Criticise Chikane’s book on facts, not distortions

Reverend Frank Chikane’s book Eight Days in September: The removal of Thabo Mbeki has elicited mixed responses from South Africans across the political spectrum. The comments range from those who view this book as setting the record straight on Mbeki’s removal, to others who see it as a whitewash of the Mbeki administration and its failures.

Yet others see it as an attack on President Jacob Zuma and the ANC.

Many of those who have commented have not dealt with the issues raised in the book, but issues peripheral to the book and its content.

It is more about the book they wish to write than Chikane’s.

The one that takes the cake is the comment by KwaZulu-Natal Premier Zweli Mkhize, who calls on Chikane to apologise to the ANC for something not found in the book. It could be that he has not read the book. What Chikane has boldly claimed and can be backed by fact is that the demands placed on Mbeki, what he calls the ‘‘ngoko’’ syndrome, was taking the form of a coup, akin to resignation under the barrel of the gun. He goes on to say many things have been left out, yet he offers not one example.

All these may be true, but they have little to do with the book. Neither do they have anything to do with the reasons given by the ANC for Mbeki’s recall. It is the same as people’s response to ANC Youth League President Julius Malema’s disciplinary hearing. Many who support his expulsion, do so for reasons not advanced by the ANC or being party to the charges against him

Chikane states his account of the removal of Thabo Mbeki, it’s impact on the country, how it was (mis)managed, the role he and the staff played in helping manage the transition, in spite of their views and feelings.

There are many issues outlined in the book that are worthy of repeating.

First, the National General Council (NGC) of 2005. All those who were present in the National Executive Committee (NEC) will know that the officials presented a report indicating that Zuma had requested the National Working Committee (NWC) to release him from his duties as the ANC deputy president so that he could concentrate on defending himself in court.

Many speakers not only questioned what this would imply but rejected it. Contrary to what transpired at the NGC, where it was alleged the NEC had taken a decision to relieve him of his duties, no such decision exists.

In fact, I challenge anyone who disagrees with his account to say so and indicate what the decision was, where it was taken and by whom.

My recollection is that not a single member of the NEC stood up to give a proper account of what happened in the NWC or the NEC. Only Gauteng and North West stood up to say there was no need to ask Zuma to reconsider his position as no decision had been taken by the NEC. Needless to say, these were met with disapproval from those who were pushing the lie that there was a decision of that nature.

Second the hoax e-mails – Frank’s account of NEC members arriving at a meeting and being handed documents of the hoax e-mails to read in preparation for discussion in the same meeting.

At the meeting, I remember Frank indicating that having seen a copy of some aspects of these hoax e-mails earlier, he had asked the then secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe, whether these would form part of the NEC discussions as well as his right to be heard.

My recollection is that Motlanthe said in response that he felt the issues Chikane wanted to raise could be raised and dealt with at the meeting. I think the main reason was that he believed these to be genuine e-mails as some of the “chat-room” exchanges were also about him.

Third, the decision to release Zuma from his duties as the deputy president.

A matter which has yet to be properly documented is the process Mbeki followed. Contrary to the view that he took a unilateral decision, many ANC chairpersons, alliance leaders, women and youth representatives were invited to an extended NWC that deliberated on this matter.

I remember calls being made in the meeting by people who later spoke of a conspiracy against Zuma for him to resign voluntarily, rather than forcing Mbeki to dismiss him.

Zuma’s statement was released immediately, stating that Mbeki had addressed Parliament and that he had accepted the decision. It is, however, a matter of public record that two days later at a rally in Mpumalanga to mark Youth Day, he denounced the decision by Mbeki.

Chikane’s has done a disservice to himself with his chapters on Mbeki, the possible role of the international community in his removal à la Nkwame Nkrumah. Having decided to enter this terrain, it opens him to the charge of using it to sing Mbeki’s praises, with little said on some of his weaknesses.

In particular, the fact that he does not name what these foreign forces are, how they manifested themselves and the people they worked with.

This is not to say that he should not have written about these issues, but rather that since most of the issues in the book are corroborated, a throwaway line on conspiracy without facts appears as a defence of Mbeki.

I await with bated breath his account on the Aids debate as it will help the country to understand what happened, why and how to avoid going the same route in the future.

In fact, some of the people who now speak so badly about Mbeki and Aids, said nothing when Gauteng proceeded with the roll out of antiretrovirals.

The book does open new wounds.

It, however, helps us to understand the calls to remove Mbeki had to do with the conviction of Schabir Shaik and the implication of his case on Zuma. While the public mantra was for Zuma to have his day in court, there were private moves to have the case quashed.

The same people who advocate against the use of state institutions expected Mbeki to interfere with the judiciary on their behalf.

To Chikane: take solace from Mark Twain’s words: “My country all the time, my government when it deserves it.”

n Shilowa is former premier of Gauteng