South African Elections: The Zuma Era

The South African election results were never in doubt. It was simply a case of how much the ANC’s populist leader, Jacob Zuma, would win by. Crucially, he fell tantalisingly short (0.7%) of the two thirds majority needed to change the constitution.

Here are the results, as show in yesterday‘s Observer:-

• ANC 65.9%
• Democratic Alliance 16.6%
• Congress of the People 7.4%
• Others 10%

Such an imbalance inevitably puts a strain on democracy, particularly a relatively new multi-racial democracy in a country with so many scars. However, for the all-powerful ANC the only real threat seems to be an internal one. The Congress of the People (COPE) are a recent break-away splinter movement (about half a year old), whose polling may only be 7.4% but this is more than enough to deny the ANC their coveted two-thirds majority.

The ANC are split by politics of personality and have been ever since Nelson Mandela stepped down. The former president, Thabo Mbeki, has fought bitter internal and public battles with the fiery and controversial Jacob Zuma. COPE are comprised of disillusioned former ANC supporters of Mbeki, and so we do not know as yet if they will be a long-term party or one of short-term protest against an individual. Africa has long suffered from the politics of the Big Man, and the danger is that South Africa will eventually turn against democracy for the easy ‘solution’ of such a saviour.

As an outsider, I can see some general similarities between politics in South Africa and Eastern Europe. Both South Africa and Eastern European states experienced a momentous political and social upheaval twenty to fifteen years ago, and politics and society are inevitably still in the shadow of this event. For most ordinary people nothing can match the brief period when they thought their lives would be transformed for the better, only to find the reality just presents a new set of problems.

A significant note of optimism for South Africa is that people are still voting in huge numbers. According to The Observer, there was a 77.3% turnout. This figure suggests people still have faith that their vote will improve their day to day lives, unlike in many parts of Eastern Europe where turnout has dramatically fallen to below 50%.

Let us hope that Zuma can live up to the faith of the South African people, and can get this country back on the right tracks. In order to do this he must resist the temptation to undermine the very democratic rights that gave him power in the first place.


n.b. On Wednesday I am going to a BBC World Service parliamentary briefing and I hope to report back for Next Left. Please give me your thoughts on the South African elections.

Read more...

South African Elections: The Zuma Era

The South African election results were never in doubt. It was simply a case of how much the ANC’s populist leader, Jacob Zuma, would win by. Crucially, he fell tantalisingly short (0.7%) of the two thirds majority needed to change the constitution.

Here are the results, as show in yesterday‘s Observer:-

• ANC 65.9%
• Democratic Alliance 16.6%
• Congress of the People 7.4%
• Others 10%

Such an imbalance inevitably puts a strain on democracy, particularly a relatively new multi-racial democracy in a country with so many scars. However, for the all-powerful ANC the only real threat seems to be an internal one. The Congress of the People (COPE) are a recent break-away splinter movement (about half a year old), whose polling may only be 7.4% but this is more than enough to deny the ANC their coveted two-thirds majority.

The ANC are split by politics of personality and have been ever since Nelson Mandela stepped down. The former president, Thabo Mbeki, has fought bitter internal and public battles with the fiery and controversial Jacob Zuma. COPE are comprised of disillusioned former ANC supporters of Mbeki, and so we do not know as yet if they will be a long-term party or one of short-term protest against an individual. Africa has long suffered from the politics of the Big Man, and the danger is that South Africa will eventually turn against democracy for the easy ‘solution’ of such a saviour.

As an outsider, I can see some general similarities between politics in South Africa and Eastern Europe. Both South Africa and Eastern European states experienced a momentous political and social upheaval twenty to fifteen years ago, and politics and society are inevitably still in the shadow of this event. For most ordinary people nothing can match the brief period when they thought their lives would be transformed for the better, only to find the reality just presents a new set of problems.

A significant note of optimism for South Africa is that people are still voting in huge numbers. According to The Observer, there was a 77.3% turnout. This figure suggests people still have faith that their vote will improve their day to day lives, unlike in many parts of Eastern Europe where turnout has dramatically fallen to below 50%.

Let us hope that Zuma can live up to the faith of the South African people, and can get this country back on the right tracks. In order to do this he must resist the temptation to undermine the very democratic rights that gave him power in the first place.


n.b. On Wednesday I am going to a BBC World Service parliamentary briefing and I hope to report back for Next Left. Please give me your thoughts on the South African elections.

Read more...

Better citizenship education for the police?

One of New Labour's achievements has been the introduction of Citizenship Education in schools. But do we need to make sure that better citizenship education is included in the kind of training received by various professions, such as the police?

Consider the recent evidence. The police have been paying individuals to act as informants inside environmental campaign groups. The aim seems to be to get enough inside information to know what environmental protests are planned so that the police can take action to prevent them if they are unlawful. Only a couple of weeks ago, the police preemptively arrested 114 environmental protestors prior to a planned protest. The protestors were released the following day, but often with bail conditions which prohibited them from going near any power stations. And, of course, there is the aggressive kettling of the April 1 G20 protests, including the overwhelmingly peaceful Climate Camp at Bishopsgate.

Increasingly, it seems, the police see their job as preventing any environmental protest with an unlawful, civil disobedient, but peaceful element. Where this is not feasible, as with the Climate Camp at Bishopsgate, their policy has been one of disproportionate containment.

However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, non-violent civil disobedience has a legitimate, indeed important, role to play in a democratic society. So if the police philosophy is one of simply preventing such action, the police are setting themselves against an activity which is, as said, legitimate and important in a healthy democracy.

How far do the police understand this? How far do police officers - particularly those responsible for making police policy - grasp the legitimate and important role that civil disobedient protest has in a democratic society?

How far does the kind of training which the police get equip them to understand such issues?

Given their recent actions, I am not at all confident that the police do understand the place of civil disobedient protest in a democratic society. If so, then this is a matter of grave concern. It means that, in one important respect, our police force is not competent to carry out the job of policing in a democratic society.

And how are we to address that problem, if not, in part, by demanding a review of police training so that it includes better education in the basic principles of democratic citizenship? Read more...

Better citizenship education for the police?

One of New Labour's achievements has been the introduction of Citizenship Education in schools. But do we need to make sure that better citizenship education is included in the kind of training received by various professions, such as the police?

Consider the recent evidence. The police have been paying individuals to act as informants inside environmental campaign groups. The aim seems to be to get enough inside information to know what environmental protests are planned so that the police can take action to prevent them if they are unlawful. Only a couple of weeks ago, the police preemptively arrested 114 environmental protestors prior to a planned protest. The protestors were released the following day, but often with bail conditions which prohibited them from going near any power stations. And, of course, there is the aggressive kettling of the April 1 G20 protests, including the overwhelmingly peaceful Climate Camp at Bishopsgate.

Increasingly, it seems, the police see their job as preventing any environmental protest with an unlawful, civil disobedient, but peaceful element. Where this is not feasible, as with the Climate Camp at Bishopsgate, their policy has been one of disproportionate containment.

However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, non-violent civil disobedience has a legitimate, indeed important, role to play in a democratic society. So if the police philosophy is one of simply preventing such action, the police are setting themselves against an activity which is, as said, legitimate and important in a healthy democracy.

How far do the police understand this? How far do police officers - particularly those responsible for making police policy - grasp the legitimate and important role that civil disobedient protest has in a democratic society?

How far does the kind of training which the police get equip them to understand such issues?

Given their recent actions, I am not at all confident that the police do understand the place of civil disobedient protest in a democratic society. If so, then this is a matter of grave concern. It means that, in one important respect, our police force is not competent to carry out the job of policing in a democratic society.

And how are we to address that problem, if not, in part, by demanding a review of police training so that it includes better education in the basic principles of democratic citizenship? Read more...

Support Ed Miliband: protest against his policies!

Last week, Ed Miliband, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, announced that future coal-fired power stations can go ahead only if they commit to using a technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. The move has been widely welcomed. An editorial in The Guardian praises the move: '...the shape of real climate change policy is beginning to emerge.'

Others have been rather less enthusiastic. George Monbiot has argued that the plan is more or less meaningless. The envisaged CCS technology might not arrive, or not in a commercially viable form. What happens then, with the coal-fired power stations already up and running? It is virtually inconceivable that a government would then close them down. In other words, Miliband is making a commitment which is unenforceable - and so not a real commitment at all. Until the CCS technology is up and running, we simply should not go for more coal-fired power stations.

With critics like Monbiot in mind, the Guardian editorial acknowledges that 'deep greenies' might object that the plan leaves 'too much wriggle room' to energy companies. But it concludes that 'given that he had to meet the challenge of technology that is still unproven on such a scale, Mr Miliband is to be congratulated for what he has achieved rather than berated for what he has not.'

In other words, its a step in the right direction.

Now Fabians are very keen on 'steps in the right direction'. Fabians are gradualists. They see that big bang social change is usually unfeasible, and sometimes undesirable since it often requires a heavy concentration of power in the state which is liable to misuse (step forward, V.I. Lenin).

But gradualism has its limits.

Imagine a business that has systematically spent more than it earns for years. It faces bankruptcy. It responds by cutting its spending, though it still spends more than it earns. The managers of the business say: 'Well, at least we're heading in the right direction.' But because the fundamentals haven't changed, the business still goes bankrupt. It doesn't succeed, albeit slowly. It simply fails.

There is a strong case for saying that this is where we are at the moment in the politics of Climate Change. What we need are not simply steps in the right direction, but radical measures commensurate with the risk of catastrophic and irreversible climate change that we now face.

This is why Ed Miliband is indeed to be congratulated for his comments over the weekend about the need for popular mobilization around Climate Change to put additional pressure on politicians for effective action. The Guardian is probably right that Ed Miliband achieved the best deal he could over CCS in the current situation. That, however, is not only a cause for congratulating Ed Miliband. Even more, it is a cause for realising just how much more pressure politicians need to face if they are to take action on the sources of climate change which isn't as flawed as the Miliband plan appears. (For I can't see any fault in George Monbiot's criticisms.)

Ed Miliband comments that people are welcome to protest against him. Excellent. For the best way to support ministers like Ed Miliband against the powerful energy and business lobbies is to go out and continue environmental protest.

Its our job to support Ed - by protesting against his policies. Read more...

Support Ed Miliband: protest against his policies!

Last week, Ed Miliband, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, announced that future coal-fired power stations can go ahead only if they commit to using a technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. The move has been widely welcomed. An editorial in The Guardian praises the move: '...the shape of real climate change policy is beginning to emerge.'

Others have been rather less enthusiastic. George Monbiot has argued that the plan is more or less meaningless. The envisaged CCS technology might not arrive, or not in a commercially viable form. What happens then, with the coal-fired power stations already up and running? It is virtually inconceivable that a government would then close them down. In other words, Miliband is making a commitment which is unenforceable - and so not a real commitment at all. Until the CCS technology is up and running, we simply should not go for more coal-fired power stations.

With critics like Monbiot in mind, the Guardian editorial acknowledges that 'deep greenies' might object that the plan leaves 'too much wriggle room' to energy companies. But it concludes that 'given that he had to meet the challenge of technology that is still unproven on such a scale, Mr Miliband is to be congratulated for what he has achieved rather than berated for what he has not.'

In other words, its a step in the right direction.

Now Fabians are very keen on 'steps in the right direction'. Fabians are gradualists. They see that big bang social change is usually unfeasible, and sometimes undesirable since it often requires a heavy concentration of power in the state which is liable to misuse (step forward, V.I. Lenin).

But gradualism has its limits.

Imagine a business that has systematically spent more than it earns for years. It faces bankruptcy. It responds by cutting its spending, though it still spends more than it earns. The managers of the business say: 'Well, at least we're heading in the right direction.' But because the fundamentals haven't changed, the business still goes bankrupt. It doesn't succeed, albeit slowly. It simply fails.

There is a strong case for saying that this is where we are at the moment in the politics of Climate Change. What we need are not simply steps in the right direction, but radical measures commensurate with the risk of catastrophic and irreversible climate change that we now face.

This is why Ed Miliband is indeed to be congratulated for his comments over the weekend about the need for popular mobilization around Climate Change to put additional pressure on politicians for effective action. The Guardian is probably right that Ed Miliband achieved the best deal he could over CCS in the current situation. That, however, is not only a cause for congratulating Ed Miliband. Even more, it is a cause for realising just how much more pressure politicians need to face if they are to take action on the sources of climate change which isn't as flawed as the Miliband plan appears. (For I can't see any fault in George Monbiot's criticisms.)

Ed Miliband comments that people are welcome to protest against him. Excellent. For the best way to support ministers like Ed Miliband against the powerful energy and business lobbies is to go out and continue environmental protest.

Its our job to support Ed - by protesting against his policies. Read more...

Scrappy families

The new Fabian Review is out - details here - and thought i'd post Teal's cartoon for Mary Riddell's IDS interview, which is a pretty good representation of his pot shots at Tory colleagues and sacred cows... Read more...