nelson Mandela in dinner table talk; a good man he is, but for the fact that he is too loyal to the ANC!

To write that his position depends on his "ability to spin intrigues" and "his skill in constantly changing the personnel" of his inner-circle is nonsense, as is the assertion that the members of that circle are "Mbeki's creation with no independent powerbase". Furthermore, to describe the president's so-called inner-circle as mere lap dogs or "yes men" is an insult - these are skilled politicians and professionals.

However, it is in the nature of political debate that one should bear the insults and try to distil the essence. Let's really set the record straight. For those like Myburgh on the other side of the Iron Curtain who do not understand the passion with which ordinary South Africans view his leadership, Mbeki combines these qualities with an independent mind.

Those who sacrificed for the freedom that allows Myburgh to pen his diatribe are confident that, under Mbeki's leadership, social change in this phase would not be sacrificed on the altar of The Leader's self-interest, commercial pursuits or cheap publicity.

At least two-thirds of South Africans know that to this president, life is about pursuit of South Africa's interests. He boasts modest personal material possessions and he is firm on corruption. Indeed, some of these attributes can become a weakness. Ask any communication practitioner who has worked with him, and they will tell you that he is a PR adviser's nightmare. He does not suffer fools gladly or perhaps at all.

To cite two examples: The commission on the remuneration of public office-bearers recently set out salaries, including that of the president. Embarrassed at his new package, he has not accepted the increase. But he has refused that this should be made public. It is not for PR purposes, ho argued; but just that he does not feel comfortable with it.

On the current intensified cabinet Interaction with the people Mbeki refused to start his full imbizo (public consultations) programme, if this meant he would be "parachuted" into PR events with little substance. Rather than creating events for TV cameras, he argues that he should stay in a province for a number of days to understand issues and intervene in a meaningful way. After juggling schedules, on 25 to 27 April, he will be visiting Northern Province.

The moral of this is that we are dealing with an honest human being, not a soap-box president; a person who does things because they make substantive logical sense, not merely for PR purposes.

Myburgh is wrong too when he argues that, without Mbeki "the ANC would be helpless and directionless." Was this no the refrain when Mandela announced his retirement? Was here life after Mandela, we were asked. We in the ANC know of the great strength of our leadership.

But Myburgh's plaintive cry is understandable. For instance, simply watch the president's question time in parliament and you will realise how desperate the DA is, because they cannot match his intellect, rigour of analysis and presentation of arguments. Before each of these debates, we are told of Mbeki's impending Waterloo in the face of the DA's fight-back, and the idle boasts disappear as soon as the debate starts.

There are many other fables in Myburgh's piece that space does not allow me to deal with in detail. There is for example the typical DA refrain that cannot be anything but racist in intent, that since 1994 "the state has been steadily purged of technical and administrative skills" and that the new appointees are unable to ensure good governance. This is not the first time that the DA apologists have fondly referred to what must be the good old days pre-1994, when the state was an armed conspiracy against the people.

There is also an attempt at rubbishing the liberation movement through a high school-type interpretation of democratic centralism. Need we explain that, shorn of cold war rhetoric, this simply corresponds exactly with the DA pursuit of coherence within its own ranks: by ensuring that the democratic decisions of executives are defended by all executive members; that senior structures under the party constitution have the prerogative to take decisions and ensure their implementation. This is what happens in other democratic countries.

Constant refrains such as these, aimed at frightening a sector of the population, do not help serious and earnest political debate. But perhaps one is expecting too much of Myburgh and his ilk.

One can hope that the researcher will one day dispassionately examine how South Africans, including the constituency that the DA claims to represent, have benefited from democracy

Yes, there are many problems that still need to be dealt with. But Myburgh should then not get frustrated as South Africans of all colours seek to unite in action for change. He and his colleagues may wish to remain behind. But they should not pull others back.

Let me once more return to Gageby's wisdom, which Myburgh would do well to heed. In seeking to challenge or criticise leadership within a constitutional democracy you are morally obliged to do so from a factual basis and not through wild conspiracy theories, which at best are unsubstantiated and at worst seek to undermine the integrity of the state itself. Myburgh, would do well to accept that any attempt to separate the human being from the metaphor of leadership is foolhardy and, in any case an exercise in futility.

•Kader Asmal is a member of the ANC's national executive committee and minister of education

ENDS