South Africa's ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS party statement on the Freedom Charter

The many years of suffering endured by Activists of the liberation movement in exile, prisons, an underground was because the apartheid capitalist establishment was suppressing and repressing any possibility of implementing the Freedom Charter. The Liberation Movement ascended to negotiated political power in 1994, and abandoned all the principles, values and aspirations contained in the Freedom Charter.

EFF leader Julius Malema

 

26 June 2014 Today, the 26th of June 2014 marks exactly 59 Years since the Congress of the People adopted the Freedom Charter. It was on the 26th of June 1955 when delegates from all corners of South Africa gathered in Kliptown to adopt the Freedom Charter as a blueprint, definition and programme of what attainment of freedom will entail in South Africa.

Post adoption of the Freedom Charter, the apartheid machinery increased and heightened its repression against the liberation movements and all political activity which sought to challenge white political and economic domination. The liberation movement was banned, exiled, and its leaders incarcerated because they had a vision called the Freedom Charter.

20 years since the first inclusive elections, the EFF is the only political organization in South Africa that genuinely upholds the aims of the Freedom Charter and in pursuit of the radical programme. The rest are just giving lip-service to the Freedom Charter because they are drugged by “the tranquilising drug of gradualism”.

The many years of suffering endured by Activists of the liberation movement in exile, prisons, an underground was because the apartheid capitalist establishment was suppressing and repressing any possibility of implementing the Freedom Charter. The Liberation Movement ascended to negotiated political power in 1994, and abandoned all the principles, values and aspirations contained in the Freedom Charter.

In commemorating and acknowledging the superior logic contained in the Freedom Charter, the EFF says that the ANC led Liberation Movement has abandoned the Freedom Charter, and here are just some of the examples:

1) The Freedom Charter says, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white”
Judging by the property relations and the fact that white minorities continue to own South Africa, the statement that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it” is not a reflection of reality. South Africa belongs to those who colonially conquered the indigenous people of the African continent. This is reflected on the fact that the land, the Mines and all major property continue to be owned by those who owned before 1994.

2) The Freedom Charter says, “The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as whole”
20 years after attainment of political power by the liberation movement, this noble and correct vision of the Freedom Charter has not been realised, and is not even on the agenda of the ANC Government, because their Vision 2030 says nothing about transferring mineral resources beneath the soil, Banks and monopoly industries to the ownership of the people as a whole.

3) The Freedom Charter says, “All other industry and trade shall be controlled for the wellbeing of the people”
20 years after attainment of political power by the liberation movement, this is not a reality. The post 1994 government has adopted free-market economic structure which has no control over the goods and services imported into South Africa and exported from South Africa, and as a result, industry and trade is not contributing to the wellbeing of the people.

4) The Freedom Charter says, “The land shall be shared amongst those who work it”
20 years since the attainment of political power, this is not a reality. The post 1994 government has dismally failed, even as per its own targets, to transfer land to those who work it. Land continues to be owned by few white people, the descendants of the colonial conquerors, who murdered and destroyed Africans to take possession of our land.

5) The Freedom Charter says, “The state shall recognise the right and duty of all to work, and to draw full unemployment benefits;
20 years into political freedom, this Freedom Charter vision is not a reality because more than 7 million South Africans looking for jobs do not have jobs, and a substantial component of those employed are employed through labour brokers, therefore not drawing full unemployment benefits.

6) The Freedom Charter says, “Education shall be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children; Higher education and technical training shall be opened to all by means of state allowances and scholarships awarded on the basis of merit”.
This is not a reflection of reality today because education is not free for all children and the post 1994 government is dismally failing in guaranteeing universal access to a critical and vital component of any education system, which Early Childhood Development (ECD). The post 1994 government is failing to appreciate that post secondary training and education capacity should be expanded to accomoddate all those who want to gain knowledge, skills and expertise.

7) The Freedom Charter says, “Slums shall be demolished, and new suburbs built where all have transport, roads, lighting, playing fields, creches and social centres”
Post 1994, Slums are growing bigger and more intense because there is no cogent and clear rural development programme. The current government celebrates this as ‘rapid urbanisation’, while it is in fact ‘rural depopulation’. Our people are subjected to extreme levels of poverty, diseases and starvation in the slums and the when government demolishes slums; it does not provide people with alternate quality and sustainable accommodation.

Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Economic Freedom Fighters’ Founding Manifesto clearly spells the EFF’s approach to the Freedom Charter and says:

The EFF draws inspiration from the radical, working class interpretation of the Freedom Charter, because, since its adoption in 1955, there have been various meanings given to the Freedom Charter. The EFF’s interpretation of the Freedom Charter is one which says South Africa indeed belongs to all who live in it, and ownership of South Africa’s economic resources and access to opportunities should reflect that indeed South Africa belongs to all who live in it. The EFF’s interpretation of the Freedom Charter is that which says the transfer of mineral wealth beneath the soil, monopoly industries and banks means nationalisation of mines, banks and monopoly industries.

The EFF’s interpretation of the Freedom Charter also accepts that while the state is in command and in control of the commanding heights of South Africa’s economy, “people shall have equal rights to trade where they choose, to manufacture and to enter all trades, crafts and professions”, meaning that there will never be wholesale nationalisation and state control of every sector of South Africa’s economy. Nationalisation of strategic sectors and assets will be blended with a strong industrial policy to support social and economic development.

This is the EFF’s position on the Freedom Charter and one which we will fight for until victory. It is clear that the EFF is the only political organization in South Africa, which upholds the Freedom Charter and pursuing a radical programme to achieve its aspirations and vision.

Zim NGOs: when the tail no longer wags the tail

To say that the tail no longer wags the dog in this instance where the civic society no longer controls western capitals as they previously did through false, concocted and manipulative reports on Zimbabwe, is more than a mere Dundrearism.

Tichaona Zindoga
statements this week by the EU Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Aldo Dell’Ariccia, regarding the moribund and increasingly irrelevant political actors parading as civil society organisations in Zimbabwe were bound to hurt.
And they hurt — hurt very much — given the grief that has befallen the various parsonages associated with civic society.
A brief historical context: hundreds of civic society organisations were formed circa 2000 ostensibly to fight for civil and human rights and democracy in the country.
They were sponsored by American and other Western governments directly or through proxies to not only act as appendages to the opposition MDC but also to provide a false “independent” voice of the populace.
Together with sanctions, the civic society and opposition were meant to achieve regime change of the revolutionary Zanu-PF and President Mugabe.
The politics and, ultimately fortunes, of the civic society organisations and opposition were intricately linked.
In light of the cruel fortunes that have afflicted the opposition, namely losing the elections last year and the implosion of the MDC-T, the West is rethinking, or at least appears to be disinterested in both the opposition and its civil society appendages.
This is for likely reasons.
One, the high noon of politics has just slipped past and secondly, it may not hurt the West, particularly the EU, to see Zimbabwe in a more receptive manner, especially when the latter is showing signs of relenting on key issues such as the indigenisation policy.
(Many may have observed how lately the hard-working Dell’Ariccia is prodding and prodding and prodding on the indigenisation and investment issue. The more imaginative may think of sharks that may have smelled blood.)
So, most probably out of pragmatism, the EU is changing tact and engaging Zimbabwe. It has also lifted most of its sanctions against the country. The EU is seeking no confrontations and thus will not worry about engagements and partners that do not serve its new purpose.
Hence, Dell’Ariccia told the NGOs that they were “living anchored in the past” and failed to “catch the flare of the moment”.
To drive home his new-found disdain for the NGOs, he accused them of behaving like “charity organisations”.
This was guaranteed to unsettle civic society activists, most of whom had enjoyed full-time employment as regime change agents and were always flush with cash, some of which they never accounted for.
The setting of his statements, at one organisation called Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe, was even ironic for someone to declare that there was no leadership crisis in the country.
Here are some of the rumblings as reported in the media: Zimbabwe Social Democrats Secretary General Wilbert Mukori was quoted as saying Dell’Ariccia’s comments were “tragic”.
Charles Mangongera imperilled the envoy saying, “ . . . as ambassadors and as analysts we tend to speak from the comfort of air-conditioned hotels without understanding the situation.”
Mangongera was quoted as adding: “To castigate the civil society and say they shouldn’t do this or that I don’t think that is the responsibility of an ambassador . . . ”
Takura Zhangazha, one of the eminent civic society players, writing on his blog, accused the ambassador of “diplomatic opportunism”, being “conveniently pragmatic”.
The writer speculates that Dell’Ariccia intends to redefine Zimbabwean civic society.
And strongly: “To make such broad but shallow statements as Mr Dell’Ariccia did, together with the sectional applause he got from those that would have previously been most shrill in opposing his every word, is the stuff of diplomatic opportunism. It is unfortunate that in his case, it would appear to be patently dishonest.”
To say that the tail no longer wags the dog in this instance where the civic society no longer controls western capitals as they previously did through false, concocted and manipulative reports on Zimbabwe, is more than a mere Dundrearism.
The tables have surely turned and it is so tragic for the local activists.
Yet they should have seen it coming.
The political environment in the country has changed drastically from what it was 10 years ago where sanctions-inspired economic hardships of shortages were a new phenomenon.
After years of suffering the same, and given the clemency of the weather in sparing droughts, the mood of the country was different in 2013. Years of suffering and job losses had significantly hardened Zimbabwean people into resourcefulness and industriousness.
Besides, political awareness crept back to the people, especially after seeing through the poor performance and fallibility of the opposition MDC while it was in government. These dynamics lend the necessity of a paradigm shift in the civic society.
Ambassador Dell’Ariccia offers handy advice that the NGOs must “catch the flare” because “there is an opening” in the form of engagement.
Trevor Maisiri, one of the more prominent civic society actors locally and regionally, could be said to be way ahead of his ilk that are whining today.
After last year’s elections, outlining the role and opportunities of the civic society post-election, he called for depoliticisation of the civic society as well as engagement with “domestic institutions”.
“Engagement, in the civil society sense, and given Zimbabwe’s political context, establishes civil society to represent citizens in the community and broader national issues that have amply been dominated by the politics in the past. Engagement creates a voice for those majority citizens, who have otherwise been voiceless, outside of political party domains.
“In the past many civil society organisations have not prioritised engagement with key domestic institutions such as parliament, government ministries, local government authorities, government departments, independent commissions and others. Some of the disengagement or lack of upfront interest by civil society has been due to these institutions’ reluctance to engage with civil society. This can only be addressed if civil society emerges as intently refocused on occupying non-political party space and mandated from the citizenry base.”
Civil society activists in Zimbabwe will have to heed such counsel given the circumstances they are in.
Besides, the very essence of the civil society is to represent the voice of the citizenry and be independent of the politicians.
In which case, those who seek to be members of the political society must declare their interests and be seen in the arena where politicians play.

Barack Obama still has ‘worst points’ to prove

"The Obama administration is utilising the crisis in Iraq as an opportunity to escalate the US war drive throughout the Middle East, with Syria in the cross-hairs.."


Tichaona Zindoga
On May 28, US President Barack Obama gave a speech at the United States Military Academy commencement ceremony at West Point. Many people across the world appeared to interpret it as a climbdown by the US in its global militarism, as part of a wider foreign policy thrust. That may have been what Obama himself intended, promising the graduands that they would be “the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
The landscape has changed, said he, “We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.”
He claimed America had “refocused our investments” in growing the economy.
How so ironic!
Less than a month later, the US is beating the war drum again and ready to return to Iraq. Reports in the past week indicate that the US is sending personnel to Iraq, a modest figure of less than 300 staff of non-combats. (The next logical step is anyone’s conjecture.)
But here is one thing that may yet tell us that Obama and the US have some worst points — forgive the pun — to prove: a CNN report on June 19 quoted Obama as saying he did not need new permission to intervene in Iraq.
There is something unsettling in the way the CNN reported the matter.
“I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional authority to act”, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq,” was how the network reported.
If one could not perceive some emperor, with all the fine airs of a demi-god in this, then the next part of the CNN report should be enlightening.
“The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s embattled Shi’ite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering,” adjoined CNN. The emperor was planning a war.
He did not say it.
Perhaps because he is not accountable to anyone, not even the US Congress.
The world knows that the US is planning a war. This is why Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the weekend expressed strong opposition to intervention in Iraq.
He said: “We are strongly opposed to US and other (countries’) intervention in Iraq. We don’t approve of it, as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious authorities are capable of ending the sedition. And God willing, they will do so.”
Elsewhere in the CNN article, it was revealed that “170 US military personnel have been sent to Baghdad to assist in securing embassy personnel inside Iraq, while another 100 moved into the region to “provide airfield management security and logistic support, if required”.
The report said: “A draft list of possible ISIS targets in Iraq is being constantly reviewed and revised with the latest intelligence, typical of any preliminary targeting operation, according to US military officials who spoke on the condition of not being identified. Compiling the draft list does not signal that Obama will authorise such strikes, and several administration officials said the President has yet to make a final decision.”
There is more.
There are already manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Iraq to collect up-to-the-minute intelligence on ISIS movements and positions, all to ready the use of precision-guided weapons. Drones are also on standby.
That sounds very scary and does not quite show the end of military adventurism — or misadventurism — on the part of the US. So it’s tough luck to the poor graduates at West Point who may have bought the fat lie that they would be “the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

Exceptionalism
One must admit that the megalomania of US leaders forces them to do things to prove their worth and power.
It is something they call American exceptionalism, couched in the belief that, “America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” It should be noted that even in the West Point speech, Obama appeared to be caught between a moralistic, anti-war person and a war-mongering, archetypal American emperor.
It takes you back to the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 2009 where he laboured over just war, etc, when he had been awarded a “peace” prize.
Having told about the first group that would get into Iraq or Afghanistan, he stated, repeating “a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency”:
“The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it — when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger . . .
“International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.”
The latter statement resonates with the CNN report of June 19 cited above.
In which case, the views of the likes of Khamenei and other anti-war people do not matter. It may take a few weeks for the world to see the war, with America in the thick of things, unravel.
This is because, in part, Iraq provides an entry into the Middle East and a go-get to Syria, and by extension, Russia.
“The Obama administration is utilising the crisis in Iraq as an opportunity to escalate the US war drive throughout the Middle East, with Syria in the cross-hairs,” wrote Patrick Martin and Joseph Kishore on June 20.
The two postulate: “The war drive against Syria is inextricably tied to the US and European-backed campaign against Russia, a major Syrian ally. Opposition from Russia was a significant factor in the decision by the Obama administration to temporarily pull back from war against Syria last year. This was followed by the operation in Ukraine to unseat a pro-Russian government and provoke a confrontation with Russia itself.”
Olivier Knox, reporting on the announcement to send troops to Iraq, said one reporter asked senior administration officials whether “American strikes against ISIS be confined to Iraq or could they reach into Syria”?
“The president is focused, again, on a number of potential contingencies that may demand US direct military action. One of those is the threat from ISIL and the threat that could pose, again, not simply to Iraqi stability but to US personnel and to US interests more broadly, certainly including our homeland,” one official reportedly said.
“In that respect, we don’t restrict potential US action to a specific geographic space,” the official continued.
“The president has made clear time and again that we will take action as necessary, including direct US military action if it’s necessary to defend the United States against an imminent threat . . . the group ISIL, again, operates broadly, and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States.”
Here is Knox’s own conclusion: “In other words: The United States might take its war against ISIS into Syria.”

Terrorism
Fighting terrorism — whether real, imagined or contrived — by the US has almost given it the raison d’etre in the last 13 years.
At West Point, Obama gave an indication of scaling down on senseless bombardments on alleged terrorist targets and announced new strategy of engagement, creation and training of proxies, which to him seem less odious.
“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbours terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable,” he said.
Explaining further, he said: “And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralised al-Qaeda leadership. Instead, it comes from decentralised al-Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate.
“And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of US personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi.
“It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.”
The strategy is already underway, with Africa the special frontier, and it would seem Obama has a point to prove here too.

inShare