Publications
Partners
When the EFF disrupted the state of the nation address (Sona) a few weeks ago, it cited two reasons for its theatrics.
The first had to do with the presence at Sona of FW de Klerk, the last apartheid president.
The party charged that he was “an unrepentant apartheid apologist who committed crimes against humanity”.
At face value, the extension of an invitation to De Klerk, and his recognition as a former leader in democratic South Africa appear to be morally reprehensible.
After all, De Klerk massacred black people, right?
Read Mangosuthu Buthelezi's response to this piece here.
But it turns out that De Klerk was not the only man in Parliament that day with a record of committing crimes against humanity, if the EFF’s standard of morality is anything to go by.
There was another old man, widely respected by skewed standards of morality, in the National Assembly.
De Klerk was sitting up in the gallery; the old man was seated right next to the EFF benches.
Read: ‘Pravin must go’ – Sona 2020 suspended following an hour of EFF disruptions
This is the same man who history records as having orchestrated many killings, including the June 1992 Boipatong massacre that saw a group of about 300 armed warriors butcher 45 unarmed and defenceless residents of the Vaal township.
And he had his mobs mete out violence against University of Zululand students in the 1980s.
This massacre and other related widespread mass killings prompted the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 765, which condemned “the escalating violence in South Africa and, in particular, the massacre at Boipatong township on June 17 1992, as well as subsequent incidents of violence, including the shooting of unarmed protesters”.
This, recorded history reminds us, was done in collaboration with right-wing elements and members of the security forces, as well as other elements that were seeking to undermine the transition to a democratic South Africa.
How a political party that purports to have a high sense of morality shares the same space with such a man, without any moral objection, is baffling.
How does the EFF explain its chastisement of the “unrepentant apartheid apologist De Klerk” and its tolerance of a black leader who has committed the same atrocities?
Some have argued that the old black man cannot be judged by the same standards as De Klerk because, unlike De Klerk, the old man has never denied his crimes.
This begs the question: Has it ever been put before the old man, in the same way as it was put to De Klerk, whether he recognised that he had committed crimes against humanity?
The answer to this is most certainly in the negative.
The bone of contention here is that all criminality must be condemned with the same passion as the EFF demonstrated, irrespective of who perpetrated it – unless we, as a nation, suffer from a twisted sense of morality.
Sejaphala is an independent political analyst, a final-year law student at Wits University and a regular contributor to Voices360.com
Read Mangosuthu Buthelezi's response to this piece here.
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Get in touchCity Press | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rise above the clutter | Choose your news | City Press in your inbox | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City Press is an agenda-setting South African news brand that publishes across platforms. Its flagship print edition is distributed on a Sunday. |
