Zohran Mamdani: How New York City's mayoral candidate connects to SA
The 33-year-old is on the cusp of making history as the first Muslim and millennial mayor of the Big Apple, one of the most diverse cities in the world. Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda, raised in Cape Town post-apartheid and later moved to New York when he was seven. His father Mahmood Mamdani is a renowned author and scholar who also served as a professor of the Centre for African Studies at the University of Cape Town between 1996 and 1999. His mother, Mira Nair is also a renowned film director. He is a graduate of the New York City Public School System; he attended the Bronx High School of Science and received a Bachelor's Degree in Africana Studies from Bowdoin College. In 2018, Zohran Mamdani became naturalized as an American citizen and is proud to be the first South Asian man to serve in the NYS Assembly as well as the first Ugandan and only the third Muslim to ever be a member of the body.
According to the New York Assembly government website, Zohran fights every day for a future where every New Yorker lives a dignified life and where the market does not determine the distribution of that dignity.
Additionally, Mamdani says he is running for mayor to freeze rent, make buses fast and free, and deliver free universal childcare.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Five Truths in Lawfare and the Weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge
Gillian Schutte unpacks the political, epistemic, and ideological weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge. Image: IOL At a moment when South Africa finds itself midway through a soft coup engineered by elements within the GNU in alignment with Anglo-American geopolitical interests, and amid an intensified ideological war against Black epistemology and radical thought, Judge President Selby Mbenenge's Judicial Conduct Tribunal must be rigorously interrogated through a decolonial lens rather than through liberal spectacle. Marianne Thamm's characterisation in Daily Maverick - an intellectual title fight between "old patriarchs" and a gender-based violence expert - typifies precisely this liberal sock puppet journalism: sensationalist, reductive, and politically calculated. GroundUp had already set the ideological stage with its headline: "Expert defends sexual harassment finding against Judge President Mbenenge," published prematurely on the Tribunal's second morning. Its intent was clear: to shape public perception through donor-aligned feminist frameworks, implicitly dismissing African jurisprudence as regressive patriarchal relic. Critical analysis reveals deeper political dynamics hidden beneath this liberal narrative, which deliberately obscured why Lisa Vetten's partial, selectively translated testimony was nonetheless elevated as authoritative. Rather than examining the substantial influence of Western-aligned donors – USAID, Global Fund, NACOSA, Open Society, Ford Foundation, and the EU – in shaping Vetten's frameworks, GroundUp presented her findings as objectively neutral. Yet these donor bodies consistently privilege gender analyses neatly aligned with Western liberal policy prescriptions, marginalising radical feminist critiques that connect gender violence to structural inequality, capitalist extraction, and historical colonial violence. GroundUp's premature pronouncement was neither neutral nor coincidental. It aimed to attack African epistemic sovereignty, prevent critical inquiry, and consolidate ideological alignment with donor interests. This is exactly why we need to look beneath this carefully managed media spectacle – because it is there that lie five distinct truths, each deserving rigorous engagement without collapsing one into the other. Truth One: Andiswa Mengo's Testimony Court secretary Andiswa Mengo's testimony described a progression in communication from professional engagement to increasingly personal and late-night messages from Judge Mbenenge, culminating in the receipt of a photograph she experienced as invasive and inappropriate. Her account of discomfort, vulnerability, and disrupted professional dignity must be taken seriously. To dismiss her truth would be to re-enact the very violence that silences complainants across patriarchal institutions. However, belief in survivors must not be conflated with the abandonment of procedural integrity. Belief is not a substitute for evidence; it is a starting point for serious inquiry. Her version must be examined within a context that resists voyeuristic credulity or ideological utility. It must be subject to the same rigour expected of any legal process – through full context, linguistic nuance, and evidentiary completeness – not partial snippets or selective framing that serve to confirm media narratives or topple a judge without due process. In a case saturated with political and ideological stakes, it is all the more necessary to hold the space where belief and scrutiny coexist without collapsing one into the other. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Truth Two: Lisa Vetten's Donor-Aligned Authority Lisa Vetten's authority must be situated within the geopolitical architecture that funds and frames it. Her career has unfolded through institutions tethered to Washington's ideological and strategic interests – from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, to Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, and into policy-shaping roles within USAID and Global Fund programmes. Her expertise, while academically rigorous, operates within frameworks designed by and for liberal feminism's global administrators. These frameworks privilege technocratic solutions, de-link gendered violence from histories of racial capitalism and imperial dispossession, and systematically displace radical or decolonial feminist theory. The result is an epistemic narrowing in which donor-approved metrics define legitimacy, while anti-imperial perspectives are dismissed as ideological excess. Vetten's position in the Tribunal was not one of detached expertise, but of ideological utility. Her testimony aligned seamlessly with the narrative preferences of the liberal media ecosystem. She is not an impartial observer; she is a functionary of a wider donor apparatus that has, historically and presently, advanced regime change under the cover of gender justice. In this context, she does not simply speak – she is deployed. Truth Three: Judge Mbenenge's Autonomy as Symbolic Threat Judge Selby Mbenenge, should allegations against him be substantiated, must indeed be held accountable through rigorous and impartial processes. Yet critically analysed, his autonomy as a senior Black jurist operating beyond the influence of donor-funded civil society circuits represents a clear ideological threat to liberal hegemony. At a moment when the GNU, aligned closely with Western geopolitical interests, is methodically purging judicial and institutional spaces of voices that resist neoliberal conformity, Mbenenge's independent authority marks him as a strategic target for regime-change actors intent on reshaping South Africa's judiciary into compliance with Western standards and expectations. None of which pleads for his innocence or his guilt – it is just an undeniable truth. Truth Four: Muzi Sikhakhane's Decolonial Marginalisation Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's systematic marginalisation is rooted directly in his explicit critique of South Africa's constitutional order as structurally colonial and protective of entrenched economic and racial interests. Through his legal advocacy for former President Jacob Zuma – most notably at the Zondo Commission (August 2018, July 2019) and the Constitutional Court contempt proceedings (March 2021) – Sikhakhane consistently invoked Fanonian/Bikoian analysis, exposing liberal constitutionalism as a guardian of white capital and colonial continuity. Following these interventions, he became the target of sustained vilification in liberal media, deliberately cast as reactionary, chauvinistic, and intellectually irrelevant. This orchestrated character assassination by donor-aligned media and NGOs seeks to erase Sikhakhane precisely because he embodies a formidable ideological threat: an articulate and influential African intellectual whose arguments resonate widely with younger generations and independent African thinkers. His attempted erasure thus represents a strategic manoeuvre within the broader regime-change machinery, designed to silence inconvenient native voices that openly challenge neoliberal hegemony and advocate for authentic African jurisprudential sovereignty. Truth Five: The Donor-Media Ecosystem's Geopolitical Agenda GroundUp, Daily Maverick, News24, and amaBhungane operate within an interconnected media ecosystem sustained by powerful donor networks including Open Society Foundations, Luminate (Pierre Omidyar's so-called democracy franchise), the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, and USAID-linked programmes. These institutions have long histories of advancing soft-power agendas under the guise of civil society strengthening. Between 2016 and 2018, this ecosystem mobilised a highly selective anti-corruption narrative to delegitimise the Zuma administration, executing what increasingly appears to have been a donor-orchestrated regime-change operation. The strategic use of corruption discourse under the banner of constitutional defence allowed donor media and NGO actors to entrench liberal hegemony while masking deeper geopolitical interests. This apparatus has always focused on gender discourse, deploying feminist rhetoric selectively to neutralise radical Black intellectuals and disrupt decolonial mobilisation. This pattern was evident during the Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall uprisings, where the sudden infiltration of US-backed think tanks and NGO intermediaries – in quiet collaboration with elements of Luthuli House – corresponded with a wave of allegations targeting radical Black male leaders. The frequency with which sexual misconduct and rape claims were deployed against prominent and outspoken figures during these movements, often without full due process, raises serious questions about the weaponisation of gender justice as a tool of ideological warfare. While the reality of gender-based violence must never be denied or trivialised, the strategic pattern of deploying such allegations to fragment movements and remove influential dissenters cannot be ignored. Historically, such tactics echo well-worn counterinsurgency strategies refined by institutions like the CIA, where sexual deviance is projected onto Black men to discredit liberation politics and fracture collective organising. This weaponisation relies on the deeply embedded colonial mythos of Black male hypersexuality and danger, allowing liberal institutions to claim moral high ground while engaging in epistemic violence. What appears on the surface as progressive gender advocacy functions as a disciplinary apparatus – punishing those who openly articulate a radical African vision beyond the bounds of donor-sanctioned politics. These five truths stand simultaneously. They are not sequential. They are not hierarchical. They coexist in tension, contradiction, and convergence – as all living truths must. Each exposes a facet of the political, epistemic, and affective dimensions of the case, and none can be collapsed into the other without enacting a form of violence. Yet collapsing truths is precisely the logic of liberal hegemony and the strategic machinery behind donor-aligned think tank discourse. It is their habit to invoke whataboutism when challenged, to flatten complexity into binary moral frames, and to present their narrative as the only legitimate one – thereby rendering all competing epistemes illegible or deviant. This is the logic of control. It is precisely in this context that the five truths around the Mbenenge Tribunal must be held in open dialectic. Mengo's experience is hers and must be addressed with seriousness. Vetten's donor-aligned authority cannot be excused from critical scrutiny. Mbenenge's symbolic threat to donor-managed Black representation is undeniable. Sikhakhane's erasure as a decolonial jurist is politically motivated. And the liberal media's choreography in service of soft regime-change agendas is a historical pattern. To ignore any one of these truths is to enable the ideological capture of justice under the pretence of neutrality. Procedurally, the Tribunal exposed the fragility of the expert testimony used to publicly frame the case. Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's cross-examination of Lisa Vetten revealed that her analysis rested on partial evidence, translated and summarised through a legal filter that omitted linguistic and cultural context. Crucial annexures were absent. Vetten had not consulted the Tribunal's cultural-linguistics assessor, despite the case hinging on meaning and tone communicated in isiXhosa. Her findings were presented as conclusive without the primary data being fully explored. Chairperson Judge President Bernard Ngoepe's order to admit the full isiXhosa WhatsApp exchanges into the record was a tacit acknowledgment of these procedural gaps – gaps that GroundUp and its media allies had already sealed shut with a premature headline designed to foreclose complexity and manufacture consent. This moment, then, is not only about what happened between two individuals. It is about whose frameworks we are allowed to believe, whose voices are authorised, and whose truths are strategically denied. It is about how knowledge is managed, contained, and weaponised. And it is about whether South Africa can withstand the growing grip of liberal epistemic capture disguised as gender justice, or whether it will open a path toward decolonial clarity, where multiple truths can breathe without one being used to suffocate the rest. As for Thamm's increasingly degenerate journalism, in which she has cast the Tribunal as an 'intellectual heavyweight title fight between the Old Patriarchs and the Gender-Based Violence Expert,' – is not worthy of anything more than the derision we reserve for mercenaries fighting in service of empire. Her reductionism flattens a complex and politically charged legal encounter into a tired has-been morality play. Far from being a helpless woman pitted against patriarchal power, the expert witness in this case is ideologically armed and institutionally weaponised. The case cannot be read through the paternalism of liberal gender tropes. It demands to be read through the fresh lens of decolonial thought and praxis. And this case is not simply about personal conduct. It is about ideological warfare. It is about who gets to speak, who is erased, and what forms of knowing are cast as either legitimate or deviant. More than ever we are witnessing an all-out assault on radical Black thought, African jurisprudence, and decolonial critique under the sanitised banner of human rights and democracy. The interest shown in this case by donor-funded media and NGO actors must be interrogated. It bears the familiar markings of regime-change politics: rooting out those who threaten liberal orthodoxy, targeting those whose authority emerges beyond the limits of civil society funding pipelines. The soft coup unfolding within the GNU has ideological foot soldiers in law, media and academia. Their project is to purge the judiciary, academia, and political thought of any element that does not conform to Western standards of civility and containment. What we are witnessing, then, is not justice – but ideological capture. Whether South Africa can resist this and re-centre African epistemology remains the question. What is clear is that the machinery of liberal capture is always in motion – and it speaks with one voice. * You can read Gillian's academic analysis here: The Erotics of Power, the Semantics of Guilt: A Decolonial Disruption of South African Legal Discourse * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker and social critic. She writes on decoloniality, media and political resistance across the Global South. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump close to victory on flagship tax bill
US lawmakers teed up a final vote on Donald Trump's marquee tax and spending bill for Thursday morning after bruising Republican infighting nearly derailed the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. Almost 24 hours after debate began, Trump appeared close to victory as Congress edged towards passing his "One Big Beautiful Bill," despite misgivings in his party over a text that would balloon the national debt while launching a historic assault on the social safety net. The bill would be a major landmark in Trump's political life, sealing his vision of US domestic policy into law -- and coming after he scored recent wins including in the Supreme Court and with US strikes that led to a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Speaker Mike Johnson struggled through the night to corral his rank-and-file Republican members after the package scraped through a series of "test" votes in the House of Representatives that laid bare deep divisions in the party. It was on course for a final vote that would put it on Trump's desk to be signed into law after passing its last procedural hurdle in the early hours of Thursday. "We feel very good about where we are and we're moving forward," an upbeat Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. "So we're going to deliver the Big, Beautiful Bill -- the president's 'America First' agenda -- and we're going to do right by the American people." - Funds for mass deportation - The timetable could slip however as Democratic minority leader Hakeem Jeffries continued a long speech opposing the bill that delayed proceedings by several hours. Originally approved by the House in May, Trump's sprawling legislation squeezed through the Senate on Tuesday but had to return to the lower chamber for a rubber stamp of the senators' revisions. The package honors many of Trump's campaign promises, boosting military spending, funding a mass migrant deportation drive and committing $4.5 trillion to extend his first-term tax relief. But it is expected to pile an extra $3.4 trillion over a decade onto the country's fast-growing deficits, while shrinking the federal food stamps program and forcing through the largest cuts to the Medicaid health insurance scheme for low-income Americans since its 1960s launch. While Republican moderates in the House are anxious that the cuts will damage their prospects of reelection, fiscal hawks chafed over savings that they say fall far short of what was promised. Johnson has to negotiate tight margins, and can likely only lose three lawmakers in the final vote, among more than two dozen who had declared themselves open to rejecting Trump's bill. - 'Abomination' - The 869-page text only passed in the Senate after a flurry of tweaks that pulled the House-passed version further to the right. It offsets its tax relief with around $1 trillion in health care cuts, and some estimates put the total number of recipients set to lose their insurance coverage under the bill at 17 million. Scores of rural hospitals are expected to close. Johnson had been clear that he was banking on Trump leaning on waverers, as the president has in the past to turn around contentious House votes that were headed for failure. The Republican leader has spent weeks hitting the phones and hosting White House meetings to cajole lawmakers torn between angering welfare recipients at home and incurring his wrath. "FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" Trump, 79, thundered in one of multiple posts to his Truth Social platform as Wednesday's marathon voting session spilled into Thursday. The bill would underline Trump's total dominance of the Republican Party in his second term, and comes as he relishes a major Supreme Court victory last week that curbed lone judges from blocking his radical policies. But House Democrats have signaled that they plan to campaign on the bill to flip the chamber in the 2026 midterm elections, pointing to data showing that it represents a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest. Jeffries held the floor for his Democrats for more than four hours ahead of the final vote, as he told the stories of everyday Americans whom he argued would be harmed by Trump's legislation. "This bill, this one big, ugly bill -- this reckless Republican budget, this disgusting abomination -- is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said. By Frankie Taggart
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
US House close to final vote on Trump tax bill
US lawmakers teed up a final vote on Donald Trump's marquee tax and spending bill for Thursday morning after bruising Republican infighting nearly derailed the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. Almost 24 hours after debate began, Trump appeared close to major victory as Congress edged towards passing his "One Big Beautiful Bill," despite misgivings in his party over a text that would balloon the national debt while launching a historic assault on the social safety net. Speaker Mike Johnson struggled through the night to corral his rank-and-file members after the package scraped through a series of "test" votes in the House of Representatives that laid bare deep divisions in the party. It was on course for a final vote that would put it on Trump's desk to be signed into law after passing its last procedural hurdle in the early hours of Thursday. "We feel very good about where we are and we're moving forward," an upbeat Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. "So we're going to deliver the Big, Beautiful Bill -- the president's 'America First' agenda -- and we're going to do right by the American people." - Trump's flagship bill - The timetable could slip however as Democratic minority leader Hakeem Jeffries continued a long speech opposing the bill that delayed proceedings by several hours. Originally approved by the House in May, Trump's sprawling legislation squeezed through the Senate on Tuesday but had to return to the lower chamber for a rubber stamp of the senators' revisions. The package honors many of Trump's campaign promises, boosting military spending, funding a mass migrant deportation drive and committing $4.5 trillion to extend his first-term tax relief. But it is expected to pile an extra $3.4 trillion over a decade onto the country's fast-growing deficits, while shrinking the federal food stamps program and forcing through the largest cuts to the Medicaid health insurance scheme for low-income Americans since its 1960s launch. While moderates in the House are anxious that the cuts will damage their prospects of reelection, fiscal hawks chafed over savings that they say fall far short of what was promised. Johnson has to negotiate tight margins, and can likely only lose three lawmakers in the final vote, among more than two dozen who had declared themselves open to rejecting Trump's bill. - 'Abomination' - The 869-page text only passed in the Senate after a flurry of tweaks that pulled the House-passed version further to the right. It offsets its tax relief with around $1 trillion in health care cuts, and some estimates put the total number of recipients set to lose their insurance coverage under the bill at 17 million. Scores of rural hospitals are expected to close due to the cuts. Most legislation in the House has to run the gauntlet of multiple preliminary votes before it can come up for final approval. But there was alarm early on as the One Big Beautiful Bill stumbled at one of its first procedural stages, with a vote that ought to have been straightforward remaining open for seven hours and 31 minutes -- making it the longest in House history. Johnson had been clear that he was banking on Trump leaning on waverers, as the president has in the past to turn around contentious House votes that were headed for failure. The Republican leader has spent weeks hitting the phones and hosting White House meetings to cajole lawmakers torn between angering welfare recipients at home and incurring his wrath. "FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" Trump thundered in one of multiple posts to his Truth Social platform that sounded increasingly frustrated as Wednesday's marathon voting session spilled into Thursday. House Democrats have signaled that they plan to campaign on the bill to flip the chamber in the 2026 midterm elections, pointing to analyses showing that it represents a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest. Jeffries held the floor for his Democrats for more than three hours ahead of the final vote, as he told the stories of everyday Americans whom he argued would be harmed by Trump's legislation. "This bill, this one big, ugly bill -- this reckless Republican budget, this disgusting abomination -- is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said. By Frankie Taggart
