A Political Hero Misunderstood.

Opposition parties,political critics,and general grassroots-level anti-Malema lobbyists were ecstatic as Derek Henekom delivered the daunting verdict regarding Julius Malema's future in the ruling party.The verdict-which I must admit brought a lot of mixed reviews from political commentators-was quite simple and matter- of-fact:Julius Malema would be suspended from the party for five years.This suspension would run concurrently with his previous two-year suspension that he had gotten a year ago.

The charges (and please bare in mind that this is a mere personal opinion) are just a tad bit too controversial for me.For instance,one of the three charges that Julius Malema faced was that of sowing divisions within the organisation and consequently bringing it into disrepute.Correct me if I am wrong,but were not divisions already sown before the young fella even became president of the entity's youth league?With all due respect,the party had already been split into two antagonistic groups during Thabo Mbeki's era-and do not get me wrong,Thabo Mbeki was an astute,industrious leader who led the country in the right direction,especially economically,but,alas,his firm,business-as-usual disposition yielded him political antagonists within the organisation,who would subsequently,unfortunately plot his downfall.

The second charge which the young revolutionary faced was for criticising Botswana  president,Ian Khama,for being a puppet of the US government and thereby indirectly supporting imperialism.The fact that the Botswana Congress Party Youth League actually championed this brutally honest criticism of the Botswana president is irrevocably indicative of Julius Malema's no-nonsense,matter-of-fact character,which,I strongly believe,the ruling party's (ANC) president unfortunately lacks.

From all the political controversy that Julius Malema has been recently entagled in,I can safely,personally deduce that the young revolutionary's political views and objectives are immensely misunderstood.Juju,as he's affectionately known by his supporters,is irrefutably a towering figure in South African politics;he's fierceness -admitedly,sometimes out of control-and impetus for the liberation of black people (be it economically or racially) is arguably comparable to that of the great Nelson Mandela during his youth days.

When Nelson Mandela and his fellow young cadres within the ANCYL opposed the motherboard's (the ANC,which was then led by Dr AB Xhuma) primary decree of fighting racial segregration using peaceful,non-violent methods,a huge number of ANC supporters regarded them as disrespectful and somewhat anti-revolutionary when,in actual fact,they were pro-revolutionary and only acted in the best interests of the country.The mere fact that the manufacturers of apartheid ignored any non-violent,peaceful protests that were conducted by anti-apartheid lobbyists,was abundantly indicative of Mandela's notion that the only way to get through to the then oppressive apartheid government was to utilize violence and aggression,which,of course using hindsight,was quite effective.

So,in conclusion-taking into consideration all the relevant facts that are attributable to ANC's history and the aforementioned historical events-one can certainly extrapolate that politicians with vigorous,fierce,and tell-it-like-it-is personalities-such as Nelson Mandela and Julius Malema-are pivotal in bringing about radical political change and sustaining such change for the betterment of the nation.

Paternal Absenteeism- A Way Forward.

Renowned researcher,Kerwin Lebone,of the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR),myself,and a couple of other participants were engaged in a profound discussion;the topic was the staggering statistic of  households that do not have father figures.It was acknowledged that the problem mostly affects African families.The problem was immensely dissected,probable underlying causes were established and feasible solutions were shared,even though there were no solid conclusions.
Kerwin introduced the topic and the following is a 'pseudo-tribunal' that ensued thereafter:


    "The organisation I work for released a study earlier this year showing that 9 million kids in SA are living without their fathers. it was established that some dads had passed away and some may be in prison. But the majority are alive . Furthermore, the majority of absent fathers are African. Three questions: Does the problem lie with Aftican men? Does the problem lie with African women? Is the issue of absent fathers a problem or have families just gone out of fashion?


Itumeleng Mabeba

It is a monumental problem that needs to be resolved,Kerwin.It most especially affects the African populace.I,myself, am victim of...how can I put it?...'paternal abandonment',if you will.Our people seem to not comprehend the implications of this atrocious problem;our fellow sisters and brothers that you see selling their bodies and robbing enterprises respectively,are mostly products of fatherless households.I foresee a cultural catastrophe!

Lebone Kerwin The study goes on to say some kids are better off in single-parent families bcos they avoid the stress of domestic violence. Also the phenomenon of absent fathers happens across all population groups. What I would like to really know, if anyone has an answer, is why is this more prevalent among African families?

Itumeleng Mabeba Your statement about single-parent families being better off's quite debatable;every child has a right to a well-balanced household.Life's a dynamic,complex process which-i personally believe-requires both maternal and paternal guidance.But yes,it's a huge problem which,alas,predominantly affects the black populace;I cannot quite fathom why this is so and I hugely doubt that anyone can.

Lebone Kerwin 

True, Itu. Children have many rights, including rights to safety, adequate shelter, and adequate nutrition which they do not neccessarily enjoy in reality. As to why that is the case is a matter for another debate entirely. This particular issue was not raised to show which is better between single-parent families and 'normal' nuclear families. In fact, I know many people who grew up in single-parent households but enjoyed a better standard of living than those coming from 'normal' families. Maybe I should remove the issue of race from the question and ask it in another way: Why are the fathers of 9 million children not staying with them (let us exclude fathers who have passed away or are in prison).

Itumeleng Mabeba 

Kerwin,I think-and I stand corrected in saying this-that the problem's primarily attributable to promiscuity;statistics reveal that our society has an alarming divorce rate (a lot of which is arguably due to infidelity).When a couple parts ways,children inherently become affected;the father's interest in the children's well-being deteriorates.Adultery's debatably the underlying cause of this intercultural problem;stable marriages and/or relationships would be a suitable remedy.

Tshidi Setere What a topic! Im glad you brought this up. I, for 1, think that our black brothers are more prone to negligence of their offspring than any other race. I have observed this prevalency even in the States. I wonder if this is attributed to the fact that brothers are comitment phobic?

Itumeleng Mabeba ‎@Tshidi:Yup!I mostly definitely concur-commitment phobia's the primary cause.


Lebone Kerwin Right again. Divorce is yet another reason for absent fathers. (This topic really makes u tick, Itu) I value the insights that I got from you today. Anyway, what about the children born out of marriage and whose parents live like families/co-habit. Why are these abandoned.


Keamogetswe Kea Lebone 

GuYs in their teen and Young adults think its cool 2 have more than one girlfriend, sexual partner etc and theY tell themselves that theY will stop when theY get married but I think its too difficult to stop cheating because its 2nd nature to do that and I find that no 1 looks up 2 that husband next door who takes care and sacrifices for the family, Young guYs idolise that single guY next door who has a house/flat, moneY, a car and changes girls.

Keamogetswe Kea Lebone And there is some saYing ka-sesotho'monna ke selepe' most African Women believe that it is acceptable for the boYfriends/husbands 2 cheat and this is whY we end up with broken families.

Lebone Kerwin ‎@ Kea wow! You, Itumeleng, and Helen Zille seem to be attending the same church. "Monna ke selepe". LMAO. But that belief is not confined to Africans, Kea. It's a worldwide socialisation/language thing. I will post proof of this in a moment.

Itumeleng Mabeba 

Keamogetswe,I fully agree with you.Kerwin,the problem of infidelity pretty much affects co-habit couples in the same degree as married couples.It seems that we (Africans) are ill-coached (not sure if such a word exists) when it comes to long -term decision-making;we are notorious for hastily making important decisions that have severe,permanent consequences and,alas,fail to comprehend the implications thereof.What's worse is,we tend to reject helpful solutions such as general life counselling;we feel that such problem-solving remedies have never been part of our cultures and are subsequently futile.A critical about-face is needed if we are to progress as a civilization.

Tshidi Setere I fail 2 understand why a man who grew up without a father would subject his OWN kids 2 the same treatment. I would think that after what they experienced they would more than willing be a part of their kids' lives!

To Nationalise or Not To Nationalise (?).

The subject of nationalisation has sparked quite a significant amount of controversy.While ANCYL president,Julius Malema,believes it is an effective strategy that can be used as a tool to combat the country's staggering unemployment rate,SA Chamber of Mines and BHP Billiton South Africa president,Xolani Mkhwanazi,maintains-and I quote-that it is an "obsolete ,unsuccessful intervention" that should be reconsidered.He is quite adamant that there are numerous other policies that the government can utilize to proliferate our somewhat unstable economy and thus create employment opportunities.What strikes me most about Mr.Mkhwanazi is the inadequacy of his argument:He does not substantiate-unlike his counterpart ,Mr.Malema-why he personally believes nationalization's futile,nor does he mention the so-called alternative policies that the government can resort to,other than nationalization.

What a lot of people are not aware of-Xolani Mkhwanazi included-is that nationalization was Nelson Mandela's primary economic objective when he was released from prison more than two decades ago;it is a policy that has always been a component of the ruling party's (ANC) manifesto.Alas,the reason why it was not implemented initially is that the pathetic apartheid government had left the country in so much financial and economic turmoil,that such a policy was hitherto just not realistically feasible.The country's GDP has expanded quite substantially since then and our economy has subsequently drastically improved;parastatal ownership of private entities is arguably financially feasible.

Unemployment and poverty are undoubtedly two ginormous problems that the state is struggling to resolve-not to mention that they are the primary constituents of crime.Now, to resolve the aforementioned monumental problems would require a solution of equal magnitude;a policy that will create huge amounts of employment opportunities. It seems that people do not completely comprehend the concept of nationalisation.I say so because everytime the notion is discussed,people always ask the same question:how will state ownership of enterprises bring about employment opportunities?The answer to this economically daunting question is quite simple and matter of fact and I will explain it by comparing nationalisation with privatisation:Public enterprises are productivity-and service-delivery driven.Yes,making profits is also an objective for such enterprises,but it is not their main objective.Their primary objective,on the contrary,is to expand and maintain productivity levels;this requires them to deploy a huge amount of human and other types of resources.The need for human resources is good for the country because it means employment opportunities for the populace.Private enterpises,on the other hand,are porift-driven,have a relatively minimal need for human resources,and usually have very stringent employment criteria,thus making it extremely difficult for most of the populace to get jobs.

So,it is apparent that Xolani Mkhwanazi's criticism of nationalisation-that it is "obsolete" and "unsuccessful"-is irrefutably unsound!

Conclusively,the above comparison of the two contrasting economic models poses yet another economically daunting question:Which economy is more viable,a profit-driven or a productivity-driven one?