My responses to William Saunderson-Meyer’s (WSM) Politicsweb
column Ramaphosa
is not doing so badly:
Has WSM lately been imbibing the same potent stuff the
Ramaphoria back-up choir like Ray 'Ramphoria Masterstroke' Hartley and the
fawning media have? Not long ago he wrote "Mind the Ramphosa credibility gap" and now he's saying the man is "sheer genius". (Note the similarity with Hartley's "masterstroke".)
Now I know there's a not-so-secret club of admiring journos
because they use similar words to describe him. Apparently WSM is the newest
member since September 28, the credibility gap article.
LSD, a hallucinogenic drug, "can alter a person's perception
of reality". So can too much Johnnie Walker Black at Mahogany Ridge, that
well-known scribbler watering hole. WSM lists Ramaposeur's leadership problems and then turns
180 degrees and says his vacillation, indecision and tardiness is all part of a "genius", masterplan.
You know William, I think you might be right. The Titantic's
captain Edward Smith and senior officers displayed the same qualities. The
Titanic was not the unmitigated
disaster history recorded but a brilliant naval move. No, wait dude, that's the
hallucinogens talking.
Leaders taking over especially organisations or countries in
crisis take immediate action. They don't, as WSM correctly describes
before his about face, let intertia which if unchecked leads to entropy, get
hold. But WSM says that's actually a good thing. Politics is messy but leaders
set the agenda from the get-go. There are numerous examples including Trump and
Putin in their own crazy way.
British Prime Minister Theresa May is like Ramaphosa in
personality and also took over at a time of crisis. But there the similarity
ends. At least she's moving her and government's agenda constantly forward,
battling those within and without her party and EU and EU heads of state.
But what is Ramaposeur* doing? Conceding irreplaceable time
and ground to rag-tag parties outside government (EFF, Luthuli House) on the
very slight, infinitesimal small chance maybe they'd replace him (but
they can't and won't) if he doesn't abide by their wishes. In the meantime (WSM
has forgotten), the country is in recession and broke (in more ways than
financially), corruption is threatening its being and ratings agencies and
creditors are circling. But according to him, that's the upside (I wonder what
is the downside).
Even Rama's early admirers – the ones who sang his praises
despite him not been proven – have changed their minds. WSM must know something
we and they don't. Regarding a panel considering a new NPA head, which Rama's
admirers at Business Day are concerned about saying it 'speaks
volumes about his hesitancy'.
A panel or commission of inquiry is an old ANC
tactic of kicking the problem down the road and of taking 'collective
responsibility'. As we've come to see of his short leadership, if nothing else
it's his signature characteristic to avoid taking tough decisions like reducing
the size of cabinet, firing Tom Moyane and all the other difficult matters (aren't
they all?) on his plate. But WSM says it's evidence of his 'genius'. There's another
expression for it, though: Fiddling while Rome burns.
I didn't always agree with WSM but thought his cynicism and
level-headedness made him see through the bullshit. I wonder why the change of
heart.
WSM’s reply:
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Thomas, but I am not
saying that all of Ramaphosa's actions are "genius". I am saying that
the way that he has protected himself from internal ANC enemies in acting
against state capture, e.g., by using an expert panel to appoint a NDPP is
canny -- as well as being best practice internationally. And I'm also saying
that given the precariousness of his situation he is doing as well as one could
hope, with the exception of EWC, simply by surviving the Zuma third column
through to the 2019 election.
*
Reply to Paul:
You say 'It is not true that leaders taking over in a crisis
take immediate action.' An example to falsify your generalisation is Churchill.
He took 'immediate' action. You say this never or hardly ever – I don't know
what you mean, really – happens.
Time and tide wait for no man, Paul. It's one thing to wait a few weeks or at the
most couple of months to get one's feet comfortably under the desk and find out
where the stationery is, but another to have outsiders dictate affairs of
office and action in crisis that's entirely within your purview.
Even if he doesn't act immediately – and I didn't mean today
or tomorrow but within a reasonably short period (I think your comment is
addressed to me not WSM) – Ramaphosa has let others steal the march on him, not
in the interests of the country, but to preserve ANC unity, which we know
always comes first, and shore up his support within it. WSM said it: 'simply
surviving the Zuma third column through to the 2019 election'.
With your last sentence you're fatuously implying we want
Rama to fail - we're ignorant of the alleged changes. What I'm saying is the
country's interests outweigh, and always have, the ANC and their members' petty,
incestuous and dirty squabbles. There's no time to wait, which he's doing, for
them to make up their lovers' tiff.
*
Reply to Robbie (1):
I'm surprised people incl savvy commentators are using the
'ousted' excuse [Ramaphosa's apologists claim he's moving cautiously to consolidate his position in the ANC and prevent his expulsion]. It's a poor explanation for Rama's inaction and trepidation.
1.
It's not easy to remove a sitting president.
Look how hard it was to get rid of Zuma and he deserved firing. Even Rama
supported and defended him until it became too much.
2.
The ANC will not remove Rama because he will be
the third one in a row.
3.
While he's a flip-flopping president, he's
better than Zuma – nearly anyone is.
4.
ANC politics being what it is, even if he does
all the right things to please them and the 'Zuma faction', tomorrow another
faction perhaps with an anti-Zuma one or one a who-knows agenda will decide
he's dispensable and want to remove him.
So, that explanation is nonsense. Politics is messy but especially
in times a crisis a true leader and courage stands alone if necessary. That's
not Ramaphosa (or Zuma).
I came across this quote yesterday that perfectly describes
Ramaposeur particularly his not-genius appointment of a panel to look into a
new NDPP:
'He would be asked to give his opinion, but only after other
men had done the work: thus he was spared the effort and responsibility and
would still be able to take credit for any progress achieved. This would surely
be the best of all possible worlds.' (Donna Leon, 2009, from the appropriately
titled novel About Face.)
*
Reply to Robbie (2):
Ramaphosa is president almost a year and is still in a
dilly-dallying holding pattern. And I suspect it will be that way even after
the elections. [His supporters’] minds are made up. Nothing I or anyone says
will change it. We can rebut on management and governance grounds but there's
little point debating [because] you'll rationalise whatever we say and it will
become argumentum ad absurdum.
For now I'm more interested why WSM
changed his mind about Ramaphoser. I've looked back a few months over
his articles esp ones that refer to the state of SA and Ramaphosa and it's not
an encouraging picture of either: 'Mind the Rama credibility gap'; 'Riding the
SA roller coaster'; 'Ramaphosa & Theresa May: peas in a pod', a similarity
my first comment also mentioned. In that article WSM writes, 'Ramaphosa’s
standard line is equally unconvincing.'
In 'Ramaphoria fades' WSM's opening sentence is 'Of course,
it never was going to last. Ramaphoria, I mean' and ends with: 'It makes for a
vulnerable presidency and country.' Quite.
So what changed his mind? It can't be incomplete and
inconclusive commissions, panels, jobs summits and compromised and corrupt
ministers and officials who're still on government's payroll - all signs of a
vacillating and trepidatious manager and leader. And it surely can't be two quarters
of negative growth - recession - rising petrol prices and gloomy business and
consumer confidence.
Please tell us the secret, WSM, the secret that changed your
opinion overnight. Perhaps you had an audience with his excellency King Rama
the Great and a vision of his glorious and bountiful reign was bequeathed you
and his acolytes. It will temper the pall that presently hangs over the
country.
*
Reply to Geoff:
WSM says Ramaphosa is 'not doing badly'. But compared to
what and whom? Zuma? Unfair, we had almost 10 years of him, and even in his
first few months, as with his predecessors, there was optimism among the masses
he'd make a difference. And anyone compared to him would look good. Note
Ramaposeur defended Zuma more than once.
If it's too soon to write off Rama as WSM and Paul suggest,
then it's too early to definitively state he's not doing badly. I
reiterate, based on what metric? Ordering commissions and panels which march to
their own tunes but not firing any corrupt person and clearing out dead
wood is doing well? Really? If good governance were that easy ...
There's a saying one shouldn't praise someone for doing
their job like the fawning media did for finance ministers including former
finance minister Pravin Gordhan under whom national debt rose from 30% to 50%
GDP.
I think there's a sense of desperation among those who
believe – perhaps w/ some justification but it's too early to really say – Rama
or other ANC cadre who came after Jacob Zuma would do well and 'save' the
country (like Zuma was supposed to from Mbeki's excesses). It's like many
terminal disease patients and their families who hope any quack cure or
experimental treatment would work when the prognosis is slim.
Beyond a few of the corrupt getting their marching orders, by
the way, with golden parachutes that will set them up for life, little will change
for the country in the near future. It's self-indulgent and irresponsible of
Rama's oblivious supporters, even his tentative ones, to suggest the struggling
citizenry - the poor and unemployed mainly - must wait until after 2019 for him
to find his feet.
Comments
Post a Comment