Zuma says one thing, “fellow” comrades another

zuma-sona3

By Pinky Khoabane

zuma-sona3

February 28, 2017 was one of those days where we had ask to ask ourselves, whose word in the African National Congress (ANC) we must believe. In the conflicting messages that have come to characterise the ANC, the ruling party’s parliamentarians this week, turned down a motion to amend Section 25 of the Constitution and expropriate land without compensation.

The motion was led by the EFF on the back of a statement made by President Jacob Zuma at the weekend where he reiterated his commitment to radical economic transformation and expropriation of land without compensation. Speaking at the launch of Operation Phakisa on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, the president said: “The 2017 State of the Nation Address focused on the critical importance of radical economic transformation. Land reform is a central pillar of the radical economic transformation programme. Let me reiterate what I said in the SONA: true reconciliation will be impossible to achieve if the land question is not addressed. If we do not radically change the patterns of land ownership, control and management in South Africa we will be creating problems for ourselves in future”.

The President asked the crucial question: “How are we going to achieve all the goals mentioned in the State of the Nation Address and all the laws and policies that we are busy amending to enable faster land reform, including land expropriation without compensation as provided for in the Constitution?” Read the full speech here http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/speeches/address-president-jg-zuma-launch-operation-phakisa-agriculture%2C-land-reform-and-rural

His answer came by way of an EFF led motion in Parliament calling to amend the Constitution. It offered to give the ANC the 6% vote it won in the national elections which would, in addition to the ANCs 62%, provide the two-thirds majority required to change the Constitution. We know this was an opportunistic move by the EFF. It has openly declared its hatred for Zuma and has openly denounced him as a president. How could it therefore enter into a negotiation with the ANC with Zuma at its head? The EFF is also in bed with the Democratic Alliance (DA) at municipal level. It has vowed to give away its votes at the next national elections if it means unsitting the ANC. It therefore stands to reason that its motion was just a bluff.

It however managed to expose the ANC’s divisions and hypocrisy.

ANC MPs turned the EFF’s motion down – a decision that created a rage on social media Twitter and Facebook.

Tony Yengeni asked: Can an ANC MP slowly explain why African MPs failed to unite a common position on land expropriation without compensation?
@kimheller3 #LandDebate #Zuma has called for Amendment of Section 25 & expropriation of land without compensation. Why are MP’s not supporting this?

@_Phurah What happened today in parly was a sabotage of @PresidencyZA Zuma on his call of expropriation of land without compensation –

In defending their decision, ANC MPs said it wasn’t ANC policy to expropriate land without compensation. That may be so but the immediate question is why the president had raised such a suggestion and as publicly as he did?

The Constitution does not currently allow for land redistribution without compensation and stipulates that “no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property” and that compensation must reflect “an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected”.

While we all understand where the Constitution stands at the moment, the motion was to allow amendments.

In a statement from the ANC Chief Whip, Jackson Mthembu, who is seen among ANC faithful as anti-Zuma following his calls for the resignation of the National Executive Committee (NEC) issued a statement saying expropriation of land without compensation was not ANC policy. He said the EFF was misplaced and overlooked numerous programmes and reviews that were underway. “The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has already undertaken to do a precolonial audit of land ownership, use and occupation pattern. Once the audit has been completed, a single law will be developed to address the issue of land restitution and the necessary constitutional amendments will be undertaken to effect this process,” the statement said.

A day later the ANC Women’s League (ANCWL) issued its statement attacking the decision by the party’s parliamentary caucus for opposing expropriation of land without compensation. It said it would seek an audience with the mother body for an explanation. “Land redistribution is an ANC program and must be implemented as such without fear or favour. Any delay by the ANC led government in implementing ANC resolutions will give grounds to demagoguery, opportunistic populist formations to throw rhetorics and portrays themselves as the champions of the poor and the working class. The funded mercenaries who are proudly bedfellows of our historical class enemies, will portray themselves as the solution to socio-economic challenges the country is facing whilst they are mere election footsoldiers of the neo-liberal political party that is advancing white supremacy,” the statement read.

There is no doubt that land distribution is an ANC policy, what is seemingly divisive within the ruling party is the pace at which this must be done. And you have to ask whose interests are being protected by those in the ANC who want a slow pace of land redistribution.  By the time reviews of current laws are completed, if at all, the 2019 elections would have come and gone and the ANC will suffer greatly at the polls for having neglected to deal emphatically, with the question of land.

 

11 Comments on "Zuma says one thing, “fellow” comrades another"

  1. Jeff Koorbanally | March 3, 2017 at 10:39 am | Reply

    For those who understand Politics like Comrade Nyangeni should understand the following:

    EFF after disrupting the SONA and causing Chaos in Parliament, when they were ask to comment on the SONA, they totally discredited every aspect of the SONA, including the land reform transformation.

    The next point is the fact that EFF came into Political Arena using the expropriation of land without compensation, of which they made a u turn after being voted into parliament, there was never ever motion put into parliament before now!

    The question is Why?

    Are they sincere about it now? Or just one of their political plot/game to sabotage the Anc. If they are serious about it they know where to discuss the proposal.

    The proposal must have certain conditions that does not allow them to exploit it for their political gains and destabilize the country. That’s what we need to be careful of……….Luthuli house is open to listen to anyone that has the real interest of the majority of previously deprived people of this country. Luthuli house is also cautious of those devils in disguise who have hidden agendas.

  2. Jeff Koorbanally | March 3, 2017 at 7:56 pm | Reply

    I fail to understand Cde Nyangeni point on his emphassis that Anc should have jumped to the EFF “motion” and their offer/proposal to give their vote to obtain 2 third majority after they have clearly demostrated that they are only there to remove the ruling party from power and reverse the political control back to the apartheid type of regime. This objective can be achieved with other parties like IFP,NFP,APC, PAC of Azania, Agang SA, AIC
    who geniunely share the same sentiment on the land issue.
    All we need is 18 extra votes to achieve the 2/3 majority.
    The DA,EFF,COPE,UDM, ACDP can keep their coalution

    • Pinky Khoabane | March 5, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Reply

      Dear Jeff

      My view is that the EFF motion was just a bluff which ultimately exposed the divisions within the ANC and more so the hypocrisy of a ruling party that claims to want to accelerate economic transformation and land redistribution.

      On Friday the President asked for unity among Blacks over the issue of expropriation of land without compensation. It somehow leaves those who say the EFF motion shouldn’t have been supported by the ANC, exposed.

      Kindest

      PK

  3. Pk,

    Here is my comment at BLF.

    You clearly have an interest.

    Lord Bless, love Michael (heart).
    _____________

    • Pinky Khoabane | March 6, 2017 at 8:35 am | Reply

      Dear Michael

      As you would know, UnCensored and BLF are two separate entities albeit that we are great friends.

      We do not wish to be the messenger between you, BLF and Andile Mngxitama. You certainly raise important issues which I would imagine are addressed in the BLF policy document on land and perhaps even in the land expropriation bill and the reviews to the Constitution that are currently being suggested by President Zuma. I must certainly say I have not as yet read either.

      We will debate further on the issue…

      Kindest

      PK

  4. PK,
    1.
    Is there a line drawn indicating to the People of South Africa exactly what LAND the President of South Africa Mr. Zuma and the Chairman of Black Land First Mr. Mngxitama and, I think (London-not-with-standing) Mr. Malema – Leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters – are wanting to Expropriate Without Compensation ?
    1.1
    As a so-called ‘white’ man (which I am not – I have a sort of pinkish, tanned, multi-coloured skin-colour) I would like this reasonable, logical, practical, meaningful, real question answered – so that I will know what to expect Re the ‘slogan’ ‘Land or Blood’.
    1.1.1
    For instance :
    1.1.1.1
    Do the 100% racists – President of South Africa Mr. Zuma and Chairman of Black Land First Mr. Mngxitama and Leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters Mr. Malema – intend to Expropriate Without Compensation my home, and ALL other so-called ‘white’ people’s homes, and Business Premises and to give our homes and Business Premises to so-called ‘black’ women/men ? I suppose so. Right. After all, the LAND on which our homes and Business Premises are built – ‘once-upon-a-not-so-long-distant-time-ago’ – is being identified by the ‘phrase’ : “ .. historical fact that all land in white hands was taken from blacks .. ”. Right.
    2.
    As a so-called ‘white’ man (which I am not – I am a sort of pinkish, tanned, mixed multi-colour) what I do know is this :
    2.1
    Mr. Mngxitama – National Convener Black Land First and Black Land First will not bother to acknowledge me or to reply to me. This because Mr. Mngxitama – National Convener Black Land First and Black Land First – are 100% racist/s; and because I am, in their eyes (minds), identified as a so-called ‘white’ man (which I am not – I am a sort of pinkish, tanned, mixed multi-colour). Right.
    3.
    Is the IDEA like this ?
    3.1
    Once the President of South Africa Mr. Zuma and the Chairman of Black Land First Mr. Mngxitama and, I think (London-not-with-standing) Mr. Malema – Leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters – have Expropriated Without Compensation “ .. all land in white hands (that was) taken from blacks” in South Africa and handed it over to the Rightful Owners i. e. the so-called ‘blacks’ – will they proceed beyond the borders of South Africa in to Europe; America; Russia; India, China, the Middle-East – basically into the whole-wide-World on the basis : “ .. all land in white hands was taken from blacks” ?
    3.1.1
    After all, it is claimed (wrongly according to the Word of GOD – the Bible) that ‘man’ originated in South Africa. Right. It is claimed (wrongly according to the Word of GOD – the Bible) that she/he was a so-called ‘black’ ‘man’. Right. So, according to the President of South Africa Mr. Zuma and the Chairman of Black Land First Mr. Mngxitama and, I think (London-not-with-standing) Mr. Malema – Leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters – it had to be the so-called ‘blacks’ who first ventured into Europe; America; Russia; India, China, the Middle-East – basically into the whole-wide-World and COLANISED it. Right. So, being the first there (before ‘man’ turned into a so-called ‘white’ woman/man) it was the so-called ‘blacks’ who OWNED ALL the LAND in/of the WORLD. Right.
    3.1.1.1
    Is it the intension of the President of South Africa Mr. Zuma and the Chairman of Black Land First Mr. Mngxitama and, I think (London-not-with-standing) Mr. Malema – Leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters – to Expropriate Without Compensation “ .. all land in white hands (that was) taken from blacks” all-around-the-whole-wide-WORLD and hand it back to the Rightful Owners i. e. the so-called ‘blacks’ who got there first and COLANISED …. it before they ‘turned white’ ? Is THAT the IDEA ?
    3.1.1.1.1
    Just asking …. not expecting an answer – after all, in the eyes (minds) of the 100% racist Mr. Mngxitama and the 100% racist Organisation Black Land First I am a so-called ‘white’ man (which I am not – I am a sort of pinkish, tanned, mixed multi-colour). Right.

    Lord Bless, love Michael (heart).

    Love; Pray for your enemy says JESUS the Christ.

    • Pinky Khoabane | March 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Reply

      Dear Michael

      AM so sorry am only getting to your comment now. It is pretty long and I cannot answer for the people to whom you address the questions. Maybe one of the readers will pick up some of the issues and respond to you.

      Having been on panels to discuss racism, the starting point in calling others racist is to define what racism is.

      IN the simplest of terms – Racism is a mindset of superiority – where one person views themselves as superior to the other based on their skin colour. This mental belief manifests itself in different ways including an entire system such as apartheid and it’s laws of expropriating land without compensation, forced removals, and the many laws that were meant to take away every dignity the Black person had.

      Now, In proposing for the expropriation of land without compensation – does that mean Zuma, Mngxitama and Malema or all the Blacks proposing the same are racists? My definition of racist does not apply.

      Kindest

      PK

  5. Dear PK,

    Thank You So Much for taking of your valuable time; for going to the trouble to respond to my comment. Much appreciated.

    Thank you also for explaining to me what the words “racist” and “racism” really mean. I must admit …. I have never actually looked up their meaning in a dictionary. Nor have I ever sat on ‘panels’ and discussed racists and racism, I must admit. All I know is that I have lived here for 76 years; lived through (and opposed my whole life) Horrible, Terrible, Disgusting Nasty Evil Apartheid under Afrikaner Nationalism; live here still, now under African Nationalism …. ‘need I say more’.

    (…. and I will, if I am called upon to do so, or if I want to, say more. Perhaps the best way I can express myself PK is to invite YOU to come and see my ‘anti-apartheid art work’ on permanent display at 52- 4th Street, Marlboro, Sandton; to see for yourself the 2 Great Churches on our property; to see the ‘VISION’ taking place in Marlboro which is explained at http://www.fc-oc2007.co.za).

    1.
    I now see that I need to apologise to you PK, to those I named, and to ALL your Readers as well. Sorry. Please accept my sincere apology/ies.

    2.
    What I should have done was to refer to some of them (not all of them mind you PK) as CROOKS CHEATS THIEVES (CCT). Right.

    2.1
    What I should NOT have done was to refer to them as racists who want desperately to begin the ‘process’ of CROOKING CHEATING THIEVING for purposes of racism. Right.

    2.2
    You see PK, to me, as a Christian, a CROOK is a CROOK; a CHEAT is a CHEAT; a THIEF is a THIEF. To me PK, to THIEVE is …. well we ALL know that THIEVING is. Right PK. It is exactly what the Afrikaner Nationalists did to the their Fellow-South-Africans. Right.

    3.
    How I understand things is like this PK : When a Group of People has enough numbers (e. g. the African Nationalists), and/or ‘has the law on their side’ (if/when they can change the Constitution), SO THAT they can then CROOK CHEAT THIEVE from others – usually a Group with less numbers, or a suppressed Group with large number who ‘have the law (sic) against them’ (e. g. APARTHEID under Afrikaner Nationalism – I MUST NOT refer to ‘it’ (CROOKING CHEATING THIEVING) or call ‘it’ (CROOKING CHEATING THIEVING) as racism. Right. Nor must I EVER say ‘it’ (CROOKING CHEATING THIEVING) is racist. I must make myself clear – ‘it’ (CROOKING CHEATING THIEVING) is NOT for reasons of racism. Right.

    Have I got it Right this time PK ? Do I understand the difference between racist/racism and CROOKING CHEATING THIEVING ?

    I do hope that my sincere apology and my effort/s to understand what to expect is ‘coming my way’ now that I understand the meaning of the words “racist/s” and “racism” are clear to me. As I am sure they are clear to your Readers. Bravo.

    You and ALL those that I have named are in my Prayers PK.

    Lord Bless, love Michael (Heart).

    Love; Pray for your enemy, says JESUS the Christ. amen.

    P. S. PK, you have replied to me and I Thank You for doing so. Please let us Readers know what to expect Re the ‘BIGGER picture’… you know, the African Nationalism’s World View Re ‘Land or Blood’ and Re LAND Expropriated Without Compensation i. e. “ .. all land in white hands (that was) taken from blacks” here ‘at home’ in Sunny South Africa (where we are encouraged to say we are “The Rainbow Nation” with the colour black 90 % and the other 6 colours 10% – what a RAINBOW hey PK) and also around-the-whole-wide-World.

  6. PK,

    Just one last question that I ask you to explain to us Readers :

    Is the Thinking in African Nationalism that because ‘man/woman’ moved North and COLONISED the whole-wide-World (before they turned so-called ‘white’), then ALL the LAND of the whole-wide-World MUST be taken back from the so-called ‘whites’ and handed back to the RIGHTFUL OWNERS i. e. the co-called ‘black’ People ? We know that the so-called ‘Coloureds’ and the Indians are now known as ‘blacks’ in the ‘Policy’ of African Nationalism, so they will get their Rightful allocation of LAND. Right ?

    Do I understand what the ‘Policy’ of African Nationalism is PK Re their ‘World-View’ on LAND ?

    Lord Bless, love Michael (heart).

    • Pinky Khoabane | March 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Reply

      Dear Michael

      It always takes me a little longer to get through to the comments especially the ones from old articles. And the biggest problem is that once I get to them I want to read and respond. Sometimes I’m simply swamped with other issues I have to attend to and find I must simply allow the comment through.

      This and the next comments of yours I unfortunately can’t respond to right now.

      But Im sure someone will pick up the comment and hopefully respond.

      Kindest

      PK

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*