THE work of being an active citizen can indeed be taxing. Such is the way one felt when we had to listen to the excruciatingly and unnecessarily long-winded press conference held by the National Director of Public Prosecutions on the reviewing and dropping of the charges against Minister Pravin Gordhan and others.
Shaun Abrahams’ announcement, while on the surface may seem to be in line with common prosecutorial practice, is likely nothing more than a self-exculpatory exercise to avoid the real possibility that the NPA would have embarrassed itself had this case been put before a court.
In the face of what seems like a strange game of political smoke and mirrors, we ordinary plebs often ask ourselves, how do the powerful appear to play such games in the public and to play them so brazenly with so little consequence?
Surely, with all the many allegations of state capture floating around, these people cannot possibly be taking the public for being a bunch of fools?
Daily on our South Africa social media platforms we are bombarded by vociferous defenders of the Gupta family, all these defenders who might be considered part of the “black intelligentsia”.
One wonders, are they serious, do they actually believe what they are saying?
The term “Paid Twitter” has even emerged as part of speculation that some black professionals have been remunerated as part of providing a public relations arsenal for the Guptas.
The core argumentational ploy used by these defenders is to counterpose “institutions” against “ideology”. By this I mean, they tell us that to defend “the Treasury” as an individual institution is to miss the real ideological question of the economic power of “white monopoly capital”.
Now, I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would separate the debate on the assault against Treasury, from the debate about the deepening inequality in the country. But again, as with the NPA case against Gordhan, one wonders if Paid Twitter takes the public to be a bunch of fools?
Because we are a country built from the anti-colonial struggle, our political conversation tends to define “ideological” as being that which explains the oppression of the colonised by the coloniser, white supremacy and black subjugation, male domination over women, or the worker vis a vis the capitalist.
While this ideological mode of analysis may be the basis for understanding the overall structural arrangement of society, it does not necessarily mean we cannot understand “institutions” as political infrastructures in, and of themselves.
For example, while it is clear that the law works for the propertied and rich, one cannot have a state that can arbitrarily deprive people, especially the poor, of property.
No matter how “ideologically radical” or redistributive a state, arbitrary state power has to be curbed by institutions and the law, otherwise despotism can take root.
South Africa’s constitution provides a defence against being deprived of property at the whim of the state in Section 25 (1).
Viewed through orthodox ideology, it is clear this section of the constitution stands in the way of a policy such as land expropriation without compensation that might hypothetically resolve land patterns and markets skewed in favour of white property owners.
But this constraint against arbitrary expropriation does not necessarily mean that the “constitution” and its attendant institutions are inherently anti-poor, as we often argue as black progressives.
I constantly ask the question, if a radical black government were to take power in South Africa, would they also not require strong, constitutionally-backed institutions to prevent them from abusing power?
Furthermore, would such a state not need ethically principled administrators such as Pravin Gordhan?
In other words, justice and accountability are dependent on sound institutions, not only ideology.
And while I was annoyed by Abrahams excruciating backpeddling speech, I am glad South Africa’s legal institutions made it impossible for him to pursue whatever he was pursuing to its dark political conclusion.
Is public being played for a fool?
Shaun Abrahams’ announcement, while on the surface may seem to be in line with common prosecutorial practice, is likely nothing more than a self-exculpatory exercise to avoid the real possibility that the NPA would have embarrassed itself had this case been put before a court.
In the face of what seems like a strange game of political smoke and mirrors, we ordinary plebs often ask ourselves, how do the powerful appear to play such games in the public and to play them so brazenly with so little consequence?
Surely, with all the many allegations of state capture floating around, these people cannot possibly be taking the public for being a bunch of fools?
Daily on our South Africa social media platforms we are bombarded by vociferous defenders of the Gupta family, all these defenders who might be considered part of the “black intelligentsia”.
One wonders, are they serious, do they actually believe what they are saying?
The term “Paid Twitter” has even emerged as part of speculation that some black professionals have been remunerated as part of providing a public relations arsenal for the Guptas.
The core argumentational ploy used by these defenders is to counterpose “institutions” against “ideology”. By this I mean, they tell us that to defend “the Treasury” as an individual institution is to miss the real ideological question of the economic power of “white monopoly capital”.
Now, I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would separate the debate on the assault against Treasury, from the debate about the deepening inequality in the country. But again, as with the NPA case against Gordhan, one wonders if Paid Twitter takes the public to be a bunch of fools?
Because we are a country built from the anti-colonial struggle, our political conversation tends to define “ideological” as being that which explains the oppression of the colonised by the coloniser, white supremacy and black subjugation, male domination over women, or the worker vis a vis the capitalist.
While this ideological mode of analysis may be the basis for understanding the overall structural arrangement of society, it does not necessarily mean we cannot understand “institutions” as political infrastructures in, and of themselves.
For example, while it is clear that the law works for the propertied and rich, one cannot have a state that can arbitrarily deprive people, especially the poor, of property.
No matter how “ideologically radical” or redistributive a state, arbitrary state power has to be curbed by institutions and the law, otherwise despotism can take root.
South Africa’s constitution provides a defence against being deprived of property at the whim of the state in Section 25 (1).
Viewed through orthodox ideology, it is clear this section of the constitution stands in the way of a policy such as land expropriation without compensation that might hypothetically resolve land patterns and markets skewed in favour of white property owners.
But this constraint against arbitrary expropriation does not necessarily mean that the “constitution” and its attendant institutions are inherently anti-poor, as we often argue as black progressives.
I constantly ask the question, if a radical black government were to take power in South Africa, would they also not require strong, constitutionally-backed institutions to prevent them from abusing power?
Furthermore, would such a state not need ethically principled administrators such as Pravin Gordhan?
In other words, justice and accountability are dependent on sound institutions, not only ideology.
And while I was annoyed by Abrahams excruciating backpeddling speech, I am glad South Africa’s legal institutions made it impossible for him to pursue whatever he was pursuing to its dark political conclusion.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos