In 1978, the Rev Jim Jones persuaded his cult followers to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid and more than 900 of them died. Since then, the phrase “Drink the Kool-Aid” describes people who follow leaders unthinkingly, as in a cult. From reading the article by Jessie Duarte under the rubric “Testimony at Zondo Commission is an onslaught against the People”, I am convinced that she drank the Kool-Aid and that her morality was thereby consumed.
Let us remind ourselves that the “Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture”, with a subheading “Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State”, was launched by then president Jacob Zuma in January 2018. The establishment and the terms of reference of the commission were an executive decision by the then president. In signing and announcing the executive decision, there was no gun to his head.
Zuma said, “The commission must seek to uncover not just the conduct of some, but of all those who may have rendered our state or parts thereof vulnerable to control by forces other than the public for which government is elected,” and “I urge everyone to cooperate with the commission of inquiry.” I have no doubt that he knew then, as he does now, that his own conduct would be scrutinised by the commission.
Nowhere is “democratic centralism” on trial, because nowhere has there ever been a decision by any organ of either the African National Congress or the state (these are each discrete bodies in law) that had directed its members to commit corruption and fraud and that the execution of these criminal acts should now be defended.
The idea that ANC members are required to support criminality driven by the venal greed of a few is completely antithetical to the most elementary codes of the ANC, the first of which is the oath of membership. Extracts from this oath read: “... that I am joining the Organisation voluntarily and without motives of material advantage and or personal gain”, and “... that I will work towards making the ANC an even more effective instrument of liberation in the hands of the people”.
What Duarte is now suggesting is that the duty of ANC members is to defend those who did not read the oath of membership and turned their positions in the organisation into instruments for personal gain. Further, that instead of making the party an instrument of liberation in the hands of the people, it should become an instrument that accommodates those in its ranks who steal from the people and impoverishes them forever. How bizarre!
The tragedy is that Duarte reveals no understanding of the ethics that shaped a movement and enabled it to take on a system, nor does she reveal an iota of recognition that the ANC is mandated to serve the people, not the leadership. What she holds up as the revolutionary sounding “Democratic Centralism” is actually nothing short of sheep farming.
The next level of commitment is the oath taken by members of Parliament and all legislatures. This oath binds members to be “faithful to the Republic of South Africa” and to “obey, respect and uphold the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic”. In this context, an executive order creating a commission of inquiry assumes the force of law. Duarte’s sense is that such adherence to law is wrongful, or somehow contrary to the spirit of the ANC. I have news for her – there is nothing that could be described as national, democratic or revolutionary about the theft and pillage being inquired into. Thus, there is nothing in the behaviour of the thieves that can either be masked or protected.
In 2005 the ANC National Executive Committee adopted a position titled “Revolutionary Morality”. Let me quote from that document: “A system of ethics must, at its core, be based on the need for politicians to take responsibility for their actions and events both individually and collectively. Without responsibility, there can be no accountability. The system of accountability that the ANC has put in place, both in statute and in practice, is based on the need for those in power to take responsibility.”
The tragedy is that Duarte reveals no understanding of the ethics that shaped a movement and enabled it to take on a system, nor does she reveal an iota of recognition that the ANC is mandated to serve the people, not the leadership. What she holds up as the revolutionary sounding “Democratic Centralism” is actually nothing short of sheep farming.
Last week the Zondo Commission dealt, at some length, with the matter of parliamentary oversight of the executive. I want to refer to the testimony of two witnesses whose testimony adequately described the contradictions and conflict of values.
First, there was the testimony of Zukiswa Daphne Rantho, who had chaired an inquiry into Eskom in Parliament in 2017. I am sure that many readers will recall her dignified leadership of the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises as it drilled into the malfeasance at Eskom. She explained in the course of her testimony that the consequences of her leadership were that she was not nominated for Parliament in 2019. As a consequence of her brave, principled and ethical stance she was rendered unemployed.
In contrast, there was the testimony of Dikeledi Magadzi, who chaired the Portfolio Committee on Transport. Part of what transpired on her watch was that the committee’s attention was drawn to the allegation that a contract valued at R51-billion had been awarded by Prasa to the Gupta family and Duduzane Zuma. Magadzi declined to convene an inquiry into this by the transport committee. She later said that her responsibility was not to question the ANC on the reasons for decisions. Magadzi was, of course, returned to Parliament in 2019 and thereafter further rewarded with a position of deputy minister, which she still occupies.
Duarte would have us believe that the contrast between the two witnesses is that Rantho is ill-disciplined while Magadzi is representative of the character of the ANC and of what she calls “Democratic Centralism”. How plainly wrong she is!
I want to ask Duarte, what happened to the Yasmin Dangor she once was? Was it only the Kool-Aid she drank, or was there something else, deep and dangerous? I want to say to her that many of us are aligned with the stance of Zukiswa Rantho. In fact, We are Zukiswa Rantho. Ethics matter! DM