Peter Vundla’s piece, “Punish opponents of apartheid redress” (Sunday Times, June 29), advocates for a dangerous precedent. The call to legally punish individuals for holding and expressing dissenting opinions within a democratic society is reprehensible at best, and profoundly dangerous at worst.
A foundational principle of any functioning democracy is the robust exchange of ideas. To criminalise thought or speech simply because it counters a prevailing narrative is to abandon the very essence of a free society.
Mr Vundla equates opposing BEE with opposing redress. He writes: “In 1973 the UN declared apartheid a crime against humanity. The democratic South African constitution mandates redress for past injustices. In my view, the fight against redress is tantamount to apartheid denialism, which should be punishable in law.”
The real “crime” here is not the critique of redress policies but the perpetuation of BEE, which masquerades as broad-based transformation but demonstrably serves a small, politically connected elite and costs the economy dearly.
The only sustainable and equitable path to genuine transformation lies in baking a bigger pie, not redistributing a shrinking one. Attempting to address systemic unemployment and hopelessness by reallocating limited existing wealth will not yield results. Only robust economic growth can uplift millions from poverty.
Did you know that an economy growing at 7% annually doubles every 10 years? Did you know that had South Africa grown 7% a year since 1994, our annual GDP per person would have increased from $4,000 to $30,000?
Achieving growth is entirely within reach if politicians prioritise pragmatic economic principles over ideological biases.
Opposing BEE is not a “war on black people,” as Mr Vundla claims. Opposing policies which undermine growth, and therefore investment, and therefore jobs, is a war in defence of the poor, be they black or white.
In arguing against BEE, perhaps the William Gumedes and Moeletsi Mbekis of this world offer a crucial insight. It requires intellectual honesty and considerable courage to acknowledge when preferred policies simply do not work. It is past time for the proponents of the failed BEE policy to opt for something that will indeed raise the poor out of poverty.
— Gail Day, head of operations, Free Market Foundation
Zambia is right to insist on a state funeral
More than anything else, the death of former Zambian president Edgar Chagwa Lungu is a personal tragedy. Amid legal arguments and political commentary, we must not forget the emotional pain of losing a husband, father and grandfather.
The Zambian government continues to recognise this grief and has never intended to understate the family’s wishes. Rather, it seeks to balance their sentiments with the broader national interest tied to burying a former head of state.
In his column (“Zambian tug of war over Edgar Lungu’s body is revolting,” June 29) Mathatha Tsedu expressed understandable outrage over the situation. However, his analysis misses key context and misrepresents the government’s actions.
Contrary to Tsedu’s claim that President Hakainde Hichilema treated his predecessor with “disdain or like a criminal”, the facts suggest otherwise. President Lungu retained full presidential immunity throughout his retirement, unlike his predecessors Kenneth Kaunda, Frederick Chiluba and Rupiah Banda. From his retirement to his sad passing, there were no attempts to humiliate or prosecute Lungu.
Tsedu’s concerns about the Pretoria high court proceedings need clarification. The government did not initiate the legal action out of spite or power play but as a necessary intervention. At that time, the family had announced intentions to bury the former president privately in South Africa, outside the public eye and beyond Zambia’s national tradition. With such an unprecedented move, the government had limited recourse. Legal intervention was a pause, not a fight, to allow room for dialogue and consensus.
Zambia has a long-standing tradition of honouring its departed presidents with full state funerals, regardless of political disagreements.
Former leaders like Levy Mwanawasa, Michael Sata, Frederick Chiluba, Rupiah Banda and Kenneth Kaunda were all buried with full state honours at the presidential burial site in Lusaka. President Lungu merits the same treatment, not based on his personal record but because of the office he held.
There is no question that President Lungu’s family could be within their rights to prefer to grieve in private. But the death of a former president cannot be reduced to a private event, it is a national one.
Tsedu suggests President Hichilema should be “sat down” by elder statespeople, implying malice or abuse of power over the late president’s funeral. But this view ignores the caution and respect the government has exercised. Presenting the dispute as a mere clash between grieving relatives and a meddling government ignores the importance of presidential funerals.
If anything, the tragedy is not that the state got involved but that it had to resort to a court process. Had there been co-operation from the outset, the courts and all the media headlines could have been avoided. The government's objective has never been to claim ownership of grief, but to ensure the office of the presidency is accorded the dignity it deserves.
The insistence on a proper state funeral is not a political tactic. It is an affirmation of Zambia’s democratic maturity. In managing this delicate process, the government has chosen order over optics, principle over politics.
Let the people of Zambia bid farewell to their former president with dignity. That is not revolting, it is responsible governance.
— Cornelius Mweetwa, minister of information and media, and chief government spokesperson, Republic of Zambia
Journalists have lost their activism
Sunday Times editor and chair of the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) Makhudu Sefara’s powerful and poignant speech at the Standard Bank Sikuvile Journalism Awards, which was also published in your June 29 edition, took me back to a time when journalism was not regarded only as a job but also as activism.
The fathers of black journalism, such as Joe Thloloe, Thami Mazwai and Mathatha Tsedu, proudly and boldly declared that they were black first and journalists second. Hence, they established and belonged to media organisations such as the Union of Black Journalists and the now-defunct Media Workers' Association of South Africa (Mwasa).
Sefara’s speech reminded us that despite having attained democracy, our country still needs ethical and credible media to hold accountable those in power. As I listened to his speech, I had a brief discussion with my former colleagues in the media, Rapule Tabane and Thabo Leshilo, about the state of the media. One question that keeps lingering is why journalists no longer organise and mobilise.
Why is Sanef, a lobby group of editors, senior journalists, academics, and media trainers, the only organisation still representing the media? Of course, there’s the press Council, Media Monitoring Africa, and to some extent the National Press Club.
However, all these organisations have different mandates and are neither unions nor forums fighting for workers' rights. Who is fighting for workers' rights, or is the current crop of journalists working in an environment where they have no challenges and no bargaining power?
Surely there is a dire need for journalists to organise and mobilise. They also need their own forum to discuss common challenges and opportunities, unless they no longer view journalism as activism but just another job.
Globally, journalists are facing serious threats, and both the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) and the International Federation of Journalists have released startling reports on attacks on journalists. As much as South Africa ranks high in the Press Freedom Index, journalists should remain vigilant and stay on the barricade because they are facing different challenges.
Journalists are subjected to threats and abuse, be it physical or verbal, and some, especially women, are victims of cyberbullying.
As Sefara aptly put it, most South African journalists are putting in more hours than the companies pay them for, which tells you that something is not right. As much as awards are part of incentivising journalists, media owners should do more to reward journalists.
— Themba Sepotokele, journalist, communication strategist, media trainer, journalism lecturer and author of Being a Spokesperson
For opinion and analysis consideration, e-mail Opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.