South Africa celebrates 23 years of Freedom today! Zapiro's archival Mandela Sunrise cartoon 27 April 1994 published then in Weekly Mail.

No  No No.....Nelson Mandela , the happy pill of South Africa simply kept the lid on ANC corruption and mismanagement ..... when he went Jacob Zuma and his ANC honchos were all ready in full swing mismanaging the country. Time for Change!! DA instead of ANC!
Celebrate!!!! There is nothing to celebrate. Nearly everything is destroyed. That was drawn in 1994 What he draws now is quite different. SA is destroyed finished and klaar. The latest destruction :- Coligny. Property stolen and destroyed from people who had nothing to do with the drama of a child allegedly killed outside of town. I hope everyone affected will close down and move away.

This is where the current problems started. This cartoon illustrates how South Africans thought that Nelson Mandela's existence would save us all and make life perfect. It took him, and thousands of others, 50 years of extreme hardship, suffering and sacrifice to bring about the end of Apartheid. In 1994 his work was over. It was, and is, up to the rest of us to create a free, decent, just society in which everyone 's basic needs are met. After 342 years of discrimination and oppression of one group by another the right to vote was just one tiny step in what should have been a massive, concerted, well-planned, focused and ongoing effort on the part of every citizen. 23 years later we still haven't learned this lesson. Hence the massive poverty, unemployment and crime.

Cameos From Zion: Merrry de La Grey by the Bard of Bat Yam, Poet Lau...

Cameos From Zion: Merrry de La Grey by the Bard of Bat Yam, Poet Lau...: Cats are among life's precious jewels and kinship They are sweet, funny cute, genuine and rare, They are what we call loyalty and fri...

We The Whites Of South Africa Manifesto Hey Ho We Better Keep calm … and shut up!

We the South African voters have spoken in the local government election, and we said many different things. Let’s give votes and cities (in part or whole) to the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA). Let’s give some votes and the municipality where President Jacob Zuma’s homestead of Nkandla is situated to the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).

Also, let’s give some votes but no cities to the militant Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and small parcels of votes to many, many others.

We as voters have embraced pluralism and competition. It seems to have come as something of a shock to the leaders of the African National Congress (ANC), for some reason. Perhaps the hefty R1 billion the ANC used for campaigning would be better spent on some decent polling.

We also said, as an electorate, let’s take votes – and cities – away from the ANC. Whether the various parties of the opposition attracted our votes, or the ANC leadership repelled us and our votes through their arrogance and brazen corruption, remains a key research question facing academics and politicians.

For local governments in the country’s wealthiest province of Gauteng, in particular, where delivery has been way above the national average, this is a gloomy question. Where did all that hard work go? Was it simply insufficient for a 21st-century “world-class” set of cities?

Why did national credit downgrading matter so much to everyone, but city upgrading by the same agencies of Johannesburg to AA1 status mattered not a jot?

Bluntly, did the rot from the centre suppurate through to voters who may otherwise have rated the metropole of Johannesburg, its mayor Parks Tau and members of the mayoral committee (MMCs) as working well for us? Did we throw out the Tau with the bathwater, in anger and frustration at his ANC overlords?

This question – of blame, simply put – is likely to be at the heart of post-election ANC manoeuvring. Whether the interests of voters will be taken into account is an open question.
Free and fair and (too) fast

To add hubris to the mess, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) was brazen enough to host an end-of-election event, declaring the entire endeavour free and fair. This, even while the vote for the economic and provincial capital, Johannesburg, remained incomplete and subject to dispute in multiple wards. Really?

The audacity of the IEC was breathtaking. It would be rather like the Brexit vote being declared while still counting the London votes.

Twitterati breathlessly told us that the IEC emerged from the election well, with its reputation regained after its own tango with corruption and maladministration. Apparently our appetite for a clean institution is so large and urgent that we are willing to allow such incidents to occur, relieved that at least most of the vote had been free and fair, and the IEC seemed to smell of roses.

Then the young women of the EFF stood in mute protest as Zuma spoke at the IEC election centre after the polls in Pretoria. They reminded us of the rape charge and trial of the president a decade ago (he was acquitted), asking profound questions about the moral basis of leadership – and did so just metres away from Zuma, while he bumbled through the usual pleasantries of a captain watching his ship sinking while trying to keep the passengers calm.

Zuma’s security detail – presumably gobsmacked that these young women completely outmanoeuvred their assumed tactical astuteness and training and little plastic ear wires and big guns – were rather less presidential in their handling of the young women.

Strong men shoving around young women – the tableaux acted out exactly what the women were protesting. The women are university students, doing what students do best – cocking a snoop at authority in pursuit of their beliefs. Setting a rather presidential example, it may be noted.
Anti-rape protesters being removed as Jacob Zuma spoke in Pretoria.

Since then, the social media landscape has been alight with awkward camera angles, muffled sound and snippets of gossip – did female ANC cabinet ministers really round on one of their own for the lapse in security? Was Zuma heard shouting his anger? Who were the women? Why were they screaming when led away? Did the rest of the EFF contingent know of the protest, as they hastily made for the door, apparently refusing to listen to Zuma?
Snide, rude and arrogant

But perhaps the worst thing to happen is that someone told DA former party leader and Western Cape Premier Helen Zille she could stop hiding and start tweeting again. Life is tough enough for whiteys without her assuming to insert snide, often rude and arrogant tweets into whatever debate she feels needs her special attention.

Universities have been literally aflame for almost a year, but this did not stop Zille from tweeting to a #feesmustfall group that:


If this woke bunch hate being UCT students so much, pls help them out of their misery and withdraw their funding.

Political writer Richard Poplak has already eviscerated the tweet and the twit who wrote it. Just what we need – stupid, snide, entirely lacking in compassion, suggesting a flatlined learning curve. And unassailably white on the scale of snottiness and lack of empathy.

Not that anyone asked, but if they did I’d say to fellow white voters, “Stay Calm – but (not just you Helen Zille) please shut up!” The massive change we have witnessed; the “new narrative” that has welcomed pluralism and jettisoned the much-peddled factoid of 2014’s national election, that we were all heading to doom, death and decay – or, worse, Zimbabwean basket-case status; these things have not been done by white people, though we may have been part of the change.
Elections are not a racial census

We do not bear “the white man’s [sic] burden” of being the gatekeeper of liberal democracy, even though various commentators over the last 22 years have told us that black people vote blindly for ANC governments – that elections are a racial census.

These supposed political scientists argued for years that the black vote – that key item lying at the heart of the struggle for democracy – was actually the biggest threat to democracy, because the “natives” kept electing ANC governments. If anyone wanted a better example of why the academy needs a dramatic post-colonial overhaul, read 22 years of election analysis, and weep quietly.

But now these have been debunked by us voters. The academics trotting out these tropes have been shown to write utter tosh; and one can only hope that we all accept – and all will accept us – as part of a massive social revolution that began in 1990 and is still taking shape, unravelling from the violence and racism and psychological scarring of the past and moving restlessly into an unknown future.

It cannot do so where whites or blacks silence one another – but it also cannot thrive where black or white claim credit for the victories of democracy.

We – all of us, in our resplendent variety as voters – we did this. Whites did it. Blacks did it. Coloureds did it. Indians did it. Gay and straight, LGBTIAQ+ and staunchly religious conservatives and atheists, surfers and tiddly-winks players, we all did it.

So let’s own it as a collective victory against those who sit in power and disregard us as voting fodder. The only winner in the local elections of 2016 is the only winner that matters – you and I, the South African voter.

It’s the people, or #OyVeyJacobZuma Zumarism

Jacob Zuma has been a disastrous and calamitous runaway train on a demolition derby

And so the endgame begins. As expected, President Jacob Zuma has taken the propitious step of reshuffling his cabinet, ousting trusted Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, and thereby demonstrating a shameful disregard for the commonplace notion that government should treat the capital of its taxpayers with respect.

There has been lots of vague speculation over why it would be necessary to dismiss a loyal and respected finance minister, laced with hints and suggestions, so let’s be clear on this topic: the president is dismissing Gordhan because he wants more control over the fiscus and Gordhan stands in his way.

The full list of new Cabinet ministers

Who’s in and who’s out. Read the full list here

 BDliveSA

He wants more control because, like all unpopular leaders, he feels he can spend his way into people’s hearts – and particularly the hearts of his chosen recipients, his family, his friends and his supporters in the higher ranks of the party.

But by doing so, he will cause ructions within the party and chaos in the fiscus. Zuma’s legacy so far has been a catalogue of disasters for his own alliance and his own supporters. The once mighty Cosatu that bestrode the workplace in SA for years has now been reduced to essentially a union of state employees, the only group too afraid to disassociate itself from the party in power.

The South African Communist Party, once an influential think-tank within the alliance, is now discarded and demeaned. The ANC Youth League, once a fertile training ground for party cadres, is overshadowed by its breakaway political movement, the Economic Freedom Fighters.

Under his leadership, the ANC, which once commanded the support of more than two-thirds of voters, in the latest local government poll could barely muster a simple majority.
He has been a disastrous and calamitous runaway train on a demolition derby.

Zuma faces down open revolt, guts his Cabinet

Jacob Zuma’s reshuffle shock will have far-reaching consequences, with the rand falling sharply overnight and set to fall further

For the state of government finances, he has been equally a calamity. His own personal gluttony has been reflected in a fiscal position that has slid from serious to parlous. Over his term, state debt has doubled; government has borrowed more than a trillion rand; the level of business confidence is miserable and consequently, the economy has slouched into a gravelly state of bare stasis.

It seems almost inevitable now that SA’s government debt will be downgraded to junk status, but even if it is not, there is simply no conceivable way that Gordan’s successor can possibly regain the same level of trust of foreign lenders.

In response to all these setbacks, Zuma’s response has been to up the ante, trying to discover his inner Robert Mugabe. By adopting this gambit, Zuma has misjudged the country’s people, most of whom are urban dwellers who seek economic stability, not doubtful promises of grand redistribution.

Yet, in the midst of this dark time, there is one redeeming feature. The endgame has begun. Instead of being caught in a quasi-clandestine battle over the future of the party, the battle lines are clear. On one hand, stands Zumarism, with all its promise of corruption, dislocation and disfigurement. On the other, stands anti-Zumarism, with all its promise of pragmatism and a future of mutual respect.

As a result, the choice that stands before ANC members of leadership and parliament is now peculiarly stark. They need to decide on which side of history they stand. And the root question is equally stark: do they stand with the people of South African, or do they stand with Zuma and his faction.

For nobody in the party is the choice more wrenching than Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa. If he remains in the cabinet now, his already battered credibility will be lost irretrievably. He will forever be associated with a president who plainly does not even want him to be his successor. What an ignominious end to such an illustrious career.

Still, Zuma may discover that this kind of zero-sum game thinking results in the most hollow of victories.

Helen of Twitter Dethroned H.R.H. Queen of Colonialism

Mandela's key wingman Ahmed Kathrada calls for #OyVeyJacobZuma to step down from the Grave

Former judge takes on Helen Zille's “colonialism” Twitter political correctness head-on

Former judge takes on “colonialism” political correctness head-on

Former Supreme Court Judge Rex van Schalkwyk tackles South Africa’s insidious and debilitating political correctness around colonialism head on, taking us on a global history tour that exposes the shallow current dominant discourse for what it is – errant nonsense. The more frightening prospect is that, in the midst of the official opposition’s turmoil over Western Cape Premier Helen Zille’s tweet about colonialism having conferred benefits on this country, we are establishing a new (and twisted), norm for acceptable free speech. That van Schalkwyk’s voice is almost drowned out in the current media discourse shows just how far we’ve drifted into what is now almost mainstream thinking about what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to expressing your opinion publicly. Adapting to a new Constitutionally-protected and legislatively-equal society is both appropriate and pragmatic. However, what is now evolving is akin to the headmaster, teachers, prefects and classroom bullies colluding to brutally and mercilessly shame and/or silence anyone who differs from them, creating a dysfunctional and fearful behavioural ethic. Some commentators are even claiming (contrary to all of history) that if colonisation, or something similar, had not occurred, the indigenous peoples would have made all the scientific, engineering, medical and other discoveries without outside influence. Pure fantasy, says Van Schalkwyk, who then goes on to show us exactly why. – Chris Bateman



There is something seriously wrong with a society in which it becomes impossible to express an honest opinion. Helen ZIlle’s tweet (never a good idea) contained, essentially, the truth but in the collective hullabaloo that followed, that fact has almost entirely been lost.Former Supreme Court Judge Rex van Schalkwyk

Whatever her critics may say, she never “defended” or “praised” colonialism in any of the opinions that she expressed; she was careful only to have said that colonialism was not all bad. Any disagreement upon this issue (apart from the political inappropriateness of the comment) means, by necessary implication, that colonialism was all bad. Factually, that is demonstrably false.

Apart from the oft-repeated examples of mechanised transport, roads, electricity, water-borne sewerage and the rest, the one colonial manifestation that cannot be escaped is the written, English language. Even an avowed anti-colonialist and sometime hater of all things English (excepting perhaps the game of cricket) like Robert Mugabe, speaks the language with the accent of an Eton graduate.

It is said by some of the Zille critics that all the apparent benefits of the colonial system were initiated for the benefit of the colonisers. Well, of course, that is true; people do things for their own benefit. It is the impulse that has driven creativity throughout the ages. The contention that there was no residual benefit for the victims of colonialism would seek to disprove the most significant force of development and change throughout history. Colonialism or, more accurately, invasions, constitute much of the history of the world, and it all started millennia before the Dutch settlers “colonised” the Cape of Good Hope.

Civilization may have started with the ancient culture of the Babylonians, located in the fertile valley of the Tigris and Euphrates; they were the first to have devolved a written language. This occurred even before the Aryans invaded Europe from the north and spread their influence as far south as North Africa and east into India. Fortunately for the Aryans, their adventures put their illiterate hordes into contact with the people of Babylon from whence came their literacy.Helen Zille’s Twitter storm. More magic available at www.zapiro.com

The ancient written word of Sanskrit, said by some etymologists to have been the first writing, was imported, according to some historians, from the expansionist impulses of the (by now) literate Aryans. The historical accounts vary but need not detain us. The point is simply that migrations, invasions and what has come latterly to be described as colonialism and/or imperialism has occurred throughout history and has invariably imparted, at least, some benefit.

The famed Library at Alexandria, about which many Africans express a glowing pride, was established in the wake of the invasion of North Africa, by Alexander the Great, a Macedonian. The eponymous name of that great institution was derived from the title of the invader.

The Romans introduced the territories that they invaded to a formidable array of skills including engineering, architecture, water reticulation, art and culture and even personal hygiene.

Much the same can be said in the case of South Africa, but if all else is ignored then the English language has conferred great benefits in communication, literacy, literature, culture, science and commerce.


Read also: Stop playing the ANC’s game; get off Zille and do your job – Wilf Nussey

It is true, of course, that if the Dutch colonisers had not arrived, and the English thereafter, as some anti-colonists would wish, that these and perhaps greater benefits may have been derived from some other source. It is uncertain however that any alternative would necessarily have been more benign. The Belgians would almost surely have been worse, if the invasion had occurred during the time of King Leopold.

If the Chinese naval marvel built by the redoubtable Admiral Zheng He in the 15th century AD had not been destroyed upon the command of the isolationist Emperor Hongxi, the peoples of Southern Africa might today be speaking Cantonese.

Some forms of colonialism were undoubtedly far worse than others. If the Dutch settlement at the Cape can be called a colonisation, it was certainly of the more benign kind. The Cape sea route was seen as nothing more than a half-way stop on the long voyage to India, where the real riches were to be found. By comparison the whole of unexplored Southern Africa was seen as no more than a backward and impoverished region with few attractions apart from the strategic one.The real colonisation occurred when the British might took on the two Boer Republics in an imperial war of aggression. Even that tragic event produced a significant dividend in terms of commercial, banking and other related expertise that had previously been absent.

If an example is sought of pernicious exploitation it is found in the brutal abuse of the people of Vietnam, whose land was occupied, first by the Chinese, for 1000 years, then by the Mongols, then by the French and finally, by the Japanese. But that was not all. The Americans chose that beleaguered land to fight their war of containment against Communist expansion, with a brutality unrivalled in warfare until that time.

Some of the bedraggled survivors chose a refuge by way of a seaborne migration in what has come to be known as the phenomenon of the “boat people”. Those who survived the treacherous voyage, as well as the hostile immigration officials of California, set up their survivalist enterprises in what was sometimes an antagonistic environment. The offspring of these indomitable people are today out-performing their privileged American counterparts at the Ivy League Universities of their adoptive land. And Vietnam is now approaching a First World status similar to that of many of its Asian counterparts.

Collectively, their success lies in the fact that they have left the past behind.

The anti-colonist obsession that has overtaken our dialogue will do nothing to advance the cause of progress. Judging by the reaction of the anti Zille shills it will, however, have the effect of stilling the voice of dissention. What is then to become of the sacred right of the freedom of expression, if even thought processes are now to be controlled?

We have already reached the stage where the accusation of racialism is cast about so indiscriminately that it has become meaningless to any thoughtful observer. However it has had the effect that individuals have become so apprehensive of the prospect of this unjustified slur that they have begun to censor, not only their speech, but even their own thoughts. Indeed I had wondered about the wisdom of putting these ideas in writing.

In a collective quest to be politically correct, is South Africa in danger of becoming a nation of dissemblers? Is this perchance because the thought police have taken control?
Rex van Schalkwyk is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa and is the Chairman of the Free Market Foundation’s Rule of Law Board of Advisers.