Malema's speech impressive
[caption id="attachment_26395" align="alignright" width="100"] JULIUS MALEMA[/caption]
JULIUS Malema was very impressive in parliament, the ANC comrades were not. The ANC is clearly shaken.
It is too soon to have a firm overall view of the performance of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in parliament, but Malema delivered an excellent response to President Jacob Zuma's state of the nation address. I was sceptical, but was proved wrong.
The content of the speech was good. It critiqued the president's analysis of the state of the nation, such as the poor economic outcomes achieved (or not achieved).
Malema is spot on. You cannot talk about radical socio-economic policies as your galvanising vision without thereby conceding that until now it has not been a primary aim of your government.
Malema rattled Zuma so much that it was left to ANC veteran Yunus Carrim comically to tell us all in his speech what the definition of "radical" was.
The Malema speech was poignant rhetorically. Any decent debate coach will tell you the best humour is humour that carries insight while getting laughter from an audience.
The best example is when he made fun of Zuma for asking us to clean up our country in the name of Nelson Mandela. To well-earned laughs, Malema pointed out that request was the only part of Zuma's speech during which the old-timer slowed down, looked up and repeated himself, because the rest of the speech was too serious in subject matter for him, Zuma, to depart from the script!
He added he had no intention of listening to Zuma because clean-up projects were gimmicks. He'd rather honour Madiba with a public service project that changed the structural injustices in our communities. Funny and bang on target analytically.
The key reporting of Malema's walkout was simply that he had walked out, with the EFF caucus following suit. But two points needed to be made: first, Malema gave a compelling response to the chair, Thandi Modise.
Obviously, no ANC leader literally killed mineworkers. So, asking Malema to retract the claim about the ANC government massacring people might seem reasonable.
Do we find it unreasonable to say the National Party government killed black kids in Soweto in 1976? No. The distinction between an NP government and police officers employed by an NP government holds no water in terms of fair comment.
Malema pointed out that when the police reduced crime, the ANC wanted credit as the government. So why not also be credited with police who commit crime?
Thandi Modise got the decision to ask Malema to withdraw the statement wrong. His defence is fair, and more importantly, there is greater space for provocative political dialogue in parliament than outside it.
In terms of parliamentary privilege, he was within the legal bounds of what can be said in the parliamentary debate. Her citing of free speech and limitation clauses masks a deep misunderstanding of the social space afforded MPs to say the kind of thing Malema said.
If there was anyone who should be embarrassed, it is senior ANC leader Lindiwe Sisulu, who threw cheap racial insults around and was generally obnoxious rather than – as Dr Pallo Jordan did – try to win the argument.
The Rev Dr Xolani Tengo, executive chairperson of Tengo Dialogue and Foundation for Community Social Development Network Trust
