Zuma’s dignity violated
Eusebius McKaiser’s article “Trump, Zuma are worse than liars” (February 3) is completely beyond the pale and way outside the conventions of responsible journalism and freedom of expression — it is so repulsive that these slurs cannot be repeated here.
How this kind of invective and swear words, particularly against heads of state, slip past editorial controls is perplexing to say the least, and can only fuel speculation of tacit support for such uncouth and repugnant language. One can only imagine the uproar that a tit-for-tat of this kind of vitriol could generate in the media space.
The specious and grotesque comparison between the two leaders notwithstanding, it is important for McKaiser to appreciate that inherent in “freedom of speech” is refraining from violating the dignity of other people, including offending public sensibilities.
Though democratic leaders such as President Jacob Zuma do not necessarily always open up to journalists about their common viewpoints, their rapport with the media is absolutely essential in a democracy for robust media engagement and unencumbered participation of the people in public affairs. Unfortunately, this kind of writing strains relations between leaders and journalists.
Without dignifying this vitriol with a blow-by-blow response, Zuma is not a demagogue but a democratically elected leader who had sacrificed for and served this country devoutly for many years before he could even become president.
He has spiritedly championed pro-poor policies and leads a concerted transformation programme in the country to build an inclusive economy, which may not go well with many of the detractors and beneficiaries of the previous status quo, including some people in certain media establishments or their proxies. — David Ntshabele, researcher in the presidency, Pretoria
Extreme threats to democracy
Three articles in the Mail & Guardian of February 3 articulate clearly the extreme threats to demo-cracy posed by, in particular, two individuals.
Eusebius McKaiser, Richard Pithouse (“The last summer of reason”) and Achille Mbembe (“Negative messianism marks our times”) each in their own way describe the potential for a terrifyingly dystopian future offered by presidents Jacob Zuma and, especially, Donald Trump (there are, of course, many more).
These writers provide searching analyses of the dysfunction of democracy as epitomised by these self-created demagogues, who have extraordinary power over millions of people, and use terms rarely associated with sober political commentary: buffoonery, crassness, dishonesty; dangerous and devious; dread and confusion.
The use of such language indicates the depths of despair to which each of these eminent commentators has sunk. The authors all seek to identify ways in which the citizens of the two countries concerned, and indeed the citizens of the world, could and should respond to the existential threats posed by such “leaders”. Yet none raises the fundamental question of the role of an individual “leader” or “president” in any real democracy.
It is becoming increasingly clear that maintaining so-called democratic systems in which individuals can wield such power is folly of the highest order. Is the concept of a “president” not profoundly undemocratic, indeed anti-democratic? At the dawning of more democratic (in the modern era at least, but not forgetting much earlier experiments with democracy) forms of governance in the 17th and 18th centuries, the notion of at least some citizens having the power to elect their “leader” might have been seen as truly radical. But that was a long time ago and apart from extending, often through considerable struggle, voting rights to the majority of adult citizens, there has been little fundamental change in our understanding of democracy and how it should function.
It would seem that it is now time to re-examine it, recognise the severe limitations and, indeed, the threats to democracy posed by the outdated concept of “president” and move towards more genuinely democratic dispensations, where the power is truly vested in the people and not in vain, self-serving, power-hungry bigots. — Lawrence Sisitka, Grahamstown
■ Both the February 3 editorial and McKaiser’s op-ed piece excoriate Trump for his bare-faced lying during and after his presidential campaign. The lies told are targeted at specific audiences and thus end up contradicting themselves. But Trump’s lies spoke to voters and either discouraged them from voting for Hillary Clinton or encouraged them to vote for him.
The Trump lies are far from random. They are well informed by Big Data, mined by psychometrics. Using data available on social media, the company Cambridge Analytics provided the Trump campaign with data on individual voters, allowing targeted messaging through social media and door-to-door campaigning. Cambridge Analytics supported the successful “Leave” campaign that resulted in Brexit. (Swiss magazine Das Magazin published information on this and Bloomberg provides a sceptical response.)
Despite the debate, I am glad to have no presence on social media. — Richard Hodgson, Durban
