How Left Meets Right and Collides Into Annihilation

This piece emerges from a particular perspective I have been nurturing; firstly in reaction to the emergence of a right wing discourse that rails against big government, and places all its faith in ‘the small guy’ who, in a neoliberal fantasy world where all things remain equal, will inevitably triumph over restrictive regulation and taxation and prevail in the  ‘free market’. Secondly, it is a reaction to the emergence of a left wing discourse that apriori assumes that the mechanisms of global hegemony are at work in every event and circumstance that unfolds upon our television and computer screens, fed by a corporatized media that slavishly and un-objectively executes the ‘will’ of their corporate owners. I will not debate the merits or the facts of the respective positions adopted by the left or the right. Instead, I will point out their ultimate similarities, and reveal how they become mirrors of each other, ultimately hijacking the political space for free expression and political debate, rendering those who do not fall within either camp, to the obscurity of political apathy.

The first view, maintained by the right, relegates any taxation, regulation, etc. as evil instruments of the left, who are constantly trying to find a way to dupe or con them into accepting dressed up forms of socialism and communism into their hallowed freedom, and to distort ‘true’ (read neoliberal or neoconservative) democracy. Fox news – the Rupert Murdoch owned channel that is unashamedly pro-conservative - is perhaps the best example of this view, where all debates are located in frameworks where the ‘right’ (in the sense of ‘correct’ here) view is presented as self-evident and obvious.  It is used as the framework for judging dissenting or differing opinion. It is not a neutral ground where opinions are debated on their own merit. Opinions are filtered through the ‘tea party’ discourse, chewed on like cud, and either expelled or grudgingly swallowed in the name of upholding the tenets of ‘freedom of opinion’. The conspiracy mill is very much alive and at constantly work on the right, rooting out the schemes of the left, finding fault with their nefarious ’do-gooder’, bleeding heart nonsense that is used to further an agenda of inciting class warfare and to put it simply, to use higher taxation and state resources to keep the lazy and unproductive afloat. The right, of this ilk, are not open to critique – they already ‘know’ what the problem is, and what the solutions are, and have no need for debate except in demonstrating that the freedom to debate still exists. This is ironic, even paradoxical, as it means that the freedom to engage or act does not exist in reality. What exists, is a shadow of freedom that masquerades as the real thing. You can disagree, but in reality, nobody is listening for disagreement. Their minds are made up and they only seek out agreement.

Likewise, the left have slowly but surely perverted the discourse on global hegemony into an apriori framework that informs all their analysis and opinion on global or local events. No longer does the left make recourse to objective analyses before arriving at an opinion or idea of what is transpiring. Rather, the discourse on global hegemony has gained so much strength that it serves as a conspiratorial meta-narrative through which all events and situations are filtered in analysis. There is a clear evil, and a clear good, and never the twain shall meet. The West, driven by its corporations and governments are intent on dominating the resource bases, polity and social values of all those within its borders and those outside of it. They are an evil machine that churns out self-serving platitudes to purposively dominate all events and all situations across the globe. The Western Empire trundles forth behind its massive weaponry, bombing whoever stands in their way, making  a mockery of the very values they purport to uphold, not unlike the hithertoe Catholic Church of yesteryear. Any action they take is not to be trusted, as it is loaded with hidden agendas to control the rest of the planet and its resource bases. In return, the left cheers any and all that make the appearance of ‘standing up to’ or ‘bucking’ the West, and regards them as brethren to which their loyalty must surely be given under any and all circumstances. They are loathe to criticise 'one of themselves' because they are all brothers and need each other in the great 'struggle' against the West. They are reluctant to be forcibly critical of the Chinese and Cuban governments, or Gaddafi and other 'left-aligned' populist dictators, despite the availability  of evidence of human rights violations in these countries. Like their right wing counterparts, the left also believe that there is no need for debate, except as a show of their appreciation of the need for ‘freedom of speech’. Yet they are not listening when opinions go against their framework of beliefs, as their beliefs have become foundational. They are not up for debate. Rather, their beliefs become a standard by which the debate (and those of dissenting  opinion) are judged. Often this judgement takes the form of “either you understand or you don’t”, and the left resorts to clichés such as “there are none so blind as those who will not see!” to justify where it stands. You have to be able to 'see' the conspiracy by adopting a particular framework of interpretation, the interpretive framework does not necessarily have to follow from an analysis of each situation, taken on its own merits.

Yet there is something central in this attitude, because it is shared by both the left and the right, and in this sense they become mirrors of each other. It is political mysticism. It is simple to diagnose if you do not fall completely within either side. It is that there is a shared belief that understanding can only be achieved through one set of filters, and that these filters can only be understood or ‘seen’ if the individual searches deeply within themselves and interprets the evidence ‘honestly’ or 'in the right way'. It is mysticism dressed up as objectivity - a claim that there is 'correct' way of seeing, to the exclusion of others. Both sides appeal to a mystical sense of ‘knowing’ or being in the know, in order to arrive at the position that they have arrived at. In both cases, circular logic is imposed i.e. they begin from a foundational view, interpret all evidence within that foundational view, and thereafter declare the foundational view correct or justified. It is tautological; it starts and ends in the same place. Causality isn’t drawn out from the specificities of context – rather, causality is framed within the original, foundational position and over-arching meta-narrative. It is not true analysis. It is the same mystical belief shared by cults, who state the same thing, that is; “if you can’t see the mystical truth, then something is deficient in you” – it is your fault for not being able to see things their way. It is not incumbent upon them to convince you, you have to earn the privilege of sharing the right to the hallowed 'truth'.

Both the left and right have, in their extreme polarisation, become cult-like conspiracy mills in which any objective analysis of an event that occurs in real time, is obscured by historical meta-narratives that claim a hegemony of their own over all present and future events. Yet seldom do the proponents of either side step back to ask the critical question, “if we already know the answer, then what is the point of analysis?” And this is the question that reveals what the right-left mirror constituencies have become – they have become fundamentalists who believe in foundational views. Things as they are, or will be, have no uniqueness, they have no contextuality to those who occupy the poles. Rather, they can only be understood through  foundational filters.

And this is where the problems begin, for the exclusivity of these cults relegate a large number of people to the domain of the politically apathetic. Why? Because apathy is not just a consequence of laziness or political illiteracy, it is also a consequence of the exceptionalism of the right and the left. It results from perceiving that one is unable to engage politically, except if one adopts one of the sides in this bipolar form of democracy. In short, starting in the middle is useless - you have to choose a side. For many, they become apathetic because the moment they express an opinion, either side pounces upon them and rebukes them for not knowing the mystical 'truths' that they should know about 'how the world really works'. And nobody likes to ‘not be in the know’. So shutting up is the first option. The second option is to regard both sides with the same contempt that is reserved for religious cults and to block them out completely. They ruin life by harping on the same chords and singing the same songs, time and time again. In turn, the left and right predictably withdraw to their self-righteous thrones and denounce the state of knowledge and understanding amongst the ‘masses’ in the world, who deceived by the ‘powers that be’ cannot distinguish right from wrong. Very scarcely do they stop to consider the thought that this disengagement, this apathy, might actually result from the degrees of polarisation on the right and left, which leaves the space in the middle a political ‘no-man’s land’. 

To paraphrase the comedian Chris Rock, “Nowadays everybody wants to be down with the gang … I’m a republican, I’m a conservative … no decent person is one thing or another … listen to the issue, let that shit swirl around your head.” It is this gang, or cult mentality that has infected the global political state of debate. It leaves a huge, yawning gap in the middle, where the possibility of finding a third actually way exists. Yet without any legitimate free debate being allowed to grow and mature out of this middle, no new ideas are being born. We oscillate in an endless debate between outdated theories that were written in an age that has long past. It is almost as if we are dragging the past into the present and forcing it upon a new age and era because we have run out of ideas. Instead, all we have is our suspicion of ‘the other’ to draw on, and those who dominate the political spectrum love this as it plays perfectly into the divide and conquer strategy that makes it easy for politiicans to dupe us. It prevents us from formulating a system that can eventually displace rhetoric, and absolves us from dealing the realities of poverty, inequality, oppression, hunger, slavery, war, etc. in any substantive measure. Who needs facts, and textured contextual analysis when the moment you open your mouth, an 'angel' sings the truth through you? What more could you ask for?

Real freedom, according to Slavoj Zizkek in "First As Tragedy, Then as Farce", is the freedom to fundamentally change the political systems we live with. This is a view that appeals to my sensibilities. The freedom we have today, is the freedom to “live as if we were free” (Zizek paraphrased), and Zizek diagnoses correctly that both the left and the right are complicit in landing us in this mess. In the absence of any substantial progress on agreeing what real, fundamental changes are necessary, we are relegated to the domain of the mystical in our politics. We either ‘understand’ or we don’t. Anything else is anathema. The rhetoric of the left and the right becomes ineffable – it needs no authority but itself – it becomes the word of God. This bland, but dangerously polarising political mysticism ultimately undoes freedom by undoing the secularity of freedom itself from within, but employs dogma and rhetoric instead of religion. The foundational views of either side are elevated beyond reproach and are not up for question. It is my contention that this is why we are failing, over and over again, even 11 years into the new century, to formulate a new politics. It is because we are not truly free. And this time, it is not governments who are robbing us of our freedom, but our own propensity for recreating ideological no-go zones that have come to define our lifestyles, personalities and generally, our reason for existence. In short, we have become confused between the freedom to change systems and the freedom to champion a position. The freedom to champion a singular position eventually weighs down like an anchor around our necks, and we become stuck, rigid. What kind of freedom is this? A 'groundhog day' freedom is not freedom. It is the farcical enactment of freedom.

Real freedom allows and enables us to let go of cherished ideals and beliefs (even for a short while), to be able to entertain perspectives from the viewpoint or standpoint of others. If we cannot achieve this then the other remains a monstrous construct, to which the only logical end is the use of force or violence. Where there can be no dialogue, the only recourse to resolve conflict becomes violence, which is easier if the other is your exact opposite in the first place (i.e. an abomination of you). The left-right mirror opposites are like matter and anti-matter. They emerge out of a vacuum, moving backward and forward in time, and then they collide and annihilate, disappearing into the vacuum. Nothing new is created by their emergence, or their disappearance, energy is conserved in the reaction because they are equal opposites to each other. Their entanglement does not result in the creation of anything but their mutually brief existences, and  then they are gone, unable to be grasped or drawn into the real. It is the very anti-thesis of the Gandhian approach, or the approach taken by such luminaries such as Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. In this new world, “love thine enemy” is utilised instrumentally, in much the same way the rhetoric of ‘free speech and debate’ is invoked and the farce of ‘objective analysis’ is made. No real effort is made to interrogate the fundamentals upon which either side stands, by themselves. Instead, what we observe is two cult-like followings who cast barbs at each other and stand in judgement of each other. Not everybody has the stomach for this, and the levels of disengagement and apathy towards local and global politics we see in the world today is a consequence of the failure to allow for true pluralism, where freedom reigns. Rather, politics is led by the exceptionalism and exclusivity of the cult, and if you haven’t had your mystical moment of realisation then you don’t qualify to enter the political domain. Indeed, you are worse off than an island in no-man’s land. It is for this reason that my position is that it is ultimately better to be hated by both the left and the right than to be loved by them, because if you allow them to love you they quickly rob you of your voice. You end up speaking with someone else’s voice, and not your own – that is; the voice of whichever visionary, angel, God or demi-God the cult chooses as its soothsayer at that moment in time.

In the spirit of this piece, you, the reader, have all the freedom in the world to disagree with me. This is not a search for yet another absolute position, but an appeal for greater tolerance, broader debate and for sincere analysis that can help us formulate different ways of enabling our freedom in this new global era. My appeal is that you seek more deeply to understand those positions you might disagree with most. It is not easy to do this, but it does help open up dialogues and debates that have a genuine freedom and not a contrived freedom in which agendas and positions are already worked out. My appeal is that you judge the transition that the globe is undergoing as vigilantly as you can, but allow the context and evidence to inform your judgement, rather than retro-fitting the evidence to a framework you have already decided upon. The more you fail to achieve this on the left and right, the more you alienate those who aren’t ‘believers’ and rob them of their chance to enter the debate. It is your messianic exceptionalism that catalyses apathy. Ultimately, however, I am acutely aware that the majority of you will end up hating me for diagnosing you as part of the problem. I, being hated by both sides, also become part of the problem in this respect, but I welcome your hate. It is nothing new to me. I’d rather you hate me than you love me, because your love is more dangerous than hate.

With Gaddafi Dead, Libya's Biggest Challenges Begin

The death of Muammar Gaddafi has been announced by both sides, and footage of his dead body, at first hunched over headfirst into the street, then turned over with what seemed to be the help of a foot and sprawled out on the street for a head-shot, his hands still tangled up in the sleeves of his shirt above his head. An awful end, as awful as many have had in defence against his repression, and in defence of his regime. It was perhaps a fitting death that resonated with the tragedy of his character - in the end, delusional and self-aggrandizing in equal measure, able only to see his heroic reflection mirrored back at him through the eyes of himself and others. The martyr's death he sought out did not find him. A martyr is only a martyr in the eyes of others, not in his own eyes.

Yet the finality that accompanies the death of a dictator, or the removal of a dictator, is often misleading. The euphoria of freedom, while well deserved in most cases, having followed a difficult struggle to attain it, can create the conditions for the smooth talkers to enter the fray and hijack the newfound freedom, while it is still virginal, untouched and untested. In the desperation to make a show of stability and solidarity to the outside world, many compromises may be made without thinking through the long term consequences sufficiently. This is not to suggest that compromises won't be necessary. Undoubtedly, compromise will play a key role in establishing the bonds and trust that is necessary to forge unity. However, instead of speeding up the transition, now is the time to slow it down. In the rush towards a new dispensation, there is a good chance that Libya might establish agreements (especially over it's oil and natural gas) that may seem worthwhile in the short term (primarily to get funds into the new government), but may in the long term lead to the self-replication of the very same structures and power relationships that enabled their oppression in the first place.

This is the time for Libya to slow down the technocrats who will undoubtedly invade their newly freed country, promising to rebuild infrastructures and ensure prosperity and global competitiveness. Their primary goals will be to get the flow of oil and gas pumping again, and to ensure their share of it for the needs of their respective markets or countries. They will remind Libyans of how the western world views them, and distrusts their commitment to 'global principles', in much the same way as the new dispensation in South Africa was coaxed to privatise and deregulate the South African economy just two years into the new democracy (in 1996). Above all, Libyans will have to recognise that building a new democratic dispensation is not a technical exercise. It is a profoundly socio-cultural and political exercise. Democratic countries can often give the appearance of stability and wealth generation, yet the fundamental values upon which democracy is constructed can be absent. These are empty vessels, where democratic rhetoric prevails while the institutions, power relations and political structures remain the same, or worsen, deepening inequality, corruption and poverty. Putting the technical needs of a democracy first - i.e. rebuilding infrastructures, stimulating consumption, and so forth - while understandable, has been the undoing of many newly founded democracies.

What Libyans should be acutely conscious of, is how adopting policies, positions and trade, regulatory and governance frameworks that may at first seem desirable, may in the end lead to the formation or re-establishment of the very same structures that prevailed in the past, or new forms of the same exploitative hierarchies, structures and processes of governance i.e. the same old wolves disguised in the new sheepskin gear of democratic progress. The sly opportunists will also make their voices heard, now that the danger of death is no longer imminent, and they may even exploit pre-existing divisions to achieve their ends. Now is the time for vigilance in Libya - I must add, a calm vigilance that slows down the pace of change enough for engagement of all the peoples and communities of Libya to be achieved, in formulating their new constitutionality and form of government. Democracy is by no means a faithful partner, it requires rethinking, contemplating, consulting widely and acting with care. At worst, democracy yields a mirage of freedom - an appearance of freedom may prevail, yet it will remain beyond one's grasp.

The Transitional National Council will face difficult challenges now that they will be called upon to ensure that the functions and services of the state is restored, and that society can begin to live again. It is appropriate to celebrate the newfound freedom that Libyans have achieved through half a year of desperate fighting. That is undoubtedly deserved. But Libyans should beware the rush to establish 'normality'. New norms need to be established for democracy to thrive. These are not universal, and should be determined from engagement with citizens from every community, district, town and city in Libya. The Libyan constitution should be drafted by the people of Libya, and not a select group of appointed representatives who specialise in writing new constitutions for virginal democracies. If it is formulated in this way it will not reflect the will of the Libyan people as expressed by themselves. It will be a second-hand constitutionality that runs the risk of being equally foreign to Libyans as the very same regime they fought against.

There will be heavy international pressure to turn the Libyan revolution into a success as quickly as possible so that nations who backed the Libyan rebels can find justification for their decision to intervene. The timing is good, as by comparison the Egyptian revolution seems to be faltering under heavy military rule, and the Syrian and Bahraini peaceful uprisings have been brutally repressed by their regimes, who are still in place. Libya will be touted as an 'example' of how regime change can be effected through intervention. In short, where George Bush Jr failed  through war in the Middle East, Barack Obama will be eager to show success. There is a danger in this, as eagerness to achieve 'success' often results in the show of success rather than substantive, real results. Moreover, the scars of war and conflict will take longer to heal than might at first be appreciated. Re-building society in the aftermath of war requires more than just re-establishing basic services. It requires rebuilding communities that may be deeply affected by the war. It requires reconciling the conflicts and feuds that may remain, even after freedom has been achieved. It also requires broad participation in envisioning what kind of country Libya should be in the future. Failure to approach the future through wary eyes may result in a Libya that Libyans are still not free in, and in which their freedoms are guaranteed on paper, but not in practice. Slowing down, and taking each step carefully, will go further towards ensuring a lasting democracy in Libya.

Urban Environmental Accords

I attended the recent summit for the Urban Environmental Accords held in Gwangju, South Korea, between 11-13 October 2011. The event was attended by a large range of city mayors and governments, most of whom were from developing world contexts. The event served more as an awareness building exercise than an opportunity for negotiation, and while it received heavy media coverage within South Korea, it largely went unnoticed by the international press. To some extent, it seemed to be conducted in the shadow of the upcoming COP17 international climate agreement negotiations forum to be held in Durban later this year. This was a pity, as it is clear that cities are experiencing rapid growth (especially in the developing world), and are already consumers of 80% of global material and energy supply, and producers of 75-80% of GHG emissions. As such, cities themselves hold the key to taking local actions and forging inter-city agreements, forming funding and support mechanisms (e.g. skills transfer) that can help bring about the drastic reductions in emissions that are required for slowing down the effects of global climate change. The lack of attention that the Urban Environmental Accords is receiving (in comparison to COP 17) is symptomatic of the often misplaced belief that is placed in international consensus and cooperation in the era of globalisation. While global agreements are important, it does not stop cities from making agreements with each other, and innovating new funding and cooperation mechanisms that are required in light of the uncertainty that centralised funding of carbon trading faces post 2012. Indeed, this is what the World Bank itself seemed to be encouraging in it's presentation at the summit.

A key issue that was raised at the summit, was the difficulty of accounting for emissions savings and reductions, and the difficulty of negotiating the bureaucracy of centralised emission tradings schemes. In particular, developing world countries and cities often lack the institutional capacity and skills that are required to access these funds, effectively rendering the process useless to them. In respect of this, simplified procedures and protocols have been put in place for city-level emissions trading by the World Bank, so "in theory" city-level trading can now commence. It remains to be seen to what level these theoretical arrangements can be actualised in practice, but it is a good sign that efforts have been made to enable emissions trading at the city level. 

What was clear from the discussions and presentations that were made at the summit, is that cities have an overwhelmingly large role to play in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and that this role is being accepted by city governments. Many are aligning their infrastructural, economic and human competence development strategies with the goals of low-carbon consumption, production and waste in mind. Achieving the behavioural changes that are required for low and zero carbon living to take root, was also recognised as a core goal. In short, business-as-usual in cities has to change, and city governments are grappling with the question of how best to make infrastructural changes that will enable a low-carbon future. 

In respect of infrastructure, the core themes that were dealt with at the summit include; building energy efficiency, waste management, sustainable urban transport, water and wastewater, and urban ecosystem management. Notably, even though food in European cities (for example) account for up to 30% of their ecological footprint, the food sector was not formally dealt with at the summit. This, despite the high levels of awareness that middle class, global consumers themselves have displayed in the food choices they make and how that affects the global climate and environmental sustainability. Over and above the particular themes, it was also widely recognised that integrated approaches towards carbon reduction and sustainability were required at the city level i.e. approaches that can help address the symptoms of the prevailing urban divide, such as poverty, inequality, unemployment, lack of access to basic services, lack of mobility, and so forth. Integrated approaches that can address social, economic and ecological concerns are necessary to ensure sustainability in the long term.

At the end of the summit, there was a lack of concrete agreements and arrangements for how to stimulate and maintain inter-city cooperation, and to put agreements in place that could be monitored and adapted over time. Rather, the main directive seemed to be to raise the importance of city-level issues at COP17. It is difficult to imagine how this will be possible amidst the din that will ensue at COP17, where myriad and diverse interests will gather, each with their own particular sub-agenda to champion. It may well prove that the cities agenda may be lost within this tangle of competing interests, and remain under-appreciated for its importance in actualising real change at local levels that can lead to significant global emission reductions. Cities have the potential to steam ahead on the emissions reduction front, and to take the lead that many national governments have been unable to. In this respect, although the summit was useful in resurrecting the Urban Environmental Accords, a great deal more work remains to be done between cities themselves. The good news is that they do not have to wait for international agreements to proceed. A framework already exists in which they can begin participating in emissions reductions, and earning carbon emission reduction credits for these activities. 

Rebels Reach Tripoli & Encounter a Mongol Retreat

The Libyan drama reached new heights on Sunday night when rebels poured into the capital city, Tripoli, where Muammar Gaddafi and his close supporters have held out since the beginning of the conflict. It almost seemed as though the rebels had entered a vacuum, as pro-Gaddafi troops and supporters retreated into the neighbourhoods and districts of Tripoli where they could dig in and maintain their resistance to the sweeping changes that have gripped the country since early this year. 

For six months since the revolt in Benghazi, battles have raged across the landscape in a back and forth series of retreat and attack performed by both pro-Gaddafi troops and the rebels alike. The attack on Tripoli, which came from all sides, including the sea, took pro-Gaddafi supporters by surprise - but it stands to reason that pro-Gaddafi forces would have anticipated an attack on Tripoli commencing at some stage, and would have made plans to receive such an attack.

At first, this retreat, absorb and attack strategy seemed to be the core strategy of the pro-Gaddafi camp. Like many militaries, using the mongol retreat strategy makes sense in two ways. Firstly, it damages the psychology of over-eager combatants who confuse the retreat with surrender and are taken by surprise when the mongols would, after days of retreating, turn around and attack. Secondly, where the enemy is severely resource limited, they expend a lot of resources in the chase and extending the series of attacks and retreats is guaranteed to wear down their available resources. This strategy made sense at the outset, when weapons and fuel shortages amongst the rebels was in question, and their untrained, young, rag-tag groups showed a great deal of inexperience in the field.

Yet over the past six months, the rebels have been financed, trained, equipped and supported by NATO-led forces in their campaign to reach Tripoli. They have advanced, retreated and re-advanced upon the cities that line the route to Tripoli, and have finally reached the city. Yet the absence of any resistance as they entered the city may be a consequence of two factors - firstly that they took the city by surprise, and secondly that pro-Gaddafi forces inside Tripoli may well have gambled upon a back-up plan that would meet the inevitable rebel advance into the city with a plan to absorb them into the city, frustrate them through urban warfare on unfamiliar territory and eventually surprise them somehow through a hidden attack. Gaddafi's son Khamis, who commands feared ultra-loyal Gaddafi troops, may be the one upon whom these hopes are resting. 

After claims that two of Gaddafi's sons had been captured on Sunday, it now seems that Saif El Islam was not captured in the first place, and Gaddafi's other supposedly captured son - Mahomed - has 'escaped'. Saif El Islam made a showing to the press, who are located in the Rixos hotel (a hotel that is very near the Gaddafi compound), surrounded by small groups of supporters who cheered him on, giving the impression that he was freely operating within the city. However, it is clear, that his freedom is now restricted to the areas in which his family still enjoys support, and it would have been relatively easy for him to make an appearance at the Rixos hotel in which the press is located. Indeed, it is convenient that the international press were located so close to the Gaddafi compound, as it complicates efforts to attack the compound without restraint. A misfire here or there could result in the deaths of journalists, which would draw international condemnation for whoever misfires in their direction. Moreover, even after the Libyan state television station has been captured by rebels, Gaddafi's son's can still enjoy access to the international press, and spread misinformation and create confusion over the unfolding saga to their ultimate advantage. They have the dual benefit of a human shield, and access to the international press.

It seems unlikely, however, that the pro-Gaddafi strategy is to win against the rebels. Instead, it seems that their strategy is to drag out the conflict for as long as possible, so that it becomes either unbearable or slows into a stalemate. Already, pro-Gaddafi fighters have been reported to be using heavy artillery againt the rebels. Their objective is not a 'victory for the people' as their rhetoric espouses. Rather, their goal is totalitarianism at all costs. It does not matter whether Libya splits into two, or into myriad tribal factions, their goal is to hold their ground because they have nowhere else to go.

There is also the mythology of Gaddafi to draw on, that is; as the mythological defeator of the West, and unifier of Africa - an anti-crusader who has the mettle to take on the hegemonic rulers of the world who have trampled upon the rights of the poor and ex-colonised. The symbolism of Gaddafi is not just an act - it is clear that it is a deluded reality for Gaddafi himself, in addition to his sons and supporters. This in itself is nothing new. There are many leaders in history who have made grotesque decisions because they have a sense that they are 'annointed' by God and the people for a special purpose, including George Bush, who went to war on Iraq with fabricated or unreliable evidence to end the rule of another one of the annointed, Saddam Hussein. At the heart of these mythologies lies the lack of the ability to be accountable for one's actions. This is not unique to Gaddafi or his sons alone, no matter how much their actions and views may be despised and it is true that this mythology prevails today even amongst those who would not voice their support for Gaddafi.

Obfuscation, and not military might, is behind the real strategy of the pro-Gaddafi supporters that are still remaining. The less we are able to tell exactly what is going on in Libya (and Tripoli in particular) the more room there is to contest the victories that are proclaimed by the rebels. The press are unable to make clear judgements on what is transpiring, and amongst the confusion, it is easy for the pro-Gaddafi camp to claim that the nature of the conflict can be boiled down to their word against others. Indeed, Gaddafi and his cronies have laid down the template for other dictators worldwide who may be facing popular resistance, and they have taken heed. The Syrian regime has been allowed to sustain a low-level war against 'rebel' neighbourhoods and towns, and have employed the very same rhetoric as the pro-Gaddafi supporters have. What is emerging, is a handbook for the remaining dictator regimes on the planet - how to use the press and multi-media to maintain confusion and mixed messages long enough to survive popular uprisings. In this sense, the battle for Libya is not just about Libya alone (even though it should be). It has global implications, and the aged dictators of the world are paying close attention. The mongol retreat seems to have consistently been the key strategy of the pro-Gaddafi forces, and they haven't abandoned the hope that their suicidal strategy will ultimately yield a victory. They are hoping that making enough smoke might just convince their opponents and the world that they have enough firepower to see this through to a victorious end.

In the end, it is difficult to concieve of a scenario where the rebel, pro-democracy forces give up and go home. It would mean that the state apparatus would be unleashed on them and their families in retribution for their disobedience. Many would die, and many would have to flee. This is indeed an endgame, and while it may drag on for some time - in the same way the whole conflict has - it is an  endgame for both sides. There has to be a winner and a loser, and if Gaddafi wins the message that will go out to the Arab Spring and the rest of the world is that 'might is right', and that ultimately we live in a world where power cannot be challenged or overcome on humanitarian grounds. That, is what the ultimate message will be if the rebels fail to win. The consequences of this will be the same kind of resistance we have seen emerge amongst the palestinians - where suicidal guerilla attacks becomes the avenue for asserting the power of the powerless and the conflict enters into an infinite well of deceit and misrepresentation out of which there is no way out.

Gaddafi forces have been defeated throughout the country, and his regime has suffered mass defections amongst the leadership and his armed forces over the past six months. It is highly unlikely that the 'rebels' would simply give up and allow themselves and their families to be slaughtered for their efforts in turn. For all the talk of NATO support, the reality is that the rebels have endured high losses in human lives and have fought the ground war they asked for with great difficulty. They are not professional soldiers, and have had to learn how to do battle with far superior forces within a timespan of six months. Their growth in numbers has only increased as the battles have intensified, and despite their heavy losses they seem united in one goal - to get rid of the Gaddafi regime - even though there may not be much clarity on what comes afterwards. Every bit of energy seems to be going into winning victory first - perhaps this is understandible, as if any semblance of the regime remains in place there will be no real democracy to speak of in Libya. 

      

    

The Murdoch Cream Pie Inquisition: A Broader Perspective!

Despite what the news panel pundits may say, the Murdochs and Rebecca Brooks pulled off a victory yesterday. Their appearances before the UK parliamentary 'spanish inquisition', left the 'inquisition' looking rather toothless ... unable to penetrate the fortress of corporate governance, which itself has largely become the practise of a sad collection of manoeuvres designed to externalise risk. Simply put, 'passing the buck' into an oblivion of doors within doors, it appears, seems to defeat the effectiveness of such parliamentary efforts to reveal the truth behind activities in the private sector. In some senses, a new mafia - the propoganda mafia - had its first public showing today; a family oligarchy of sorts - a perfect picture of soap opera proportions. Perhaps the politicians had underestimated the power of the propaganda-makers, as every question was expertly evaded - with the utmost sincerity of course - frustrating the proceedings into an endless series of veiled accusations and rebuttals that resembled a never-ending baseline rally in the longest tennis game in history. The only truly exciting moment was the cream pie moment; when a member of the public drove a shaving cream filled pie holder into Rupert Murdochs face while yelling something about him being a 'greedy billionaire'. 

Yet Newscore's share prices have risen on the New York Stock Exchange, "bargain hunting", according to Hala Gorani of CNN - prospecting on the survival of the  'too big to fail' Murdoch family media empire. After all, 'News of the World' is just 1% of the entire business operation that fall under the media empire that has had a profoundly significant impact upon the politics of both the USA and the UK in particular, but with tentacles that reach far into the politics of countries far removed from the centres of global power. It is truly a global media corporation - one that takes political positions and exercises power in the political domain with deliberation and purpose, and as Murdoch would have us believe, principle.

Rupert Murdoch is truly a global political force to be reckoned with, one that could quickly gain the ear of almost any sitting president (or even monarch or dictatorship) in the world. His calculated confession, expressing how 'humbling' this day was, the 'most' humbling day of his life ... revealed what was in reality a multiple message from Murdoch - he is both humbled, appalled, betrayed ... and of course, not responsible (primarily) for any of the illegal actions taken by members of his company. The 'company' as a legal persona, has been penalised ... it is no more, but the human beings who made the decisions are not responsible. What a fascinating quandary is thrust upon the unsuspecting public. Is it the individuals within the company who are responsible, or is it the real-life principles and practises that govern their behaviours responsible? Or is it both? 

Make no mistake; Clark Kent, Peter Parker and Lois Lane were all hauled before the court of public opinion today. And no doubt those in the public who are outraged will get more coverage, but there is a large majority of people out there who think, "well what would you do in that position - I think she handled it pretty well considering ...", and the old 'spiderman cum puppet-master' and the rookie journalist both played out their heroic roles; taking bullets from each other to the end. Not to be outdone, when the cream pie made its way into Rupert Murdoch's face, the wife of Rupert Murdoch leaped to his defence, planting what seemed to be a right hook (not left - as our ineffective committee later noted) upon the protester - who, by the way, acted in the true tradtion of the 'courts of public opinion', establishing a 'kangaroo court' atmosphere just long enough for the publics' lust for revenge to be sated through this small measure of humiliation being meted out upon the media moghul. In reality, his sullen receipt of the cream pie may have actually endeared the public to him, his age, vulnerability and humiliation becoming all too apparent amidst the interrogative atmosphere of the 'inquisition'.

But the real story here is not about the media alone. It is about public institutions, and how their cultures have changed in the transition to the neo-liberal 'market economics' era. The grand reduction has involved explaining human behaviour and society at large as governed by the irreducible and inherent 'self-interest' of human individuals, groups and societies. Yet this is largely an economic theory-led misconception, that superficially draws on evolutionary biology to establish what is falsely put forward as a 'Darwinian' perspective. The truth is that Darwin identified that chance mutation and variation had to come together to provide evolutionary advantage. Mutation and chance variation could just as easily go the other way, like cancer cells do, escalating the trajectory towards the end, robbing life instead of giving it.

And that is what happened with sector institutions and organisations all over the globe over the past thirty years in general, but over the last twenty years in particular. All institutions, from the military, to the state, and to the private sphere (consisting of individuals, organisations, business and enterprise) and civil society have all transformed signficantly over the past twenty years. Nowadays, ex trade union leaders are billionaires, and NGO's see themselves as funding and consultancy rivals instead of partners. All of them have political ambitions. Like it or not, we are already in the era of the transdisciplinarian - senior police officers and senior press officials swop places in each others industries without raising an eyebrow, kind of like military-defence industry personnel swops; appointments that service the dual interests of the sectors whether it be to the detriment of society as a whole or not.    

Bush and Blair both ushered in the era of the media politican reigning off the dumbed down vote. Blair was a consummate master of the 'tv politican' role; one that involved giving the public critical soundbites that crystallised the essence of their political positions. Bush wasn't nearly as successful outside of the USA. While Blair played the media field with ease, Bush was a disaster on the international stage,  but working within his limitations, he still managed to reach the 'average Joe' in the United States. This would prove enough for two terms, if you believe he actually won the second term (you know, that whole Florida thing!). Their collective responsibility for the changes the world has endured cannot be underestimated. They were key players in the propagation of a system of operation that prescribed to the idea that politics was a game where one 'played to win'. With their grand, over-funded campaigns they have set the precedent for modern democratic elections as primarily dependent on the amount and type of press airtime and coverage they are able to capture. They had their partners ... and Rupert Murdoch was one of the most powerful that they ever had, in terms of ensuring their political survival.

Despite all the carefully thought out books on 'management theory' and organisational dynamics, the real trend was towards the embodiment of power positions and dynamics within and between organisations, sectors and institutions. The real change was one where access to, and the ability to wield power, as an imperative, became paramount in pursuing 'success' as the ambitious have named it. That is, success that means triumphing within the system of corrupt governance, or slightly outside of it at best. And it is success that matters at all costs - an everest that needs to be conquered, scaled at all costs in the pursuit of the perfect life. It is, in reality, a Greek tragedy in the making. And that is what has unfolded across the world since the late 90s. Enron, Anderson, Xerox, etc. were the first to fall, violating the markets with the 'creative accounting' that everybody else, ironically, was also pursuing in their own sectors and organisations.

Plausible deniability is everything in the corporate world, and the Murdoch Cream Pie Inquisition have had their first taste of how elusive those in charge of corporate governance can prove themselves to be. What the politicians are either ignorant of, or themselves fail to understand, is that in the great majority of institutions and organisations today, the ability to externalise risk, responsiblity and blame amongst corporate leaders knows no bounds. They can frustrate anyone enough to escape responsibility and have an uncanny ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the many they know share their values and principles ... that ultimately it is each man for himself, and we stick together only when we need to. It is not a value system or set of principles from which healthy social or economic systems are born - it is a subset masquerading as a whole, a simulation of reality ... a good act, but an act nonetheless.

Yet accountability is felt more by those shoplifting food items than those in power. The simple fact is that if you're wealthy and powerful you can evade prosecution and responsibility for the worst of crimes. The banking system is a good example of this. They created toxic debt collatoralisation instruments and perpetuated them. With the trust of investors and homeowners exploited to the hilt they proceeded to collapse the entire global financial system, largely without consequence to themselves. They have been refinanced, given bonuses and given the go-ahead to invent more crazy schemes as long as they remain 'too big to fail' and no doubt they will oblige. No doubt they will find even more crazy schemes to stay afloat during the crisis, and as they've already shown, little regard will be made for social well-being on the whole in the process.

The same can be said of the military, health and educational institutions - their increased privatisation, and institutions within the business, industry, commerce and finance and banking sectors. Simply put, they are all run along the same ethics that govern corporate organisational conceptual frameworks, and have similarly created areas in which plausible deniability can be created (admittedly, to various degrees of effectiveness - some powerful individuals do go to jail). The world is dominated by diverse and plural realities across spatial and temporal scales of difference. These heavily inform the context of everyday popular reality governing the lives of those located at the centres and fringes of global power. Yet, the broader changes that institutions have undergone have had, and continue to have, a profound effect on lives everywhere across the globe.

Legalised torture is one example where the military has utterly failed as an institution, and it is not just the US military who is to blame here - there is an entire global system of military leaderships that wield torture as an instrument of power over its charges, negating the goal of ensuring the protection of society. Organisations employ people with contracts that include phrases that require them to go above and beyond their eight hours a day, eating into their rest, recreation and family lives leaving workers and employees stressed and more prone to health problems. The health sector has become (not unlike the banking sector) a collection of financial mechanisms designed to create profits that far outstrip the value provided to those requiring healthcare and inflates healthcare costs beyond measure. Educational and research institutions have attempted to 'corporatise' research operations with dismal results - endless trains of useless research that has no real impact beyond the organisations themselves. NGO's have also attempted to simulate corporate governance, leading to a 'clientilism' that in practise serves their own needs as organisations more than the public interests they claim to represent. They have become self-interested, risk-externalising 'machines' that operate with blinkered vision where it suits them. Principle, and creating real value, come last.

Global press monopolies have a large amount of power over political and business establishments alike. Yet, they are operating by the very same principles that lie at the very core of the logic that underpins conventional organisational models in different sectors alike. The real problem is not with the press, but with the institutional cultures that have been cultivated within society, and which has filtered into organisations across sector divides. It is the prevailing system of underlying assumptions, often held as intrinsic 'truths' that lead to the behaviours that lie at the core of essentially corrupt behaviours, and the real problem is this underlying system of truisms and our inability to interrogate them. It is the pervasive assumptions that govern the systems of organisational governance that have led to this mess, and singling out the press for punishment is ultimately a distraction from the real foundations that lead all sectors, from banking to healthcare, to operate unscrupulously. Singling out one sector for the Guantanomo treatment won't change the rules of the game. We can either purposively transition, or wait out the inevitable collapse or revolution that will make broader change necessary. Perhaps a full global collapse of institutions is necessary before a comprehensive rethink enters the political and economic arenas. One thing is sure, the problem is the deeply entrenched underlying values and beliefs that govern organisational behaviours that lie beneath all the politically correct rhetoric, and the circus we witnessed yesterday is hardly likely to make any real difference to how things are done by those in power in the world we live in.

. 

 

The Vuvuzela Election: Where Rhetoric Reigns & Labour Dithers

The 2011 local elections swept South Africa away in what seemed like another world cup production. The same 'fever' was in evidence across large swathes of the country. No longer is door to door politicking the favoured means of winning over voters. Nowadays, mass rallies are not platforms for visioning and re-envisioning the future of South Africans and all those who live within it. Rather, hooting car cavalcades and mass 'pop concert' styled rallies are the new modus operandi of the South African political elite, who have learnt that they do not need to listen to voters ... all they have to do is stir up their deepest insecurities and channel their frustration at an easy-to-identify enemy.

Election 'fever' even has the opposition leader, Helen Zille, out in the streets getting her knees up high, ‘toy-toying’ amongst the crowds; attempting to win over black voters who are discontented with lack of service delivery and rampant corruption at street committee and ward levels which the ANC has been reluctant to acknowledge. Similarly, Julius Malema (leader of the ANC youth league) whips up the marginalised black youth into a frenzy of nostalgia about a 'revolution' that in truth never occurred, stirring up even more race hatred than ever before, splitting the populace into black and white sectors that are irreconcilable - the very anti-thesis of the ANC that promised to bring a new unity to South Africa moving forward from 1994. Ironically, the DA now seeks to sell itself as the safeguarders of the legacy of Nelson Mandela, and instead of differentiating themselves from the ANC have adopted the same policies as the ANC, seeking only to do better than the ANC at delivering the same promises as their opponents. 

It is an interesting, if vexing time to be living in South Africa. Populism reigns in the absence of intelligent debate, and rhetoric reigns where leaders fear to tread. That is, where our problems are most complex we devote the least intelligence to solving them. A few days ago, Jacob Zuma declared upon visiting a location riddled with service delivery problems that he 'for the first time' understood the issues around service delivery. An appropriate question for the president in that regard is, 'where has he been for the past 17 years?" I'm sure he's been on every election trail, so why the late discovery of something that all South Africans have been aware of for a long time? How can he possibly only understand these issues now?

Electioneering has become the most prominent indicator of how farce has replaced politics in South Africa. No longer do individuals matter. All that matters are the statistics of victory. Like a soccer match, winning is everything. It matters little what the dimensions of the win are ... numbers are everything .... right? Wrong! The numbers can be used to tell many stories, but critically, if I was a shareholder of the ANC I would be worrying, while if I was a shareholder of the DA, I would be celebrating. The ANC has posted percentage losses in many municipalities while the DA has made significant percentage gains for what was thought of as an all-white party, and there is no hiding from this.

Moreover, the ANC itself has recognised that its own voter base did not come out in their full numbers. Yet, the ANC boasts (as did the head of the coalition of unions (COSATU), Zwelinzima Vavi this morning on television) that its voters would rather abstain rather than vote for an alternative. In itself, this is an empty boast ... it's real meaning is that we have not established a true democracy where the alternatives exist for frustrated left oriented voters to make their voices heard. It may be argued that COSATU itself is responsible for this lack of left oriented representation, as by remaining within the ANC as part of a coalition between the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the ANC leadership it has considerably distilled the might of South African workers, worsening their plight.

COSATU was complicit (even though it raised objection) in the decision to further privatise and de-regulate the South African economy in 1996, that has directly resulted in massive job losses amongst workers and rising unemployment way before the crisis of 2008 arrived upon the doorsteps of the planet. Yet, in a twist of logic comprehensible only to those directing the 'party line' of the ANC, Vavi hailed the election results stating that ruling parties all over the world have lost position since the financial collapse of 2008 and it is testament to the ANC's strengths that voters still gave the ANC a large majority win overall. Hogwash; the ANC is guaranteed the majority vote because the over-riding perception amongst loyal ANC voters is that no viable alternative exists.

It is precisely the unholy trinity between the ANC, COSATU and business (not the SACP who are in reality small players in the bigger scheme of ANC governance) that has created a power block that has helped establish a klepto-elitocracy that has hastened the migration towards even greater socio-economic inequality than existed during apartheid. COSATU no longer exclusively represents the interests of workers, but has to walk the ANC party line ... a line that may end up being a gangplank for COSATU in the future. South Africa has the highest Gini coefficient in the world and unemployment sits at 25%. Yet ostentatious wealth knows no bounds amongst the monied and each year more school leavers join the ranks of the unemployed poor. If the history of South African politics is anything to go by, this situation is unsustainable and it is only a matter of time before frustration at lack of service delivery and the exacerbated conditions of the poor return to the forefront of South African politics.

Moreover, it is the close alliance that COSATU enjoys with the ANC that deprives the poor voters who abstained from voting from having a viable choice. COSATU, the largest power broker within the ANC seems more concerned with its survival as an institution of power rather than a body that represents labour-oriented left wing politics. Instead, Vavi blames the sway towards the DA in the Western Cape on minorities whose fear of the ‘swart gevaar’ (or black danger) is informing their voting choices. In one fell swoop, those who were once thought of as an inseparable component of the struggle against apartheid are now declared minorities with racist fears – a slap in the face for those who, in the new South Africa, are now ‘not black enough’ and conversely, ‘not white enough’ to be trusted by either side – a mere appendage (in Verwoerds words) to be valued only if they vote your way. 

The majority coloured and creolised Western Cape, instead of being upheld as the rainbow in the rainbow nation, are cast aside because yet again, they are not ‘pure’ enough to join the ranks of either side. The scores of textile workers who lost their jobs after the ANC lowered trade barriers with Asia, allowing cheap Asian imports to destroy the textile and clothing industry in the Western Cape did not get a mention from Vavi. I suspect he’s forgotten they ever existed. It is Jacob Zuma that Vavi proclaimed he is willing to “kill for” in the previous election, and to whom his loyalty remains untarnished. Vavi challenged the previous ANC president, Thabo Mbeki, far more vociferously and regularly than he has challenged Jacob Zuma since he became president – yet the plight of workers has only worsened. So why the silence?

Since 1994, the number of union leaders who have joined the private sector, taking up large-paying positions is in itself a discredit to its role as a worker rights based party. Nowadays, scaling the ranks of political institutions such as COSATU or the ANC constitute one-way tickets to material success ... this is undeniable. The youth league is more reminiscent of the 'young republicans' in the US ... as they corner tenders and are invited onto boards, licking up that gravy. As a reminder to those who may have forgotten, Brett Kebble put together over 80 deals in two years that all involved youth league members. Conveniently, when gold prices soared this year all the noises they were making about nationalising the until now poorly performing gold sector, died down. 'Nationalisation' was just a bid for a quick payout. Indeed, this is what Jeremy Cronin of the SACP himself argued in response to the youth leagues call for nationalisation.

Absolute power of the ANC is an invitation to absolute corruption and absolute hegemony over business, the state, media and the workers. It drowns out all space for a truly democratic representation to emerge in South Africa. Indeed, the ANC would rather that disgruntled supporters abstain from the ballot than go out and exercise their hard won right and have viable alternatives that sit to the left of the ANC's current centrist position on socio-economy. What irony governs the logic of ruling party was unimaginable during apartheid, where the right to vote promised freedom from oppression and apathy. In the last election, another ANC representative boasted that the newspapers would not impact on the election because ANC supporters don't read ... this kind of logic works against everything that the struggle for liberation worked for. Indeed, it is disrespectful of the voting populace. We have a right to expect more from our leaders.

But rhetoric has a power all its own without having to make sense and that is what makes it appealing. When one has rhetoric on one's side, one does not need logic. All that's needed is a reliable hailer through which emotions and nostalgia can be roused, and like puppeteers they can pull on our heartstrings, promise us an enduring loyalty, and we, like a battered wife, welcome the abuser back into our homes, hug them and make peace with a plight that augers no good for our children. Rhetoric, and our inability to discern it from the genuine, consigns us and our children to life in a polarised society that will never become whole, and will never attain freedom. And so in the end, it is Hendrik Verwoerd whose legacy remains intractable in the South African psyche. As a friend of mine describes it, the “Verwoerdian software” remains within us, while only rhetoric remains outside of us. Both are empty of meaning, devoid of vision and are dangerous crutches upon which to limp forward. If this election can be named, it should be named the ‘vuvuzela election’, as there was a lot of loud noises that remained mostly unintelligible.

In reality, could either the DA or the ANC have remained the same for 17 long years? This is perhaps the most critical question to answer if one wants to unlock the obstacles to democratic representation in a future South Africa. Undoubtedly they have changed, and just as the entire country is still in transition, so are these parties. My bold prediction is that in the absence of a viable left-wing alternative to the ANC the DA will continue to grow in strength. It does not have the luxury of having the undying loyalty of the majority, and will hence be under more pressure than the ANC to provide a broad forum of representation whose politics can evolve with the multi-faceted needs of the populace. 

By necessity, the DA will have to be much more adaptive in how it concieves of itself and what politics it represents. Their current political standing, heavily criticised for being pro-business and apathetic towards the poor, will have to change if they wish to grow, and it most certainly will change. It may even re-brand itself as a 'new labour' of sorts (like Tony Blairs business-savvy labour) and if frustrated voters reach a point where they do not feel threatened by giving an alternative party a chance to govern they may win enough votes to rule in coalition in some of the major regions of South Africa.

What remains is for COSATU to show its cards. Indeed, if it cannot take up the leadership role it has in earnest, it isn't difficult to concieve of a DA run South Africa within 20 years. South Africans are not lovers of behemoths, and have a distinct liking for underdogs. If the DA transforms radically over the next five years and becomes a true multi-racial, gender transformed and multi-class alternative that people feel represented within, it is going to be increasingly difficult to hurl "madame" insults at the party. 

The DA's key challenge is to break through the barrier of perceptions that was built up during the Tony Leon 'fight back' era. Instead, the DA needs to become a 'fight with' party that wins the trust and support of the broader populace. Window-dressing, corporate style, isn't going to clinch it. The DA needs to have female and black (in the inclusive sense of 'black') leaders who have an aura of trustworthiness about them. They need to provide a forum where the youth can build a vision for the future of the country and the party, instead of feeling compelled to join the Malema crusade for lack of political alternatives. 

Ironically, the ANC still tends to sell itself as an underdog, even after 17 years of ruling unchallenged. Yet this ruse is fast unravelling ... and five more years of worsening conditions for the poor and unemployed in the face of ostentatious wealth being enjoyed by a few, is hardly likely to improve the plight of the ANC. The ANC has a proud history but a shaky future. It has strayed considerably from its original status as a liberator and is fast becoming an immovable behemoth that dictates rather than listens, and is a hundred percent confident of its unshakeability and right to rule. 

It is difficult to picture a liberated, diverse and democratic South Africa emerging from what is effectively a one-party state, and it is highly concievable that without humble introspection it will be gassed by its own hot air. One of the favourite phrases of ANC comrades is "our people". I have come to view this term with the disdain it deserves. The people of South Africa do not 'belong' to the ANC; the ANC belongs to them, and as long as the ANC perceives this relationship as configured the wrong way round it will be sowing the seeds of its own destruction. After all, the phrase "our people" is as offensive as the dictators of the Middle East who have no shame in referring to themselves as 'fathers' of the nation. It reveals a patriarchal attitude that relegates citizens to subjects and robs them of their true power as a society that owns its government and its state. 

Ultimately, COSATU's reluctance to break the alliance and take up the mantle of leadership within the broader political sphere is what will feed the growth of the DA. Indeed, Vavi's nightmare (i.e. of a President Zille) may become a reality in large part due to the fact that COSATU remains within the ANC alliance, sheltering itself from direct leadership on issues that concern the left. Should COSATU find the courage to step outside the ANC's rank and file it will find itself more powerful than before, and with a range of options as a kingmaker in a coalition-oriented democracy. 

Not only will the state of democracy be healthier, but coalition politics forces parties to both perform well, and compromise where necessary to achieve power. This, as opposed to a one party state, is far truer to the ideals and practicalities of ensuring democracy, and COSATU would then be in a position to hold both the ANC and the DA to account as it pleases as it will be courted by both. The independence that COSATU would enjoy to represent worker concerns from outside the ANC will free it up to be a proper left-wing party while the ANC will still remain a centrist convenor of different interests. Only, in this new world, the ANC will actually have to work for its votes and alliances rather than it being guaranteed, "until Christ comes" as they so arrogantly put it. In truth, there will be no true democracy in South Africa until government can change hands. It is not 1994 that we should celebrate, but the day when a new party is voted in and allowed to take the reigns of power. The alternative is not revolutionary bliss but unaccountable government.

COSATU is the most critical key to the future of democracy in South Africa. Without a true left wing party the DA will most likely take the most important metropoles in the next ten years, and the ANC will increasingly revert to courting rural voters in Kwazulu Natal, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. They may even conduct a few land invasions a la Zanu PF to maintain support, yet the future will remain bleak. And when all the cheering and ululations are over each election time, only the reality of one-party dictatorship will remain, to the detriment of all those who live in South Africa and on its borders. In order to move forward, one needs to relinquish the past, lest you stay trapped in a prison of ghosts and demons that no longer exist outside of your mind. The same is true of political parties, and the ANC is in danger of becoming trapped forever in a singular psychology and is too blind to lead anybody into the future and so constantly revisits the past.

To do what is right for the plight of the poor in a healthy democracy is the real struggle that is unfolding in South Africa. No longer does the Apartheid regime present any threat, and no longer does it exist ... yet the ANC conjures up its spectre to scare black voters into voting for it, sowing racial distrust at every turn and with every phrase and comment - a shamefully pathetic trick to turn on the voters, and one which cannot possibly be sustainable or inclusive. The real struggle is no longer about overcoming Apartheid but on building the future promised in the Freedom Charter. 

Doing what is necessary to achieve this is staying true to the struggle that still remains and which people endure on a daily basis in this vastly unequal society. Propping up a one-party state has nothing to do with this struggle, but has everything to do with maintaining institutional power bases. Should COSATU have the courage to move out of the ANC and represent the left in South Africa it will be staying true to the real objectives of the struggle itself, and perhaps bring about the kind of democracy that South Africans will have the faith in to go out and vote for. In the absence of action from COSATU the vacuum in representation will be taken up by other parties, and this could quite possibly do the left a disservice in the long term, rendering it powerless either way.

It is the absence of COSATU as a full player in the political spectrum that is driving black voters towards the DA. With no viable alternatives to back, they are drawn towards the only party that is actively eating into the ANC vote, and through which they can give voice to their discontentment with ANC performance (note: not vision, but performance). The unholy trinity of labour, government and business that the ANC has become can only damage democracy in the long term and erode the very freedom that those who fought for liberation sacrificed their lives for. 

By choosing to prop up what is essentially a one-party democracy, COSATU is creating the conditions for the DA to take up the vacuum that is clearly growing at the core of South African democracy. Should COSATU grow the courage to split from the ANC and court it on more equal terms, it will represent a significant new phase in South Africa's transition to democracy - one that can refresh politics in South Africa and possibly save it from a downward slide into apathetic one-party rule.

***This post was lightly edited on 7-2-2016. Paragraph spacing was changed; and the article was edited to reflect that COSATU did originally raise objections within the tripartite alliance to the decision to liberalise and de-regulate the South African economy in  1996..

What Comes After Osama Bin Laden?

The cheers and celebrations that rang out in the US at the news of Osama Bin Laden's assassination by US Navy seals is understandible. A whole new generation of youngsters have lived with the face of Osama Bin Laden as the mortal enemy of american society,  hidden away in the everlurking shadows, waiting to pounce upon the ever-suspicious populace the moment they allow themselves to drop their guards.  I am sure that whenever mortal enemies of one side are eliminated, some level of glass-clinking and congratulation occurs on the other side. I am sure when Adolf Hitler died there were many celebrations across the world because it signalled that the war was nearing its end. Yet the uproarious celebration of death at the hands of other human beings by whatever means tends to be distasteful in some measure.

And moreover, in this case it is premature. It is not by any means the end to Osama Bin Laden, but is another chapter that will be taken up in the narratives that compose the mythology of Osama Bin Laden. His followers and admirers will view his death at the hands of American navy seal soldiers as an assassination, and as an unfair execution of justice. Moreover, the question of what comes after Osama Bin Laden is not straightforward by any means. Revenge killing tends to provoke an unending dance of death between enemies, and the cycles of conflict are only perpetuated through revenge. After all, it is not an act of peace, but an act of hatred. Where there is no resolution, the cycles of violence begatting violence don't find an end. Already, there are early indications that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when killed so many believe that justice was not served with his killing - and the conspiracy mill has swung into action across the world.  

I am no expert in Al Qaeda but it is clear that such a complex organisational structure holds many potentialities. Yet due to the distributed and diverse nature of Al Qaeda's many subsidiary regional and national bodies across the world, what Al Qaeda will become in the future and what modes of operation it may adopt is not clear. In addition, the Arab Spring, constituted of multiple revolutions and widespread civil revolts with the purpose of bringing about revolution of the state, will also present challenges to the vision espoused by Al Qaeda. That is, the restoration of the islamic caliphate and the global rule of islamic law may not be consistent with the gains that the revolutions of the Arab Spring may bring to the citizens in terms of civil liberties and human rights for groups and individuals. Al Qaeda may end up being squeezed from both sides, so to speak, and the need for new strategies and innovations will increase significantly, as they are forced to adapt to the new and perhaps quick-changing sociological terrain of the islamic world in the 21st Century.

How Al Qaeda reacts to this quick changing terrain may actually be aided by the departure of Osama Bin Laden in that it will have more freedom to reconfigure it's modes of operation and to find different ways to appeal to potential members with a bit more autonomy as a new era emerges post Osama Bin Laden. Even if his role in Al Qaeda was now mainly symbolic, his mere presence meant that Al Qaeda could not explore radically different positions from the values he set through his example. The mythology of Osama Bin Laden will remain and grow into the future along various paths and will spawn diverse narratives, yet Al Qaeda itself will have more freedom to reconfigure its modes of operation and attraction.

And what modes of operation and attraction might it be drawn to. It is difficult to say because the Arab Spring has not yet had sufficient time to spawn new norms that govern the reality of everyday life in the Middle East. It is still caught up in a period of transition. And my guess is that Al Qaeda will also undergoe a transition of its own in reaction to these changes. I am unsure exactly what the nature of the transition will be, but I picture decentralised developments in modes of operation and attraction that will then become increasingly shared and tested in different tactical, operational and strategic contexts, and then distilled into a set of principles that dictate what the modes of operation and attracting new members may be. A power transition that parallels these developments might also be in the making.

To hazard a guess at what might emerge, I fear that Al Qaeda will become increasingly radicalised within different regions, nationalities and socio-cultural contexts across the world, and that local leaders may gain more autonomy through the perception of a leadership vacuum emerging out of what has always been a tenuous central command structure. Al Qaeda was designed to have a loosely evolving, spontaneous, distributed structure composed of cell-groups within local, national or regional Al Qaeda aligned islamic radical groups. It is not to be thought of as just a terrorist group, it is also a vast intelligence network of disparate groups and elements - by design, it is a flexible structure that allows for change. If memory serves me correctly Osama Bin Laden himself called for action from muslims whether or not they were members of Al Qaeda. This built-in capacity for bottom up autonomy means that Al Qaeda, as a broad ideological integrator for these disparate groups and elements may begin to change with the ideological positions that emerge and that result in different modes of operation being put into play. 

It is concievable that some leaders, with more power and popularity on their side, may make attempts to reconfigure the central command for greater autonomy or may actually seek to take the central command under the guise of 'saving the organisation', and introduce changes that they think are necessary for Al Qaeda to continue to grow its influence. If these groups are more radical then more dangerous and desperate modes of operation (and attraction) may emerge. If the on-the-ground reality is that islamic modernisation significantly changes the way in which muslims view themselves and each other and tolerance and diversity return to the broader social framework of islamic societies across the world, then Al Qaeda may find itself without significant candidates for its ranks. 

Yet the flexible organisational structure of Al Qaeda can both work in its favour or against it. It may fragment, or it may adapt. Either way may bring increased or decreased danger. A more fragmented Al Qaeda may take actions in disconnected and disparate ways, with only local control over decision-making, while a more coordinated and integrated Al Qaeda may operate at ever greater skills, mobilising greater numbers of people and funding to commit large-scale acts of terror. The question over the threat of nuclear terrorism remains open. Both avenues offer up room for nuclear adventurism that may escalate the current global crisis of terror to new levels of urgency and devastation. The consequences for the global economy, sociology and order will be dire under these circumstances.

Ultimately, increased radicalism is the main threat to the future, not just within Al Qaeda, but outside of it too. Guantanomo Bay is one such example of radical and illegal means being employed to fight the war against terror. More aptly, it is a strategy to fight terror with terror, and in my view, ony radicalises both sides of the conflict to increased levels. Moral authority is important to maintain when facing a radical enemy. Radicalism cannot be defeated with more radicalism. It can only be defeated by moderation, tolerance and principled thought and action. If the US continues down the path of acting in violation of the Geneva convention on war, it only fuels and justifies radicalism on the other side. Illegal violations of sovereignty, the use of torture and deadly force, and slaking the thirst for revenge above seeking justice; all stand as examples of injustice that culminate to provide the fodder for radical arguments against the legitimacy of the  US government and its activities in various parts of the world; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, US policy over the issue of Palestine, and occupations in Arab and/or Muslim countries in general, raise the ire of radicals, or potential radicals even further.

Al Qaeda may well be caught between the US and the Arab Spring, as the song goes, 'the devil and the deep blue sea', that is; between a towering imperial power with vast resources and limited morality and ethical highground, and the abyss of the constant changing waters of the Arab Spring which threatens to bring about an ocean of plurality within the everyday lives and governance of Arabs in Arab countries.

Al Qaeda will have to adapt, or shrink from the pressures exerted by both sides. It's only real weapon will be the ability to convince those within the changing abyss of the evil of its enemy. The more blatant US violations of human rights, sovereign rights and economic rights prove to be in the future, the more they contribute to the actualisation of potential radicals. It isn't wise to adopt a policy of engagement with the enemy that does not set moral standards in relation to the enemy. In other words, if you are as bad as your enemy then you deserve each other. It is only by offering some standard of superiority that is moral and ethical can a distinction between good and evil be made, even if that morality requires one to appear 'weak' in another sensibility. It's strength comes through the moral distinction that is brought about by acting differently in relation to ones enemy. Mercy, for example, is such a powerful act of distinction that history smiles kindly upon forgivers, and those who can turn the other cheek, so to speak, yet the US it seems, clearly adopts the position that mercy is an act of weakness. An act of mercy can change the course of history, while an act of revenge is as common as day and only contributes to it's own reproduction.