Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Opinion: Ramaphosa vs Sisulu scold war: Winning hearts and minds of constituents

28 January 2022 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi | Photo Sonia Small (Kaleidoscope Studios)

Opinion article by Prof Sethulego Matebesi, Academic Head of Department, Associate Professor: Sociology, University of the Free State .

In Teams of Rivals, author Doris Goodwin notes how former American president Abraham Lincoln created value by surrounding himself with people who have the capacity and the tenacity to challenge him. Despite many of the challenges he faced throughout his presidency, he managed to build a common cause with his cabinet to foster the interests of Americans. In a completely different text, Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud, Tom Mueller laments how people fail to act out of apathy, complicity, or fear.

These two distinct texts raise the question of how leadership should react to criticism and the requisite degree of freedom of speech that public representatives should have.

Similarly, the back-and-forth saga between Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu and President Cyril Ramaphosa over whether she apologised for her opinion piece that criticised black judges, effectively drills home a longstanding historical lesson. This lesson is that political astuteness is a phenomenon as old as the history of politics itself.

Although the astuteness shown by Sisulu against critics from her political party may be puzzling, her public exchanges that a statement by President Cyril Ramaphosa was a ‘misrepresentation’ of their meeting are more puzzling.

But why is this puzzling? What are we to do about what some call a show of unprecedented defiance and others assertiveness? We also need to ask whether Sisulu’s stance can be adequately explained by those who label her as being arrogant and who deserve to be fired by President Ramaphosa.

A political travesty to apologise on behalf of Sisulu

Public apologies are a common occurrence globally. They often come by way of assuming guilt, expressing remorse, and admitting responsibility. Thus, proper apology etiquette requires the ‘wrongdoer’ to deliver the apology. However, this was not the case with Minister Sisulu.

Sisulu acted in a very public way with her opinion piece and her response to the ‘apology in her name’ released by the presidency. Certainly, with her experience as a public figure, she was aware of the implications of her actions.

Furthermore, she was consistent with her narrative against criticism directed towards her. Yet, we do not know why the presidency saw the need to apologise on behalf of Sisulu. Perhaps it had unreasonable expectations that Sisulu would publicly accept what she disagreed with privately.

Notwithstanding the sincerity of the presidency in dealing with this matter, supporters of President Ramaphosa will, on the one hand, be disillusioned by this own goal. At the same time, those who support Minister Sisulu may be encouraged by her steadfast refusal to accept a coerced apology used as a shaming mechanism. She inadvertently represents a dynamic articulation of an alternative repertoire of contention within the ANC.

Lately, we have witnessed a surge of nationalism globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Economist referred to the narrative battle between China and the United States over the pandemic as a ‘new scold war’, threatening to tear the world apart. But, as this Sino-US relationship reminds us, what is at stake is less the tit-for-tat scold war between Sisulu and Ramaphosa that threatens to spiral out of control, than the subdued attempts to attain constituent support within the ANC.

Sisulu herself has never publicly indicated her availability to contest the presidency of the ANC at its next elective conference. By any measure, if she does have such aspirations, stepping forward and engaging politically is one thing, but open defiance of authority is another. Since there are no permanently privileged constituencies in political malaise created by regeneration projects such as the organisational renewal drive of the ANC, the struggle to articulate and establish the interests of those who are aggrieved within the party is an ongoing process.

But where does this leave President Ramaphosa?

Many commentators have noted that his long game is no longer effective. However, President Ramaphosa wants to upend the notion that robust debates within the structures of the ANC are not tolerated. He is wary of the propensity of ANC structures to support those who are victimised. And while the scold war is in full swing, others will join in trying to win the hearts and minds of ANC members.

Meanwhile, when failure to act decisively in the face of predictable situations facing the country, particularly during a crisis; we can then no longer talk about protecting the interests of South Africans.

News Archive

The failure of the law

2004-06-04

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept