I find your reply more reasoned than some aspects of your post, which seemed emotionally overstated.

But don’t get me wrong, I love reading your blog, and always enjoy your comments on CS.

Just a few comments:
- I still don’t feel you have extrapolated the “debate increased” aspects to an extent where I can even decide whether I agree or not. The statement is too wide and even above you don’t answer enough of the Who? What? Where? When? questions.
And with all those answered, before I thank him, the question of motive also needs to come up for me. (As telling the support for Feinstein was, so telling was the timing of dropping him and Feinstein’s hunches regarding press leaks)

- I was being reductionist purposefully. If you want to see the relative strength of forces on an object, you need to isolate and measure each.

You said: “Much of the anti-Zuma feeling is anti-Zulu feeling.”

Much being a key word here. I agree though in the broad that Zulu’s are often stereotyped, but that does not mean that it doesn’t become a peripheral issue when talking about a specific person. I have worked with two Zulu’s, one who fits in more with the stereotype, coming to work bashed up if at all (I liked ol Lazarus), and the other who is too gentle (yet strong) and hard working to fit the “stereotype” of “they’re soldiers not workers”.

- Back to the debate thing. If I were for argument’s sake to say that debate increased, then I would still have to define where: debate inside the ANC, debate outside the ANC, debate by political parties, debate in the media, debate on the internet, …. And I would have to need some clarity on what constitutes debate, i.e. does name calling for example constitute a debate of sorts.

In terms of the public we basically had a one party state and there was a sense from people outside the ANC that only a break up in the ANC can provide space for other voices outside the ANC to be truly heard.

So one could argue, and I am just playing one possible argument here that Zuma’s “woes” certainly opened up a fight in the ANC, the left hoped to gain a foothold in leadership not merely debating rights. For me it was a fight more than a debate (eg. Vavi publicly making derogatory comments about Sexwale). To put it in terms of communist strategy, it was a “revolution” and more particularly to use the words of the discredited browse mole report a street level revolution. The fight also illustrated by the Mbeki shirts burning etc.

So that was inside the ANC. In the public domain outside the ANC one could argue that debate increased around the ANC succession race because there seemed to be different ideologies and personalities going up against each other and the results of which would affect all of us. Thereafter we hit the one problem after the other, all of which would directly affect public interest.

No matter how I play it I can’t see why I should thank Zuma. I may be glad of some of the side effects of his revolution, but don’t expect me to thank him as if he meant to open up debate. They were and are playing with fire. I would have thanked him had he shown better leadership when uniformed war veterans marched on the courts and threatened to make our country ungovernable all for the sake of one person. (That event can never be overemphasised for me)

But I do not hate Zuma and I even think that some small municipal mayors have been corrupted with larger amounts than his Shaik deals. If he were to get amnesty and retire somewhere, I’d blink, but not much more. I even have some sympathy for him, since the scorpions have not always played nicely.

- Regarding the left: For me personally the more control a government exercises the more benign I want the leadership to be. The current left don’t look so good to me, and I also don’t want them to go all the way in communist terms (It might not look likely now, but things change quickly in the world of politics). Havana might be the most equal city in the world, but until recently you couldn’t buy a home computer in Cuba, never mind the extent of censorship and how they treat dissent (debate?).

I do think that humans function well when there is a certain amount of restriction. The atrocities committed when people are unaccountable is well documented eg. King Leopold and the Congo. At the same time you have over control leading to the similar abuses by those who control those restrictions.

Man, this is getting to be a long post. I think I’ll stop now. Point is I am not completely anti-left and completely pro free market, I see potential abuse everywhere at someone’s expense.

There’s a big irony to this situation, but I suppose as with wars, politics in general have uncertain outcomes. The Zunami rocked the ANC hedgemony over not only debate, but even the terms of the debate. Now an Zuma controlled ANC can’t put the genie back into the bottle.

You only have to read “After the party” to get an insight into the control exercised and the fear that reigned inside the ANC prior to Zuma throwing his hat into the ring.

‘Decent people’ like Kader Asmal, Cyril Rhamaphosa, Tokyo Sexwale, Phillip Dexter, never found their voice during that time. Now they are vocal.

Two people did speak out when it mattered most. Tutu, who was rubbished, and Mandela, who was called in to the ANC NEC and humiliated by Terror Lekota. Nobody, not a single person stood up for him.

Feinstein describes the fear that reigned and how after a Mbeki lecture to the ANC caucus on HIV denial – was leaked by Feinsten – how the old hanging microphones in parliament was removed because it was feared the ANC caucus had been overheard.

Zuma initially gave Feinstein the protection he sought to start the investigation into the arms deal. He had already decided to go up against Mbeki.

1. On this point your being reductionist on my arguments. I am not saying its the only thing that matters. But next to Afrikaners Zulus are the most maligned group in SA. I have heard disparaging things said about Zulus over and over again.

In fact, a fellow investigator at the TRC, a family member of a prominent SA figure, was never ashamed to tell me and anybody else who wanted to hear how uncouth and bad the Zulus were.

Partly the reason for this anti-Zulu sentiment is that Zulus are the most nationalistic of all South Africa’s black people.

That is both bad and good. In parts of Natal where I grew up, even if your white, you have to speak Zulu or you will not get around.

2. “They would not have made fun of his accent had he been an intellectual” – I agree, and not just an intellectual, but one with an English accent and literary references.

Lord Milner said of Paul Kruger that he was full of “panoplied hatred, insensate ambition, invincible ignorance”. Paul Kruger had no education, but turned out to be a good leader.

Mbeki had education, he was a disaster.

3. a Yes, I am saying that. See my answer above. Oh yes Zackie did go against him. But he was a notable exception, shielded by the his own considerable struggle credentials, the fact that he is gay and emboldened by the fact that he has HIV. Even so, the TAC has had a very tough time. And no, Mbeki two nations speech was not debated by anyone but the Democratic alliance.

b. These things you mention (electricity, Xenophobia, judiciary, ANCYL ) certainly played a roll, but when they happened the foundations had already been moved by the Zunami.

Read this report by Steven Friedman from September 2006, when these things just started.
http://mhambi.blogspot.com/2006/09/kan-die-huwelik-gered-word.html

4. I believe that it will be more left than the Mbeki governments policies yes. I believe him as much as I do most politicians.

5. I have never defended all that Zuma did, in fact I have called for him to be removed as ANC leader. Given a choice, I still think he is considerably better than Mbeki.

I think I am allowed to be pro an interventionist state, and still be allowed to criticise others that also claim they are don’t you?

Correct me if I am wrong, but at one stage you were having doubts about Zuma, then your attention shifted to Mantashe (broadly), and then he also disappointed. Is it that you don’t like the direction your own thoughts are going as you surely consider yourself as part of the “decent people”?

Regarding some of your arguments:
1. Anti Zulu.
Do you honestly believe that all events and actions being equal, the same people would have been happy as long as he was Sotho? The Zulu thing is a peripheral issue.

2. A similar argument holds for the snobbishness. They would not have made fun of his accent had he been an intellectual, but do you then argue that people would not be anti-Zuma, all other things being equal, had he been an educated intellectual? This is also peripheral to the current context.

3. You say he challenged Mbeki and by so doing opened debate.

You are either saying (a) no one debated Mbeki until Zuma stood up to him or (b) debate increased and you have established a causal link and that is Zuma standing up to Mbeki.

a. Was Mbeki’s two nations speech not debated? How about Zim? Was Zachie Achmat not in the news and Mbeki and Manto ridiculed because of AIDS policies (TAC started in 1998)? These were pre-Zuma troubles, pre 2003.

b. Where? How? What platforms? How did you establish this causal link? Do you have any sound basis aside from your “leef wêreld” (experience)? How did you rule out things like all the crises we went through such as electricity, Xenophobia, judiciary, ANCYL contributing to possible increased debate?

4. One of your arguments has been that we need to go left in terms of economic policy. So why do you like Zuma? He has, on numerous occasions, said that economic policies won’t change. Do you not believe him?

5. You also like comparing Mandela and Mbeki with the intention to show how good Mandela’s approach was in comparison to Mbeki. Well, Mandela criticised the bullies who supported Winnie at court. What did Zuma done in similar circumstances ? He had many chances such as the “burn the bitch” sentiments at the rape trial and the uniformed MK veterans ,who threatened to destabilise the country and marched on the court to whom he sang “Bring me my machine gun”. A great leader?

Your post makes me think of someone building a straw man and not demolishing it. You have been trying to cast anti-Zuma sentiment into simplistic white attitudes (straw man argument). Yet at the same time you throw in enough arguments of your own to point to legitimate reasons for that sentiment. Do people not have enough legitimate concerns about Zuma? (And this is not about Mbeki)

You should have advertised this one. (:

Regarding the politics of the new movement:

“choose their politics more by their ideology”

It looks to me like it is more about values than ideology.

“The less a white person knows about our recent history, the more detached … the more … inclined to prefer … the Shikota movement”

You’re probably stretching further than you can support with evidence. People can read the same history you do, and interpret it differently. Historians don’t all agree on everything.

“I’m happy with the policies that were adopted in Polokwane. My decision to leave has to do with the character of the ANC.”

I do not want to put words into her mouth, but I speculate that the character of people like Julius Malema, Jacob Zuma and others may be what she refers to, as well as the violence at ANC branch meetings, and that she would rather be part of a respectable movement led by credible and intelligent leaders who do not have question marks about their integrity (such as Zuma, Malema, Booi and many others in the ANC). Of course this is also what most white people want.

*I read about Shope-Mafole here:
http://www.fmtech.co.za/?p=10679

At ANC branch level there has been intense struggle in the past few years and some people have even paid with their lives resisting central control. That is where the heroism lies, not in JZ’s “running the gauntlet”.