Date: 13/02/2007
Source: The Democratic Alliance
Title: Leon: State of the Nation Debate


Statement issued by: Tony Leon, DA spokesperson on Leader of the Official Opposition

Introduction

Madam Speaker, Mr President, Madam Deputy President, Honourable Members:

At the outset, I wish to associate my party with the President’s moving remarks on Friday regarding the heroic life and sad death of Ma Adelaide Tambo.

I also dedicate my speech today to the thousands of victims of violent crime in South Africa and their families.

This is the ninth time I have been privileged to respond to the President’s State of the Nation speech as the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

It is also the fourteenth occasion on which I have had the honour to address Parliament in this debate as one of the leaders of our political parties represented in the National Assembly.

We have all arrived in this place from different backgrounds. We wear different party badges. We speak different languages. And we represent different people who have different perspectives. But we are united under one flag. We swear allegiance to the same constitution. And we all love our country – the place that gave us birth and gives us life.

Madam Speaker, this is also the last occasion on which I shall participate in this debate, either as Leader of the Opposition or as the leader of a political party in Parliament.

I hope my observations, therefore, and whatever candid counsel I have to offer, will be accepted in the spirit intended - not with an eye on the next election, or with a point to score in Parliament.

Rather, they are offered in the hope that - in your own words, Madam Speaker - we can “deepen the debate” and consider the choices we have made as a young nation.

I am mindful that this is an appropriate time to deepen our deliberations. For in 2007, we celebrate the 13th year of our democracy.

As a member of the Jewish faith, I must point out this means our new society is celebrating its Bar Mitzvah – the birthday which heralds the onset of maturity in a young person’s life.

It is an apposite occasion, then, to look back at what we as a nation have achieved, and to reflect on the choices we have made during a tumultuous and – at times - triumphant phase in our history.

For as with an individual, it is a sign of a nation’s maturity when we are able to examine the choices we have made, and to consider in all honesty and frankness whether they were the right ones.

The ideals enshrined in our Constitution One of the finest choices we made was in 1996, when it was my great honour and privilege to participate in the vote on our new Constitution. That Constitution enshrined our hope of forging South Africa into a democratic beacon for Africa and the world.

Such inspiring events remind me of how far we as a nation have come on our progress to democratic maturity, and that we have much to celebrate today in the choices made in the past.

Assessing the President’s speech

Yet, as the President frankly admitted in his address on Friday, we are faced with a number of critical issues that threaten our attainment of a just and a prosperous society.

The President rightly acknowledged that we still have much work to do in combating the important issues that face us as a nation: crime, corruption, wide-scale poverty, HIV/AIDS and – in particular – the state’s service capacity.

I congratulate the President on the candour of his speech.

His admission, in revealing detail, of the shortcomings in government’s attainment of its own goals was welcome and refreshing. The age of hope, proclaimed a year ago, has been supplanted by an age of reality.

However, it was disturbing to note that the President outlined, in a sense, a wish list of his administration’s ideals, rather than a set of specific prescriptions to rectify the failures he did so well to acknowledge.

At this juncture, after three successive terms in office, we are surely entitled to expect more of this government.

It is of little help to acknowledge shortcomings but then to insist our policy approach is correct and that our failings are simply a consequence of lacklustre implementation or faulty perceptions.

I submit then, Madam Speaker, that we have made some wrong choices over the past 13 years and that, if we correct these now, we will enjoy greater success in the future.

What ANC-style “transformation” is costing South Africa

It is apparent from what we heard on Friday – and the statistics as well as the first-hand testimony of the people confirm this – that government is failing in its pledge to deliver the basic services necessary for all our people to attain security, wellbeing and a meaningful stake in society.

One key reason is that since 1994, successive ANC governments have pursued an ill-constructed transformation policy that puts racial representivity before all else.

Of course, after 1994, we had to construct and pursue with vigour a programme of redress and empowerment for apartheid’s victims.

And yes, there are some, though in fact very few, people in South Africa who would prefer to pretend that the past never happened, or who pay lip service to the need for redress without being committed to it in their hearts and deeds.

But none of this changes the fact that, over the past 13 years, we have failed properly to balance the need for redress with the need for successful service delivery.

Again, I am not suggesting that in every instance there has been a failure of service delivery.

But look at the product of 13 years of ANC-run education and tell me that no better could have been done.

It is heart wrenching that in 2007 our schools are still disgorging hundreds of thousands of young people without opportunity or hope, because they simply do not have the skills to make anything of themselves in our economy - let alone in the broader economy of a globalised world.

According to the teachers’ union Naptosa, only one out of a hundred children who begin school in South Africa will attain tertiary education. It is imperative that we harness the diversity of our people, and our institutions needed to reflect that diversity.

But it is morally wrong, strategically incompetent and a violation of our Constitution’s purpose to construct a policy of redress on a variant of the Verwoerdian notion of demographic representivity and then elevate it above every other consideration.

When a policy of redress is so ill constructed that it perpetuates rather than eradicates a lack of opportunity and crushes the hope of advancement, then surely the policy must be changed.

If we want our children educated, our sick healed, our poor cared for and our unemployed to find work, then we must begin to live the values of excellence, hard work and merit. As a mature democracy, responsible for our own decisions, it is time we made a clear choice.

We simply cannot have it both ways. We cannot choose delivery and growth, if we also choose racial preferment at all costs. Indeed, last week having hosted the President of China on these shores, perhaps we should reflect on the famous axiom of the founder of modern China’s economic miracle, Deng Xiao Ping. He said, “it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice”.

This does not mean redress and empowerment should be shoved to the back of the queue. BEE, if practiced with openness, accountability and affordability, can release new energies into the economy and empower those previously denied access to opportunity. It can – indeed should – increase the size and the diversity of the winners circle in South Africa.

There are people in government who recognize this. The Deputy President, in her capacity as Chair of ASGISA, has said, “I don’t think there is any virtue in pure BEE if that equals poor service”.

An outstanding example of what may be achieved is available for study in the City of Cape Town.

The DA-led multiparty coalition that took power in March last year inherited a corroded BEE system, the defining features of which were race quotas, nepotism and corruption. Since then, we have abolished the quota system for tenders, opened the books to transparency, and eliminated corruption.

Because we did not predetermine the outcomes or the beneficiaries, a wider pool of role-players was engaged. It is a matter of proud record that we have increased the number of BEE firms involved by 10% in less than year.

The people of the Mother City have made a choice; they have chosen openness, accountability and efficiency over back-door nepotism and front-door incompetence.

We commend this example to government, of the kind of choice we need to make at national level if we are to attain the vision of a great nation enshrined in our Constitution.

Deepening the debate means choosing freedom over fear

The former Soviet prisoner of conscience, Natan Sharansky, makes a distinction between what he calls free societies and fear societies.

In 1994 we made the choice to become a free society, and constitutionalised that choice two years later. Yet sometimes we display the characteristics of a fear society.

In fear societies, there is limited space for difference. In fear societies, we reflexively label opponents as ‘racist’ or ‘counter-revolutionaries’. And it is in fear societies that we force on people the stifling straitjacket of political correctness.

Yet the only way to manage diverse societies with justice is to embrace pluralism.

And so I warmly welcome the President’s call for inclusivity, to – and I quote – “act in partnership to realise the happiness for all that should come with liberty.”

In effect, this means as a nation we should spend more time listening to each other, and not be too quick to judge as illegitimate the concerns and expressions of any group.

Just such a knee-jerk judgment was the spokesperson for the Department of Arts and Culture comments on the popular phenomenon sweeping parts of the country - the song “De la Rey.”

Instead of sending its cultural commissars to close down the space for this kind of expression, should we not rather listen carefully to its message, and its implications?

Every South African wants to feel like a legitimate citizen of our country, with a cultural identity that is not marginalized or demonized. And we all want to feel that the historical record is full and complete, not manipulated to serve the present political interests of a dominant faction.

Neither victims nor perpetrators make for a self-confident, tolerant, united citizenry.

One way of understanding the project of the new South Africa is to see it as an attempt to move beyond victimhood and guilt, to a place in which we are united without having to be uniform. The other characteristic of fear societies is their limited space for criticism.

That is why the effective muzzling of First National Bank was disturbing and disappointing.

All leaders have to deal with criticism of their leadership.

I know whereof I speak.

As a leader, however misguided you may feel your critics are, and however much you may distrust their motives, it is finally always better to ensure that the space for criticism is protected, and to listen to it with care.

Put simply, tolerance of criticism wins respect; suppression of it breeds resentment.

Crime: the pressing issue of the hour

Now, let me turn to crime.

I think it is fair to say that I echo the feelings of the vast majority of South Africans who are disappointed and disheartened by the President’s response to the crisis.

I understand that the President wants to approach the problem of crime in a reasoned and deliberate manner.

But the country is desperate for empathy; for a belief that the campaign against crime is fuelled by passion and steely-eyed determination. Our people want to see crime elevated to the top of the national agenda, not placed in the middle of it, with a host of contending and often contradictory items crying out for resolution and redress.

It may help the President understand the crisis better if he listens to the voices of the people. According to a recent television poll, fully 98% of South Africans believe the government is losing the fight against crime.

For every high-profile victim like historian David Rattray, one of whose killers has been brought to book, there are thousands whose murderers, rapists and robbers roam free.

The orgy of violent, sickening crime continues relentlessly. Two weeks ago, the nation was horrified yet again – this time by the savage rape, murder and dismemberment of Johannesburg schoolgirl, 14-year old Thato Radebe.

Let me share with you the sentiments of a patriotic South African, Vi Rathbone, grandmother of the more famous Clyde – the former captain of the South African under-21 rugby side.

She recently wrote to me, to explain why, at age nearly 80, she is unwillingly emigrating to Australia to join the rest of her family.

She says: “The full story of my grandson Clyde Rathbone’s decision to relocate to Australia and play rugby for the Brumbies is not known. “His mother is lucky to be alive as when their home in Warner Beach was broken into, she was dragged by the hair to their upstairs balcony and pulled over the balustrade. “She sustained some injuries but fortunately did not become bedridden for life”.

Mrs Rathbone concludes: “I will always love South Africa and will never run it down. “I hope and pray…that the government will do all in its power to fight the rampant crime in South Africa at the moment.”

We must listen, Madam Speaker. We must feel with our people. And we must lead them to victory over the criminals.

In his address, the President argued that proper implementation of existing policy was the solution to crime.

Apart from some minor tinkering, the major new prescription offered was the welcome announcement that the police force will be increased to 180 000 members.

If we are serious about winning the war again crime, then we need to send out a clear and unequivocal message that connections with the ruling party will not lead to your falling off the list of Travelgate accused, or to your featherbedding in prison, or to your early release from jail.

If we are serious about winning the war against crime, why do we insist that in overwhelmingly Afrikaans-speaking provinces, such as the Northern and Western Cape, the police must communicate only in English?

If we are serious about winning the war against crime - at home, where it needs to be fought - why is the Minister of Safety and Security deployed on long term peace-making missions to the Great Lakes and elsewhere, when we have a Minister of Foreign Affairs and two deputies, presumably equal to the task?

If we are serious about winning the war against crime why was a politician, not a policeman appointed by the President as the National Police Commissioner? And why after the serial failures I have mentioned is he retained in office?

International and domestic experience shows that visible cops on the beat are the best deterrent. That is why it is imperative that government ensures these officers are on the streets taking the fight to criminals, rather than behind desks in administration.

We certainly welcome the President’s appeal to all sectors of society to become involved in the battle against lawlessness.

Yet at the same time, government seeks to centralize control of the police force, which flies in the face of best international experience. There will be no more special units, and moves are afoot to do away with municipal police forces.

Once again, we seem to be pursuing the wrong choices in the attainment of our goals.

Policing works best when it is closest to the people. Government cannot claim it wants everyone’s involvement, and then takes the police further away from the communities they are meant to serve.

It is not only in relation to crime that we are failing to make the right choices. It is also in our relations with the world that we sometimes seem to have lost our way.

Surely, our Constitution behoves us - as with the Biblical injunction of the Good Samaritan - not too walk by on the other side of the international road, ignoring the tyranny in Zimbabwe, say, or the dreadful human rights violations in Burma.

Conclusion: a time to choose

So, on the occasion of the onset of our maturity, we must begin to make mature choices. If we seek ANC-style transformation first and effective delivery second, we will achieve a representative public service that fails Apartheid’s worst victims.

If we fail to respect cultural diversity, and close the space for criticism, we will achieve a resentful citizenry that, eventually, will rise up in anger.

If we continue with an uninspired, an unempathetic and unfocused approach to crime, we will achieve a terrified populace that flees the country, hides behind electrified fences or engages in violent acts of vigilantism. In making our choice for the future, we should be guided by our founding document. It behoves us as a nation to redouble our efforts to give meaning to the noble ideals of our Constitution.

Yet we apply selectively and partially the best precepts of that Constitution.

Looking back, it is salutary to recall the shining ideals that animated so many South Africans at the time of the struggle against apartheid.

Those who fought for a new society did not dream of the watered-down, halfway complete, compromised democracy too many of our leaders seem content with today.

Rather, we set the bar high, aspiring to make of our new democracy a shining star among the free and winning nations of the world. Today, we must choose to arrest the drift that characterizes the current state of our nation, to embrace with confidence our opportunities, and to redouble our efforts to animate the noble values of our Constitution.

Only then can we truly say we have come of age as a nation, and entered with full confidence, honesty and responsibility into our maturity.

This is the cause that brought me into the Parliament and into the politics of South Africa. I know it inspires and burns bright in the ranks and hearts of the many who will follow me into this place long after I have left it.

Thank you.