South Africa

Thabo Mbeki is currently visiting Namibia, where he was accorded the honor of speaking before that country’s parliament and where he hoped to boost trade between the two countries and to reaffirm their special relationship. Mbeki and Namibian President Hifekepunye Pohamba oversaw the signing of three agreements, one on investment promotion and reciprocal investment protection, cooperation in the fields of home affairs and immigration, and on diplomatic consultations. In an act of some symbolic resonance, Mbeki also handed over to Pohamba the records of birth, death and marriage of Namibian nationals, which the South African government had kept up to now, to Pohamba. This embodies a further breaking of the colonial past in which Pretoria dictated Namibia’s affairs for some seventy years. 

The two presidents are due to co-chair an international investor conference in Windhoek, to be attended by 500 participants, today.

“The reality is that both our histories and our destinies are inextricably tied together. In a literal sense, we shall sink or swim together,” Mbeki said.

“My delegation and I want to thank our brothers and sisters in this country with whom we engaged in a common titanic struggle to defeat the apartheid crime against humanity, which represented itself here in Namibia also as a colonial monster.”

We have heard relatively little of late about the specifics of South Africa’s relations with its neighbors, save for the failures and shortcomings regarding “silent diplomacy” with Zimbabwe.  And yet it is clearly vital for the region to have South Africa perform as a good neighbor, and not to act as a bully. 

The shocking murder of South African reggae star Lucky Dube has stunned South Africans and once again brought the issue of violent crime to the forefront of national debate.  One of the common themes discussed even as mourners gathered to celebrate the life and work of a native son-turned global superstar and the accused wallowed in jail awaiting their arraignment it became clear that this high-profile death might also provide the tipping point for more rigorous action to address the issue of crime which, even if sometimes politicized and overstated, is very real indeed for South Africans of all races and economic backgrounds. Even criminals serving time for committing violent crimes have expressed their outrage at Dube’s death at the hands of carjackers.

It is, of course, a shame if it truly does require a high-profile murder to force prompt action on crime. And it is quite possible that botht he lip service and the outrage will fade, that even this death (which we ought not to value any more highly than any other deaths in the country) will not be enough to bring about systemic change on the matter of crime and concomitant questions of policing and the legal system. Still, one way to salvage something from this particular tragic death would be to use it not only to continue the ongoing national discussion about crime, but to translate that plan into action.

As this fine editorial in the Mail & Guardian  argues: “Murder is always foul, no matter who the victim. And when it is of an internationally renowned personality like Lucky Dube, it reverberates beyond the immediate family’s grief” and inevitably leade to calls for action. But the editors caution readers away from fleeing into the arms of a renewal of the death penalty, and, I believe, rightly so:

In our anger, no matter how righteous, we need to remind ourselves of the reasons the Constitutional Court outlawed the state’s power to kill criminals. They include the fact that nowhere has it been demonstrated conclusively that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than other punishments; and that it offers no possibility of redress if the victim’s innocence is established at a later stage — a real possibility in South Africa, given the inefficiency of our law enforcement system.

The judges accepted that Old Testament “eye for an eye” retribution is backward-looking and has no place in a rights-based constitutional state — and that the weight of public opinion, which has never been tested, is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. (It is a curious contradiction that white conservatives who argue the will of the majority on capital punishment reject it on such issues as the radical redistribution of land and wealth.) There is, in addition, the fact of our divided and repressive history, which meant the vast majority of those hanged were black. The number of executions rose exponentially under apartheid, reaching 180 a year by the late 1980s; Nelson Mandela himself once stood in the shadow of the gallows.

The judges agreed that the most effective crime deterrent is the likelihood of being caught and convicted — and it is for this that we should be campaigning. As one of the M&G’s letter-writers argues this week, getting to grips with crime means that ordinary citizens have to come to the party. Report crime and refuse to collaborate with it.

Leadership is an issue. To uproot South Africa’s culture of impunity, we need leaders of the criminal justice system who do not consider it acceptable to be on friendly terms with self-declared crime bosses, or who engage in misconduct that, although not technically illegal, leaves the Bench besmirched. We need a unified and apolitical push on crime by the authorities, where different agencies are not at war with one another and are not used to pursue sectarian political agendas.

The credibility and integrity of the system is as important as its proper resourcing in terms of cash, skills and equipment.
Violent crime is a terrible scourge in South Africa and the murder of Lucky Dube has thrown it into brutal relief. As a gentle soul and a peace-loving Rastafarian, Dube’s memory is best-served by bringing his killers to book and ensuring that no murder goes unsolved.

There are no panaceas. There are no quick fixes. But that does not mean there are no fixes. The outcry from citizens of all backgrounds for the return to the death penalty are a natural outgrowth of frustration with the system, but this palliative would not have much effect on crime rates. The desire to seek vengeance is not the same as the desire to seek justice and public safety. South Africans must keep this in mind even as they continue to bury their own.

 Hamba Kahle, Lucky Dube.

This feature on Thabo Mbeki’s relationship with the media caught my eye this morning. Essentially the Mail & Guardian asked two prominent South African writers, William Gumede and Ronald Suresh Roberts, to assess that issue, and their independent conclusions are, I think, telling. Gumede believes that Mbeki brings most of his difficulties on himself. Roberts aims most of his criticisms at the media. Neither is exactly wrong. But the approach each takes perhaps inadvertently captures the divide in South African politics and within the African National Congress today.

This feature on Thabo Mbeki’s relationship with the media caught my eye this morning. Essentially the Mail & Guardian asked two prominent South African writers, William Gumede and Ronald Suresh Roberts, to assess that issue, and their independent conclusions are, I think, telling. Gumede believes that Mbeki brings most of his difficulties on himself. Roberts aims most of his criticisms at the media. Neither is exactly wrong. But the approach each takes perhaps inadvertently captures the divide in South African politics and within the African National Congress today.

The Mo Ibrahim Prize  will go to Joaquim Chissano, the former president of Mozambique who served from 1986 to 2005 and helped to end that country’s civil war and oversaw the transition to peace. The list of finalists, in addition to Chissano, included:

Benjamin William Mkapa (Tanzania)
Domitien Ndayizeye (Burundi)
Sam Nujoma (Namibia)
El-Hadj Bonfoh Abbass (Togo)
Gnassingbe Eyadema (Togo)
Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya (Mauritania)
Elson Bakili Muluzi (Malawi)
Azali Assoumani (Comoros)
Abdiqassim Salad Hassan (Somalia)
Mathieu Kerekou (Benin)
Albert Rene (Seychelles)
Henrique Rosa (Guinea-Bissau)

Chissano is not an uncontroversial choice. His son has been implicated in the death of journalist Carlos Cardoso, a progressive Mozambican journalist who was murdered in 2000, though Joaquim Chissano has never been connected to the death of the journalist who was often critical of his administration.

The Springboks are the World Champions after defeating England 15-6 in the World Cup finals in Paris. South Africa led 9-3 at the break. The Springboks were led by fullback Percy Motgomery’s four kicks. This marks Amobokoboko’s second time hoisting the Ellis Cup, as they also won in historic fashion in 1995.

Nelson Mandela hands the Webb Ellis Cup to Springbok Captain Francois Pienaar after the Springboks won the World Cup in 1995.

It seems that much of the world is lining up to support the Springboks, or at least to oppose what many, including yours truly, believe to be a somewhat unsightly form of rugby emanating from England. Naturally South Africa has its share of high-profile South African boosters, including Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. Perhaps somewhat less expected is the passion the Boks seem to have inspired in Soweto and across parts of the country that have never been traditional rugby strongholds. Even in — gasp! — Australia, legendary rugby writer (and traditionally no fan of things green and gold) Spiro Zavos believes that South Africa must defeat the English side for the sake of rugby!

Some South Africans probably are wary of this sort of bandwagon jumping. I’d tell them to enjoy the status of being not only favorites among the punters, but favorites in the hearts of fans. This rarely happens for South African sporting tams. Bask in it while it lasts. But please, amidst the fanfare and devotion, do crush England.

The Council on Foreign Relations has a fantastic interactive map of Africa’s conflict zones and areas of UN/African Union intervention past and presence, as well as an option to see the contours of former colonial rule and influence. This is a first-rate resource for those who want to understand Africa’s divisions, particularly for students.

South Africa is gearing up for this weekend’s clash between the Springboks and the rejuvenated defending World Champions from England in the finals of the rugby World Cup. South Africa should be the heavy favorites, though Springbok coach Jake White, taking a page from the playbook of coaches the world over, insists his team must be seen as the underdogs.  

It is hard to believe that until very recently, White was so beleaguered that the rumors were rampant that he was on the verge of losing his job  with his successor all but chosen. It is hardly easy being the South African rugby coach. In addition to the pressure to win — very few national programs in any sport have fans that are are any more demanding than those who don the green and gold, and the fact that the country won the World Cup in 1995 is never far from the minds of fans or even players – White has to deal with the inevitable pressures of racial reconciliation, an especially tough task given the Springboks longstanding status as a symbol of white supremacy and a nexus of Afrikaner nationalism. 

White is well aware of these issues and the ways that they compound the expectations for victory:

“No other country comes close to resembling the South African scenario,” said White, who will be taking charge of his 53rd Test in the final against England on Saturday.“South Africa is the only country where if a winger is injured, you are obliged to change the prop (should the injured player be black or coloured).

“But I accept that as this is my country,” added White, who has rejuvenated the team since replacing Rudolf Straeuli after the debacle of the 2003 World Cup.

“The racial changes could be an immense bonus if they were well implemented,” said White.

“France has Serge Betsen, Thierry Dusautoir, Yannick Nyanga, who are selected on merit, England has Paul Sackey, Jason Robinson, again chosen on merit.

“These countries have a black minority. How can we, with 40 million blacks (85 percent of the population), justify a white team? If we are really being serious about making an effort, it’s impossible,” added White, who is likely to have just two coloured players in his starting line-up in wingers Bryan Habana and JP Pietersen in the final.White, though, said that all his players knew he did not racially discriminate when it came to selecting the starting XV.

“I’ve been lucky because I’ve had some of these players as juniors, and at Under-19 and Under-21 level (he coached South Africa to the Under-21 world title).

“They know me and know that I never want to be strong-armed into playing a guy because of the colour of his skin.

“That is a dreadful thing to do to a player. With me it’s a case of if you deserve to be in the starting XV or not. And the coloured players are aware of that.”

On that basis, the Springboks will have one more coloured player in their starting XV line-up on Saturday than their 1995 winning side, who only had winger Chester Williams.

That 1995 victory still resonates.

“Winning in 1995 was massive,” said White. “People asked me, when I was resting my players, and being very strict on conditioning: why are we putting so much emphasis into a World Cup?

“But people forget, 1995 changed everything in South Africa.

“It changed the country, the politics, the people. It didn’t last, true, we didn’t use it as a wonderful thing to carry on with.

“For that time, you wanted to make a movie, you couldn’t make it better: everything clicked on one day. And it only happened because of one rugby game.

“But rugby wise, 1995 did not serve us in a way, coming from isolation. Playing amongst us, we thought we had always been the best, and we came back, we won in 1995, so that was just confirming it.

“Had we lost, our coaches would have been going overseas, travelling the world, and seeing how to get better, to catch up.

“In 1999 we pushed the future world champions Australia into extra-time in the semis, lost at the death on a Stephen Larkham drop goal, so we could think we were still there.

“The big realisation that we weren’t who we thought we were, was 2003 (South Africa lost to New Zealand in the quarterfinals).

“And we’re lucky we have a second chance, that’s what I said to the players.”

South Africa deserves to be the favorites coming into this game. They have pummeled England three times this year, including once in the Pool round of this tournament.  The Springboks will have to handle the pressure that comes with being favorites and with representing South African rugby. The whole country is behind them — even the country’s Premier Soccer League is adjusting the schedule of its game so that fans and players of the country’s most popular sport will be able to watch the World Cup Final.

I’ll write more about rugby in the run-up to the game, but I continue to believe that the Springboks are the best team in the world. They play a bruising, brutal style that is especially well suited for World Cup play, they are more talented than their British counterparts, and they have beaten the defending champs and scored nearly 150 points in three games this year. It is customary for people like me to predict close games in situations such as this. And a close match may well happen. But I still foresee a blowout. My viewpoint may change, but as of right now I’d predict that South Africa wins going away, 36-14.

Amobokoboko! 

Is Thabo Mbeki revealing signs of creeping authoritarianism? Newsweek International fears as much. It is most alarming that Mbeki is showing his Machiavellian side (it certainly is not new; it might now be more brazen, however) as his tenure as President and party head comes to an end and while the whispers that he might consider a third term grow louder and more plausible.