Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Mutiny – for bounty

At least we intransigent whites aren’t being blamed for the recent attack on the Union Buildings by thousands of SA National Defence Force members.

This was a disgraceful episode, broadcast around the world, in which members of military unions – and curious animals those are – put the blame squarely, if not fairly, on Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu.


Bhenkinkose Mvovo, president of the SA Standing Forces Union (Sasfu), accused Sisulu of being “the m
ain cause of (the incident) because of her arrogance and the fact that she does not want to interact with the unions”.

Military personnel are subject to
a different set of rules than are ordinary citizens. Their survival under fire depends on discipline.

There are no negotiations when a command is issued to attack and face exposure to enemy fire, injury and death.
Such dissent is commonly called mutiny, incurring, in many countries, the death penalty. In addition, the rioting members ignored municipal and court injunctions against the protests.

As Sisulu herself says, Section 36 of the Constitution limits for the military the constitutional rights available to civilians, in recognition of the special role the military plays.

This sort of anarchy, says Sisulu, constitutes “a serious and immediate threat to national security”. Yes, perhaps if, for example, there was discernible external or internal threat to our security other than our frightening level of violent crime and the flood of indigent refugees into the country.


But the police patrol (sort of) our borders while the military are not deployed, as well they might be, to tackle our crime wave. Aside from futile peace-keeping attempts it is difficult to know exactly what the role of our military is, apart from providing certain favoured cadres with vast fortunes out of corrupt arms deals.

As mentioned above, whites are not being blamed for this outrage – but they are being blamed for a great deal about which they can do very little, particularly in the vexed matter of affirmative action.

For example, a rant by Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana:

You (whites) better touch our hand while we are still giving it. I want to warn them the revolution will be a revolution of all black people.”


This remark alone should qualify all whites for political asylum.


This was all about blacks not being employed in sufficient numbers in the higher echelons of what is erroneously called “white-owned business”.

Erroneous because most big businesses are held not by individual owners, white or of colour, but by institutions whose assets belong to a wide swat
he of the population including large and increasing numbers of people of colour.

Curiously, as Mdladlana was issuing his threats of “revolution” (whatever that means) to whites, his boss, President Jacob Zuma, was urging white emigrés to retur
n to SA, where their skills and expertise are sorely needed.

They must make up their minds.
There is a skills shortage which has its roots in the evils of apartheid but which is, nonetheless, a reality exacerbated by emigration.

This was conceded by Tito Mboweni, outgoing Reserve Bank governor, who famously remarked that he preferred his Afrikaans officials, who made careers at the Bank, to blacks who often quickly moved on to better positions.



Let us, please, not emulate Robert Mugabe.