Heavily guarded Malema arrives in court

The hate speech case against ANCYL President Julius Malema clearly highlighted the need for white people to learn about African people and African indigenous languages. We learnt from evasive evidence led by senior ANC members and Malema’s mendacious statements which they got away with because the judge and white lawyers don’t understand our languages. I am neither Zulu nor Xhosa but I can understand them.

ANC members who gave evidence including Malema said the song ‘dubul ‘ibhunu’ referred to fighting the brutal system of apartheid. Other lines of the song go like this, ‘ zia reipa lezinja’ meaning “these dogs are rapists” and not “this dog is a rapist”. A system of government is in singular form so why use the plural word ‘these’ instead of its singular ‘this’? This needs to be clarified. There are no interpreters at that case so the court relies on the people giving evidence who are misleading the court not only about interpretations but also about politics in general.

ANC Secretary General explained to the court his or the ANC’s version of the National Democratic Revolution and the court accepted it. The National Democratic Revolution (NDR), according to a Russian-trained doctor from Botswana the late Dr Kenneth Koma is a revolution which is not only national, in the sense that it embraces the whole nation, but it is also national in the sense that it poses demands which go far beyond state sovereignty and the provisions of liberal democracy. It recognises that in the peripheral regions of the capitalist world, the nations are still in their formative stages.

The NDR must include people in all the groups and communities which are never included in the term “people”. They are not well organised both politically and socially. They are consequently never represented in the conventional arrangements of involving people participating in the decision-making process in liberal democracies. There are also various interest groups which are not able to form themselves into articulate organisations and are therefore usually left out of the consultative process in all liberal democracies.

The NDR must accommodate the aspirations of all groups. It should also include a struggle for genuine democracy and not simply a situation where a ruling party rigs elections, control election funding and the electoral authority (for example IEC) and uses state organs to fight party political factional battles and undermine opposition parties.

The National Democratic Revolution changes both the regime and the individuals who participate in the Revolution. The NDR changes the society and creates a new individual. The NDR creates an egalitarian society. It cannot be carried out under the leadership of a single dominant political organization like the ANC. It can only be carried out by an alliance between mass democratic organisations and a socialist party. The socialist party must provide ideological leadership, otherwise the people sacrifice for nothing. The SACP is ideologically bankrupt and incapable of discharging leadership to the NDR.
When it is considered that the NDR as a Revolution should change both the society and the individuals, to create a new man who is committed to the welfare of his fellow-men – an individual who is selfless, only an alliance of democratic organisations and a socialist party can carry out a National Democratic Revolution. We must ask if the Malemas, Jacob Zumas, Tokyo Sexwales, Zwelinzima Vavis, Blade Nzimandes and the rest are selfless. Objective experience shows that the ANC and its alliance partners stand against all the objectives of a National Democratic Revolution. Had the lawyers representing the groups that took Malema to court knew something about the NDR; they could have exposed Mantashe as a dilettante. But they can still do that during their closing arguments if they can read this website.

One of those lawyers said he visited the PAC website. During cross examination Malema repeated the lie that the PAC hijacked the ANC’s plan and marched on 21st March 1960 and got away with it. He must go and read Young Mandela by David James Smith and see how many times ANC leaders failed to organise an anti-pass campaign after the 21 March 1960 PAC’s successful anti-pass campaign which was marred by police brutality. Previously Malema also claimed that PAC founding President Robert Sobukwe led protesters to their deaths but in his evidence during the hate speech case Malema said the apartheid regime was brutal yet in a march led by the PAC where peaceful demonstrators were killed by the brutal ‘system’ he, Wally Serote, Mantashe and Collins Chabane ranted about during their testimony, Malema puts on his blinkers and blames Sobukwe and the PAC and not the system. He needs to explain this hypocrisy to the court.

The PAC was formed by the majority of members of the ANCYL who adopted the Programme of Action in 1949 which was single-handedly drafted by Robert Sobukwe. The Defiance Campaign which was watered down and the 21 March 1960 Anti-pass demonstration were part of this programme of action which the Charterists abandoned for the Freedom Charter. The ANC adopted its new constitution with parts of the Freedom Charter included in 1957 and abandoned the constitution of the ANC of 1912. Basically the ANC of today was formed in 1957. It should celebrate its centennary in 2057 and not next year. The ANC are imposters and this, the PAC knows and exposed very well.

During his testimony Malema also said the ANCYL wants to make it a policy of the ANC to expropriate land from white farmers without compensation. Well that is the policy of the PAC. The PAC under the leadership of Dr Stanley Mogoba suggested there should be a land summit when Mr Thabo Mbeki was still president. The ANC government ignored the PAC’s suggestion. Then about two years down the line, the ANC government, still under Mbeki, called for a land summit and guess what? – they excluded the PAC.

Malema also testified that race was a national question. But the ANC always criticise the PAC and BCM as racists when they identified the question of race as a fundametal issue in our struggle for liberation. In his book Long Walk to Freedom former ANC President Nelson Mandela in fact labels Anton Lembede as a racialist. The ANC can’t just adopt this new position on race and the land question without foreswearing the position they held dear in the past. They used to mock the PAC by shouting “land first” whenever they saw PAC members the same way Zimbabweans shouted “over my dead body” whenever they saw former Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith.

Afri-Forum lawyer suggested that Malema was a demagogue and I agree with him. When the judge asked him to explain what a demagogue was he said it was a rabble-rouser. I think a demagogue is a person who stirs up people’s emotions and not their intellect. Demagogues are dangerous. However, I don’t agree with the hate speech case. White people in general prefer ANC imposters to the PAC because the ANC has guaraneed them that they will keep their ill-gotten wealth and there is a constitutional guarantee for that in the Property Clause, Section 25 of the Constitution. Now Malema seems to upset that arrangement in his grand-standing and posturing.

Malema says he is for redistribution of wealth. However, his class position precludes him from talking on behalf of the poor and unemployed. And the ANC is not about redistribution of resources either. It is about concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. The evidence is there for everybody to see. The ANC has produced many millionaires, including Malema himself, than scientists and chartered accountants in the past seventeen years it has been in power. Malema has a group of bodyguards. Who are they guarding him against? The people on whose behalf he purports to be speaking?

As long as white people don’t bother to learn and understand what the PAC stands for, they will forever be swindled and beguiled by imposters. If Afri-Forum and Agricultural Union of South Africa hired a lawyer with a PAC background (if he/she agreed) Malema would not have made some of the nonsensical statements he made in the witness stand.

By Sam Ditshego

%d bloggers like this: