Helen Zille has a few weeks left in office after a decade as premier of the Western Cape. Her devoted faithful among DA supporters - white supporters - including those who became disillusioned with the party of late but support her, sing her praises after an often tumultuous and scandal-racked two terms in office. They're with her to the end. I call them Zille's Army.
An example of the smarmy praise singing is William Saunderson-Meyer's (WSM) column in Politicsweb on Saturday April 6. While he does criticise her, he does so lightly, leaving her considerable faults, faux pas and hubris untouched. What follows is an edited version of those posts.
Saunderson-Meyer said:
"[Zille] also made some spectacular tactical blunders, she bulldozed through a merger with Agang ... similarly, in her well-intentioned drive to change the DA’s race profile, she catapulted a naïve young woman."
I thought WSM was going to add singing choir boy pastor-turned-politician Mumu (Mmusi Maimane) among her blunders. Why is he not among them? Was Maimane not also "naive", "young" and even more inexperienced than Mazibuko, who for her alleged hubris, performed well as the DA's leader in the National Assembly, forgetting Zille "bulldozed" his appointment too.
I ask WSM to be honest and prove he's not another praise-singer he accuses Zuma's legion of ANC supporters of and an astute political watcher. Has Maimane and a DA under his leadership turned out well? While WSM uses her alleged naivety against Mazibuko, why is it a boon for Mumu? Although he has grown into the role, his inexperience and naivety still shows - he tries to hard, is too shrill, unconvincing, lacks the nous that the other young leader, Malema, has, is not statesmanlike, and he's probably led by the Federal Executive, and the DA's and politician's curse, arrogant.
Another elision, or reinterpreting facts to suit his conclusions, was Zille's incorporation of the ID into the DA and Patricia De Lille as mayor. Ideologically, De Lille and DA were never alike. But the DA faithful accepted her into the party and city government with triumph. For one term she could do no wrong, then literally overnight they turned on her for reasons I've suggested on PW many times: she became too influential in the city caucus for the DA mandarins' liking. And they can't have a Cape Flats upstart who didn't go the the right schools and speak with the right accent.
Zille committed serial blunders which WSM airbrushes out as if it had no lasting effects on the party and its fortunes, and like De Lille is combative and abrasive. So why for all that was Zille spared and got to keep her job while De Lille was thrown out on her ear on trumped-up charges after a vindictive campaign of vilification with not one charge sticking and winning three court challenges? Even today the DA faithful steadfastly insist she's guilty.
And they insist, like Zuma's supporters a belief they will 'die for', Helen is a candidate for sainthood in a DA heaven. Or like you, do they only see what they want to see?
WSM replied noting this line in his article, '"Mmusi Maimane [is] another person whose meteoric rise was orchestrated by [Zille]..."
However, he was disingenuous, and unfair (to Mazibuko). That's a statement of fact not a value judgement like of Mazibuko which he didn't hesitate to do. One interpretation of "meteoric rise" is it was due to Maimane's excellent personal and professional qualities, but he hints and nudge-nudge wink it might not be so. What is he really saying and should we take anything he says at face value? Why does he demur? Perhaps he doesn't want to offend the DA. Even then, in response, he dissembles.
In this and previous columns he, as other PW contributors, go on and on about the ANC, Zuma and their litany offences, which we already know, and less often the EFF. But rarely do we see objective and insightful analyses and commentary about the DA and other opposition parties (excl EFF). Whatever is said is fawning and adulatory, especially about Zille. Why, I don't know.
Are they excellent in Western Cape (WC) government? They're good technically and managerially - they're technocrats - but nothing at the level you, they themselves and their fan club believe, by the way, most of it based on their marketing and spin and not the facts themselves. Cape Town residents know the WC and city always had good service delivery, including under ANC administration 1994 to 2006 for city and 2009 for province.
I agree DA-run municipalities have improved but that's only because the ANC are corrupt and incompetent and the difference is very noticeable. Unfortunately, that's the only benchmark for good governance now where even a 50% scrape through pass - the DA's, at best 60% - is deemed excellent.
In fact, there are 18 indicators for good governance and arguably WC and city score well on only seven of them, all financial-related. As a whole, the country scores poorly on them all (except financial for WC and city).
But what get's me about WSM's hagiography of Zille and DA is he lists Zuma's/ANC's faults but are not objective and don't list Zille's and DA's except stuff he can airbrush that doesn't affect the substance of his tendentious argument. These include the water shortage disaster, De Lille debacle and their new-found black-like-me racial policies.
For Zille there are two in the public realm I can immediately think of: her interference in Western Cape Education Department's computer tablet procurement to benefit her son's company (she wrote to the MEC and officials with a reference mentioning her son and his partner by name) and the incident in 2011 when her cabinet interfered and pressurised "independent" CapeNature to change regulations and at the behest of and to suit (DA donor) agri-industry. That's called 'regulatory capture'.
Then there are my experiences of her regarding my late mother's case. Two of the country's regulators - HPCSA and OHSC - are investigating serious charges I laid against the WC administration that Zille personally, like senior officials before her, adamantly refused to do despite it been a legal obligation. Last year Cape Town's director of public prosecutions (DPP) declined the case, for no reasons, which itself is unusual, coincidentally, after Zille instructed her lawyers to irregularly contact the DPP and obtain information about the then on-going 'investigation' (I use the word lightly bec there was none) on the basis of the WC government's alleged "oversight" (sic). (Provinces have no oversight over the NPA.) Apparently, without thought about the legality, the DPP quickly provided the information.
There are people like Necle, though, who are while Zille and DA fans are not as rabid and these above. Like one who wanted information on the three cases De Lille won, saying she could find evidence of only the first two.
An example of the smarmy praise singing is William Saunderson-Meyer's (WSM) column in Politicsweb on Saturday April 6. While he does criticise her, he does so lightly, leaving her considerable faults, faux pas and hubris untouched. What follows is an edited version of those posts.
Saunderson-Meyer said:
"[Zille] also made some spectacular tactical blunders, she bulldozed through a merger with Agang ... similarly, in her well-intentioned drive to change the DA’s race profile, she catapulted a naïve young woman."
I thought WSM was going to add singing choir boy pastor-turned-politician Mumu (Mmusi Maimane) among her blunders. Why is he not among them? Was Maimane not also "naive", "young" and even more inexperienced than Mazibuko, who for her alleged hubris, performed well as the DA's leader in the National Assembly, forgetting Zille "bulldozed" his appointment too.
I ask WSM to be honest and prove he's not another praise-singer he accuses Zuma's legion of ANC supporters of and an astute political watcher. Has Maimane and a DA under his leadership turned out well? While WSM uses her alleged naivety against Mazibuko, why is it a boon for Mumu? Although he has grown into the role, his inexperience and naivety still shows - he tries to hard, is too shrill, unconvincing, lacks the nous that the other young leader, Malema, has, is not statesmanlike, and he's probably led by the Federal Executive, and the DA's and politician's curse, arrogant.
Another elision, or reinterpreting facts to suit his conclusions, was Zille's incorporation of the ID into the DA and Patricia De Lille as mayor. Ideologically, De Lille and DA were never alike. But the DA faithful accepted her into the party and city government with triumph. For one term she could do no wrong, then literally overnight they turned on her for reasons I've suggested on PW many times: she became too influential in the city caucus for the DA mandarins' liking. And they can't have a Cape Flats upstart who didn't go the the right schools and speak with the right accent.
Zille committed serial blunders which WSM airbrushes out as if it had no lasting effects on the party and its fortunes, and like De Lille is combative and abrasive. So why for all that was Zille spared and got to keep her job while De Lille was thrown out on her ear on trumped-up charges after a vindictive campaign of vilification with not one charge sticking and winning three court challenges? Even today the DA faithful steadfastly insist she's guilty.
And they insist, like Zuma's supporters a belief they will 'die for', Helen is a candidate for sainthood in a DA heaven. Or like you, do they only see what they want to see?
WSM replied noting this line in his article, '"Mmusi Maimane [is] another person whose meteoric rise was orchestrated by [Zille]..."
However, he was disingenuous, and unfair (to Mazibuko). That's a statement of fact not a value judgement like of Mazibuko which he didn't hesitate to do. One interpretation of "meteoric rise" is it was due to Maimane's excellent personal and professional qualities, but he hints and nudge-nudge wink it might not be so. What is he really saying and should we take anything he says at face value? Why does he demur? Perhaps he doesn't want to offend the DA. Even then, in response, he dissembles.
In this and previous columns he, as other PW contributors, go on and on about the ANC, Zuma and their litany offences, which we already know, and less often the EFF. But rarely do we see objective and insightful analyses and commentary about the DA and other opposition parties (excl EFF). Whatever is said is fawning and adulatory, especially about Zille. Why, I don't know.
Are they excellent in Western Cape (WC) government? They're good technically and managerially - they're technocrats - but nothing at the level you, they themselves and their fan club believe, by the way, most of it based on their marketing and spin and not the facts themselves. Cape Town residents know the WC and city always had good service delivery, including under ANC administration 1994 to 2006 for city and 2009 for province.
I agree DA-run municipalities have improved but that's only because the ANC are corrupt and incompetent and the difference is very noticeable. Unfortunately, that's the only benchmark for good governance now where even a 50% scrape through pass - the DA's, at best 60% - is deemed excellent.
In fact, there are 18 indicators for good governance and arguably WC and city score well on only seven of them, all financial-related. As a whole, the country scores poorly on them all (except financial for WC and city).
But what get's me about WSM's hagiography of Zille and DA is he lists Zuma's/ANC's faults but are not objective and don't list Zille's and DA's except stuff he can airbrush that doesn't affect the substance of his tendentious argument. These include the water shortage disaster, De Lille debacle and their new-found black-like-me racial policies.
For Zille there are two in the public realm I can immediately think of: her interference in Western Cape Education Department's computer tablet procurement to benefit her son's company (she wrote to the MEC and officials with a reference mentioning her son and his partner by name) and the incident in 2011 when her cabinet interfered and pressurised "independent" CapeNature to change regulations and at the behest of and to suit (DA donor) agri-industry. That's called 'regulatory capture'.
Then there are my experiences of her regarding my late mother's case. Two of the country's regulators - HPCSA and OHSC - are investigating serious charges I laid against the WC administration that Zille personally, like senior officials before her, adamantly refused to do despite it been a legal obligation. Last year Cape Town's director of public prosecutions (DPP) declined the case, for no reasons, which itself is unusual, coincidentally, after Zille instructed her lawyers to irregularly contact the DPP and obtain information about the then on-going 'investigation' (I use the word lightly bec there was none) on the basis of the WC government's alleged "oversight" (sic). (Provinces have no oversight over the NPA.) Apparently, without thought about the legality, the DPP quickly provided the information.
These are serious governance defects of which the DA and Zille too are guilty of but their faithful accuse critics of bias and making stories up.
WSM disagreed and cited two articles - here and here - where he "gave credit where it is due". The articles included mild criticism of Zille, which I replied, "present her and the DA's venal, forgiveable sins while ignoring/are silent about the unforgivable mortal ones, the one's that question her and DA's credibility and core ethical values. That is an old trick of expedience and cover up: show feigned fairness and objectivity to the accused by giving a slap on the wrist for misdemeanour's but let them slide on serious crimes."
Her violations include her infamous colonialism tweet and others that another commentator, "South One", a DA member and donor described thus:
I agree. As I've noted before, the million dollar question is why the DA didn't force her to. Of course, the answer is because she's untouchable. The DA will never alienate their conservative WC support, her supporters among which are PW's conservative commentators. But they're willing to alienate De Lille's brown Cape Town support, which they think is dispensable. Working class and poor blacks - the ANC's core and majority support - won't vote DA for the reasons, i.e. the core working class and poor voters, for various reasons, would never abandon the ANC.
To the DA brown people are merely voting fodder: use them to get the WC and Cape Town and thereafter discard/ignore them. Despite the province being the DA's main power centre where the majority of all voters are brown, only one - Ivan Meyer - is on the federal council which is still white dominated in a party that, according to them, is the most racially diverse party in the country. I've been telling people, especially browns, not to vote DA, but smaller parties.
"Dimi": "Oh please, what a pathetic attempt at baiting. This discredits anything else you have to say".
"Aristocat": DA and Zile might have committed blunders, they admitted it and got punished for it. Despite that, Western Cape is best run province in SA. The ANC made a million more blunders, never owned to it, and continue to economically and humanly destroy ALL the provinces they rule in. Your blind hate of DA disqualifies your from making any sensible comment on PW. Finally, NO ONE takes you seriously (sic).
Pieter S.: "What a whiner."
WSM disagreed and cited two articles - here and here - where he "gave credit where it is due". The articles included mild criticism of Zille, which I replied, "present her and the DA's venal, forgiveable sins while ignoring/are silent about the unforgivable mortal ones, the one's that question her and DA's credibility and core ethical values. That is an old trick of expedience and cover up: show feigned fairness and objectivity to the accused by giving a slap on the wrist for misdemeanour's but let them slide on serious crimes."
Her violations include her infamous colonialism tweet and others that another commentator, "South One", a DA member and donor described thus:
- "Black people coming to Cape Town from the Eastern Cape are refugees fleeing black government.
- Black kids who protest white-centric university syllabus should have their bursaries taken away.
- White domination was OK because it brought things like running water which black people couldn't invent."
I agree. As I've noted before, the million dollar question is why the DA didn't force her to. Of course, the answer is because she's untouchable. The DA will never alienate their conservative WC support, her supporters among which are PW's conservative commentators. But they're willing to alienate De Lille's brown Cape Town support, which they think is dispensable. Working class and poor blacks - the ANC's core and majority support - won't vote DA for the reasons, i.e. the core working class and poor voters, for various reasons, would never abandon the ANC.
To the DA brown people are merely voting fodder: use them to get the WC and Cape Town and thereafter discard/ignore them. Despite the province being the DA's main power centre where the majority of all voters are brown, only one - Ivan Meyer - is on the federal council which is still white dominated in a party that, according to them, is the most racially diverse party in the country. I've been telling people, especially browns, not to vote DA, but smaller parties.
These is the typical comment to me when I criticise Zille and the DA:
"Dimi": "Oh please, what a pathetic attempt at baiting. This discredits anything else you have to say".
"Aristocat": DA and Zile might have committed blunders, they admitted it and got punished for it. Despite that, Western Cape is best run province in SA. The ANC made a million more blunders, never owned to it, and continue to economically and humanly destroy ALL the provinces they rule in. Your blind hate of DA disqualifies your from making any sensible comment on PW. Finally, NO ONE takes you seriously (sic).
Pieter S.: "What a whiner."
The third case resulted in a court order 13/11/2019] in which the DA abandoned all of the Steenhuisen report’s findings against De Lille.
In response to Necle, the substance of the charges were originally going to be heard in November but the DA - not the way she disparagingly put it, De Lille - cut a deal after all along insisting the charges were valid and they were proceeding. If their case was strong as they claimed, why would they concede? No, she would've won, and to save the ridicule of another loss, the DA made a deal which they reneged on, breaking promises and legal commitments (the DA is a serial offender, incl Zille, my experience of them) after De Lille publicly said she would resign.
Even now, after her court wins, one report - DA chief whip John Steenhuisen's alt-facts that started it all - withdrawn and none of the charges standing, including then a five-year old one from a businessman with a grudge, you and PW's DA and Zille-supporters still believe their defamatory accusations.
Zille was accused of arguably more serious charges, to whit, racism - the colonialism tweet (a charge I didn't agree with and said so at the time) - which the DA and Maimane made a huge fuss over, and interfering in her government's procurement processes. But their mostly white supporters exonerated her and pilloried De Lille.
The DA's supporters' attitudes to similar cases show a lot: two DA leaders, the charges against Zille are proven while those against DL made-up. But the white leader is feted and lionised and brown is dispensable, insulted and sotto voce, called riff raff - see the personal comments on PW from the DA's (white) supporters about De Lille, and dimi above says I'm making it up. Dispensable is what the brown and black councillors who resigned with DL also said.
But why is arguably one of the most out of depth councillors, dull deputy mayor Ian "don't ask me questions" Neilson, who as finance mayco was indirectly implicated in the bus scandal (the buck stops with him), still there? He's white, of course, where smarts is not a requirement in the DA to achieving high office. Ask the country highest paid matriculant Steenhuisen, author (?) of the report.
If racial and class prejudice allows, perhaps at night when they can't sleep, these people honestly examine and weigh the cases and ask why, with no charges proven, De Lille was fired. Sure, she was combative and irritating which the DA knew all along; they considered that an asset. But so is Zille who going against the evidence denied doing anything wrong - she made the tweet and admitted writing, improperly, and influencing MEC and officials. (Not to mention the other case of interfering in a DPP criminal investigation and not performing her legal obligations.) And even today, one can't keep a good twit(ter) down.
I shan't wait for their conclusions. I know, like the DA, they don't have to objectively examine the facts because they already know.
In response to Necle, the substance of the charges were originally going to be heard in November but the DA - not the way she disparagingly put it, De Lille - cut a deal after all along insisting the charges were valid and they were proceeding. If their case was strong as they claimed, why would they concede? No, she would've won, and to save the ridicule of another loss, the DA made a deal which they reneged on, breaking promises and legal commitments (the DA is a serial offender, incl Zille, my experience of them) after De Lille publicly said she would resign.
Even now, after her court wins, one report - DA chief whip John Steenhuisen's alt-facts that started it all - withdrawn and none of the charges standing, including then a five-year old one from a businessman with a grudge, you and PW's DA and Zille-supporters still believe their defamatory accusations.
Zille was accused of arguably more serious charges, to whit, racism - the colonialism tweet (a charge I didn't agree with and said so at the time) - which the DA and Maimane made a huge fuss over, and interfering in her government's procurement processes. But their mostly white supporters exonerated her and pilloried De Lille.
The DA's supporters' attitudes to similar cases show a lot: two DA leaders, the charges against Zille are proven while those against DL made-up. But the white leader is feted and lionised and brown is dispensable, insulted and sotto voce, called riff raff - see the personal comments on PW from the DA's (white) supporters about De Lille, and dimi above says I'm making it up. Dispensable is what the brown and black councillors who resigned with DL also said.
If racial and class prejudice allows, perhaps at night when they can't sleep, these people honestly examine and weigh the cases and ask why, with no charges proven, De Lille was fired. Sure, she was combative and irritating which the DA knew all along; they considered that an asset. But so is Zille who going against the evidence denied doing anything wrong - she made the tweet and admitted writing, improperly, and influencing MEC and officials. (Not to mention the other case of interfering in a DPP criminal investigation and not performing her legal obligations.) And even today, one can't keep a good twit(ter) down.
I shan't wait for their conclusions. I know, like the DA, they don't have to objectively examine the facts because they already know.
Comments
Post a Comment