logo
#

Latest news with #SETA

SASCO demands immediate removal of Higher Education Minister, Nobuhle Nkabane
SASCO demands immediate removal of Higher Education Minister, Nobuhle Nkabane

News24

time7 hours ago

  • Politics
  • News24

SASCO demands immediate removal of Higher Education Minister, Nobuhle Nkabane

Funding for higher education remains a significant crisis in South Africa, impacting countless students. As they grapple with securing financial support for their studies, the last thing they need is for those in positions of authority to worsen their challenges. The South African Students' Congress (SASCO) is the third organisation to call for President Cyril Ramaphosa to axe Higher Education and Training Minister Nobuhle Nkabane, following similar demands from the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). SASCO is accusing the Minister of incompetence and alleged corruption that threatens to extinguish the last hope for many students seeking financial aid. Read more | Former Transnet executives granted R50 000 bail each for fraud and corruption The organisation's concerns are centred around the Minister's alleged inability to effectively manage the department, resulting in failures, delays in student funding, and a general lack of accountability. One of the many key issues highlighted by SASCO is the alleged illegal appointment of chairpersons to 21 Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) boards, some of which included ANC politicians. The organisation claims that these appointments have contributed significantly to the challenges faced by students, including delays in funding and a lack of transparency in the allocation of resources. SASCO has also expressed deep concern over the systematic exclusion of students from accessing higher education, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The organisation argues that Minister Nkabane's policies and actions have perpetuated a two-tier education system, where only a select few have access to quality education, while the majority are left behind. In light of these concerns, SASCO is calling for Minister Nkabane's immediate removal even though no replacement has been yet found as they believe that removing her is necessary to restore stability and functionality to the Higher Education Sector. .Talking to eNCA on Sunday June 29, 2025, at the ANC's Luthuli House headquarters, SASCO President Alungile Kamtshe threatened to mobilise students and take them to the streets to put pressure if the Minister isn't removed immediately by this week 'We're going to start and consolidate students, remember that students are on recess currently after mid-year exams so once they get back on campus, we're going to do students mass meetings so that we mobilise them,' he stressed. 'This Minister has undermined public intelligence, literally, it's only her who's clever and everyone else is stupid, and through observation by South Africans it is clear that this Minister is not fit for office,' he added. In response to SASCO, Minister Nkabane briefed the media on Monday, June 30, 2025, pertaining Thursday's budget vote and maintained that she's not 'shaken' by the calls. 'There's nothing that I can say because it is the prerogative of the President to appoint, re-deploy or deploy, so I cannot say anything,' she stated. The DA has pledged to vote against the Department of Higher Education's budget until Ministers facing allegations of poor governance or corruption are held accountable. The story is still under development.

Higher Education Minister Nkabane defends her budget against party criticism
Higher Education Minister Nkabane defends her budget against party criticism

IOL News

time15 hours ago

  • Politics
  • IOL News

Higher Education Minister Nkabane defends her budget against party criticism

Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane accused parties of being anti-transformation, misogynistic, and doing a disservice to South Africans when they rejected her department's budget. Image: Facebook Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane has lashed out at political parties that rejected the 2025/26 budget for her department in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Tuesday. Nkabane accused the parties of being anti-transformation, misogynistic, and doing a disservice to South Africans. 'It is a pity and unfortunate that today we are witnessing some of the honourable members not actually accepting and adopting this budget vote. Those who are actually rejecting the budget are rejecting the transformation of the post-school education and training sector in South Africa,' she said. 'They are not rejecting the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane. This is not the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane and it is the budget of the people of South Africa.' 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 ✕ Ad loading This was after the DA led the charge in rejecting the budget during a debate in the NCOP following the laying of criminal charges against her for allegedly misleading Parliament on the 'independent panel' for Sector and Education Training Authorities (SETA) board chairpersons. The second biggest party had threatened not to vote in favour of budgets of departments that were led by 'compromised and corrupt ANC ministers and deputy ministers', whom President Cyril Ramaphosa did not remove from the Cabinet. DA MP Jean Adriaanse said it was time for Ramaphosa to fire Nkabane and clean out the ANC's criminal network at the heart of government. 'The DA will not allow Parliament to be treated with contempt, and we will not tolerate corruption disguised as governance,' Adriaanse said. He also said Nkabane brazenly appointed her comrades to SETA boards in an act of blatant cadre deployment intended to serve political interests rather than the public good. 'When this list was leaked, she swiftly revoked these appointments, attempting to cover her tracks. But her deception did not go unnoticed. The minister's refusal to take responsibility was equally brazen — she shifted blame onto an 'independent' appointment panel, refusing to disclose its members. Only under pressure did she reveal some names, but she concealed at least one.' Adriaanse said the panel she named was not independent at all. 'It was littered with cadres, proving she lied to Parliament. To make matters worse, she named Adv Terry Motau as the panel chair, only for him to publicly dispute her claim, further exposing her dishonesty. This scandal is not isolated. It underscores a pattern of corruption and reckless governance that must be rooted out. The minister's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for honesty, transparency, and accountability,' he added. Freedom Front Plus MP Tammy Breedt said Nkabane's controversial decision to appoint politically connected people to chair the boards of SETAs was not the smartest move. 'We must do what is right for the country as a whole, not just what is good for the ANC and the political elite they serve,' Breedt said. She charged that the truth was that decades of ANC corruption and cadre deployment have crippled even some of the most basic skills development programmes. 'SETAs are no exception. We learned from an Auditor-General's report in 2022 that over R2.5 billion was lost to non-existent or ghost skills development projects and institutions that have never existed. Recently, it was reported that NSFAS spent more than R1.3 billion on four IT companies for an online portal for student accommodation and later disbursed payments to companies that were not accredited financial service providers,' Breedt said. MK Party's Sibongiseni Majola said they too did not support the budget because 'it is not pro-poor orientated'. EFF's Laetitia Arries said they rejected the budget because Nkabane, like her colleagues, was not another example of a failure in leadership the country was being subject to. 'You have failed to lead the nation to the realisation of adequate higher education. You have failed to respond to the concerns raised by students across campuses in all provinces,' Arries said. She also said Nkabane failed to account for the cadre deployment, and corruption has become the defining feature of all ANC relationships with public institutions. 'You have failed to account for appointments that are glaring examples of political patronage, where state institutions intended to empower youth and workers, are turning to ANC deployment zones for local cadres and family members of the ruling elite,' Arries added. In her response, Nkabane claimed to be a victim of the attacks for being a woman leading the department pursuing the transformation agenda. 'When you are against transformation, it irritates a lot when you see a young woman leading such a huge ministry in your presence. It is misogynistic,' she said. 'I understand it. I know where it is coming from, and worse, when it is a black woman, it becomes irritation,' she said. She noted that the EFF raised progressive proposals in the debate but its lack of support to the budget was disservice to the South Africans. 'The sad part of it is that now they are not supporting the budget. My question, I am asking myself, is how we are going to address those issues that have been raised.'

DA lodges criminal complaint against Nobuhle Nkabane over alleged deceit
DA lodges criminal complaint against Nobuhle Nkabane over alleged deceit

IOL News

time19 hours ago

  • Politics
  • IOL News

DA lodges criminal complaint against Nobuhle Nkabane over alleged deceit

DA Federal Chairperson Helen Zille and DA MP Karabo Khakhau lodged charges at the Cape Town Central police station against Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane, accusing her of lying to Parliament about the appointment of ANC-linked individuals to Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) boards. Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane's spokesperson says the DA's decision to lodge a criminal complaint against the Minister appeared to be a tactic aimed at drawing attention away from 'the real work of governance and development'. 'The Minister has consistently acted in good faith and within the bounds of the law,' Nkabane's spokesperson Camagwini Mavovana said. The DA on Tuesday lodged a criminal case against Nkabane, accusing her of lying to Parliament about the appointment of ANC-linked individuals to Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) boards. DA federal chairperson Helen Zille and DA MP Karabo Khakhau, who serves on the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, lodged the charges at the Cape Town Central police station. Khakhau said the charges relate to Nkabane's alleged deliberate misrepresentation of the appointment process for SETA board members as she had claimed an 'independent' evaluation panel was responsible for the selections. 'She falsely claimed an 'independent' panel made the appointments — including a chair who confirmed he wasn't involved,' said Khakhau. 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 ✕ Ad Loading Khakhau accused Nkabane of facilitating 'fraudulent' appointments by misleading the Parliamentary committee, and said the so-called independent panel had included her own Chief of Staff and an ANC Youth League leader. 'Most damningly, she falsely named Advocate Terry Motau SC as the chair of this panel, a claim he has unequivocally denied in writing. He made it clear he had no knowledge of, nor participated in, the process,' she added. In a statement, the DA said: 'This is not a case of poor judgement; it is a flagrant and deliberate attempt to deceive Parliament and the South African people. Minister Nkabane has broken the law and violated her oath of office. The DA will not stand by while ministers who lie, manipulate processes, and protect ANC cronies remain in office.' The party said it would not support the Department of Higher Education and Training's budget while Nkabane remains in office and vowed to oppose all budgets led by ministers 'under criminal investigation for corruption or misconduct'. Zille said the party was taking this step because of President Cyril Ramaphosa's 'inaction' in the face of corruption within the executive. 'We're here today for the simple reason that President Ramaphosa refuses to be as good as his word and act against corruption, act against criminality in our Parliament,' Zille said. 'Serious fraud and the misleading of Parliament are somehow condoned by President Ramaphosa's government. That is an enormous double standard.' Zille described the SETA appointments as a 'blatant lie to a committee of Parliament,' and added that in previous cases, such acts were treated as both fraud and a criminal offence. She said an investigation by Khakhau had revealed that the people responsible for selecting board members included three senior employees from the Minister's department. The DA called on Ramaphosa to act swiftly and remove Nkabane from office, warning that continued inaction would implicate him in enabling corruption. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya did not respond to a request for comment. Mavovana said they note the DA's decision to lodge a criminal complaint against the Minister. "Dr Nkabane's focus remains on delivering tangible outcomes for young people, including today's Budget Vote speech, which outlines strategic investments in skills development, innovation, and inclusive economic growth," Mavovana said. Cape Times

Book Review: Shadi Hamid's Excellent ‘The Problem Of Democracy'
Book Review: Shadi Hamid's Excellent ‘The Problem Of Democracy'

Forbes

timea day ago

  • Politics
  • Forbes

Book Review: Shadi Hamid's Excellent ‘The Problem Of Democracy'

WASHINGTON, USA - AUGUST 17: (L-R) Professor Halil Berktay, Burhanettin Duran, Kilic Kanat, Shadi ... More Hamid, and Kadir Ustun attend in a panel called "The July 15 Failed Coup Attempt: Implications for U.S.-Turkey Relations" hosted by SETA in Washington, USA on August 17, 2016. (Photo by Samuel Corum/) Cato Institute co-founder Ed Crane has always been of the view that 'democracy' must be narrowly limited in scope. Basically it should be a device for removing highly objectionable people from national offices like that of the President, but not much more. As Crane explained it long ago in Forbes, Americans should go to bed early on election night. That's because the less they care about or know about who occupies the White House, the much better off we all are. Legislation should be local. State and city local so that individuals can choose their policy bliss, including taxes and spending. Crane's insights into democracy's myriad demerits, along with those of longtime Cato senior fellow Roger Pilon, came to mind early and often while reading Washington Post editorial page columnist Shadi Hamid's 2022 book The Problem of Democracy: America, the Middle East, and the Rise and Fall of an Idea. Hamid's thorough, and multipartisan look at the merits and demerits of democracy was an informative and at times fascinating read despite occasional disagreements with the author. About the good or bad of democracy, Hamid is clear about his mixed, and constantly evolving feelings. The bet here is that in 2025 he's of a different mind than he was upon publication in 2022. That's how it should be if people are constantly learning. For now, what Hamid is sure of is that for the typical citizen of a small d democratic country, or for the promoter of same elsewhere, a country in which the leaders and policy are an effect of the counting of heads 'tends to deliver profound disappointment in voters' 'lived experience.'' Which isn't surprising. It arguably helps explain discontent in the U.S. right now. There's quite simply way too much democracy. That's why people are up so late on election night. Whether or not Hamid agrees even partially, it's hard to say. Again, his views are clearly evolving. Which is a compliment. Hamid writes that the 'ability or willingness to be unhappy but still obliging when one's adversary wins an election is the precondition of democracy as we know it.' It might make sense at first glance, but the crucial reply is that not all democracies are equal. If readers are doubtful, they need only name the president of Switzerland versus naming the President of the United States. Which is the point libertarians frequently made after 2016's election, and to this day: no doubt many people disliked Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or both in 2016, but what they unwittingly despised was and is the excessive power installed in a presidency that was never supposed to be this strong or consequential. Presidents shouldn't matter so much. Hamid sees democracy in its more ideal form as a situation in which 'the other party is still merely an opponent, not an enemy.' He asserts based on the previous metric that 'today, the United States no longer meets this prerequisite of democracy.' There's no major argument with Hamid's pessimism, but there is some puzzlement as to why Hamid thinks things are as they are. The expressed view in my 2019 book They're Both Wrong was a variation of the libertarian view expressed about Trump vs. Clinton in 2016. While Hamid would likely admit in a sheepish moment that hatred in U.S. politics is as old as the United States, and that the memories of collegiality among U.S. politicians mask enormous amounts of vitriol, the not-discussed-enough explanation for the political divide can be found in too much policy being made in Washington, the latter an effect of too much democracy. Opposite Crane's vision of early-to-bed election nights, people are once again staying up late. And they're staying up late because presidents, senators and congressmen have too much power to create too much policy. Which brings up the first quibble with Hamid. Channeling the partisan divide that he deems magnified in the present, Hamid laments how 'a growing number of Americans do not seem willing to respect democratic outcomes that go against their wishes. While this tendency is most pronounced among Republicans [emphasis mine], it goes further and deeper.' Which is the author overstating things a bit. Without defending a Republican voter, pundit and political class that is increasingly unrecognizable, the mere suggestion that it's generally Republicans unwilling to respect democratic outcomes isn't serious. Just look at the 21st century alone. Was it George W. Bush (the worst president in my lifetime, by far) who waited over a month to accept the election results in 2000, was Stacey Abrams a closet Republican all along, and what about Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to not just accept defeat on election night in 2016, but in the years that followed as Democratic pundits and politicians alike promoted a stolen-by-Russians narrative that insulted stupid so at odds was it with reality. When a lost laptop threatened Joe Biden's electoral chances in 2020, the Democrats went the Russian route again, not to mention their total trampling on the so-called 'will of the people' when the powers-that-be shuffled Biden aside in 2024 so that they could foist Kamala Harris on voters… And that's just a few of the many examples of the sad truth that too much democracy has Republicans and Democrats too invested in national elections that theoretically shouldn't matter a whole lot. The main thing is that the unwillingness of Republicans and Democrats to accept electoral outcomes speaks to the problem of democracy when democracy gets out of hand. Alas, Hamid's book isn't so much about democracy as practiced in the U.S. as it's about the willingness of Americans to accept democratic outcomes outside the U.S., the Middle East in particular. In his words, The Problem of Democracy is about 'the cost of democracy producing 'bad' outcomes, and whether it is a cost Americans should be willing to bear.' Thought of another way, American political types like democracy in other countries when the voters get it right, but only then. In Hamid's words, 'democracy might be nice,' but historically 'it simply wasn't worth the trouble when its results were so uncertain and its participants so unreliable.' All of which brings up the oddity of what George W. Bush tried to bring about after 9/11. The tragedy correctly or incorrectly confirmed in many ways the crazed nature of the people in Islamic countries not just in the eyes of U.S. voters, but also politicians on both sides of the aisle. Yet despite this consensus, the expressed reason for the subsequent warring was to bring 'democracy' to the Middle East. The Founders had to be spinning. Going to the other side of the world to waste precious blood and treasure on democracy? Forget about what we had to learn the hard way once again about the best laid battle plans and all that, and just stop and think about the democracy angle. Hamid did then, and is now. Though he's clear early on that 'the fear of a democracy undone by Islamists has been as persistent as it is speculative,' he describes as 'emphatic' his desire to not live under a democratically elected Islamist government. He indicates that the U.S. foreign policy establishment has similar fear then and now 'of a democracy undone by Islamists.' As in, 'we want democracy in theory but not necessarily want its outcomes in practice.' Which is seemingly Hamid's way of pointing out that Americans are situational about democracy. They want both so long as voters get things 'right.' He makes a fair point, but seemingly implies with it a racial, anti-Islamic religion angle to American skepticism about democracy that leaves out the much more practical, centuries old way of looking askance at democracy. What it somewhat errantly implies speaks to a way in which Hamid arguably erred in writing his book. Since he wrote it with evident openness to ideas from both sides, it's too bad he didn't open the discussion a little bit more to people like Crane, Pilon, and other small l libertarians from organizations like Cato. See the previous paragraph to get the meaning of the previous sentence. What Crane and Pilon could have articulated to Hamid is that fear of democracy is not fear of how people who don't look like us will vote, or how people allegedly radicalized by Islamism will vote, it's a fear of people in general. In the case of the Founders, their worry was about the passions of people from Europe who frequently shared their religion and who looked like them. Without presuming to speak for Pilon, that's at least apparently why they wrote the Constitution as they did. Aware of the dangers inherent in majoritarianism, they would write a document that didn't limit the rights of the people, but that instead would limit the rights of a national government elected by people. This way most of the taxing and governing would be local. Yes, keep the fights local, but even then, the individuals making and voting for policy locally would enjoy enormously broad freedoms because they were born – yes – free, but also because tyranny and mob rule don't gain nobility just because they're practiced locally. Quoting Pilon directly from a piece written at National Review in 2003: 'The Founders didn't throw off a king only to enable a majority to do what no king would ever dare. No, they instituted a plan whereby in 'wide areas,' individuals would be entitled to be free simply because they were born so entitled — while in 'some' areas, majorities would be entitled to rule not because they were inherently so entitled, but because they were constitutionally authorized to rule. That gets the order right: individual liberty first; and self‐​government second, as a means toward securing that liberty.' Hamid doesn't ignore thinking like Pilon's in total in the book, but voices like Pilon's aren't as evident. To read Hamid is to feel that the debate in the book and that continues to run through his own head would have been improved by these thinkers. That's because at least as far as democratic outcomes go, the son of well-born Egyptian immigrants in Hamid seems to share the skepticism of his fellow Americans in the foreign policy establishment who unfortunately do see democracy as good for some, but bad for the wrong kind of people and religions. He's asking, 'Is democracy worth it when it increasingly produces what seem to be destructive outcomes that put lives and livelihoods at risk?' The view here is that Hamid is in some ways asking the wrong question by making it a question. To see why, consider a point he makes deeper into the book, that there's no such thing as a 'benevolent dictator.' No there isn't, because as Hamid himself explains it, 'domination is intrinsic to dictatorial rule.' From the individual who arrogates to himself dictatorial power it's easier to see the problems inherent in small d democratic power. The same domination is at work. As Hamid writes later in the book, he has 'no knowledge' of a democracy even on a small island where the people 'agree on all the big questions and most of the small ones.' Well, of course they don't. And the manifestation of the truth that we're all different while seeing things differently is that Americans once again stay up late on election night. The desire among winners, or the mob, to dictate, is intoxicating. And it's happening. Bringing it back to U.S. and its desire to project democracy globally, part of the problem as Hamid sees it is the hypocrisy at work. He notes that George W. Bush and his crowd loved democracy, the will of the people, and all that until they didn't. Subsequently, they backtracked on democracy in the Middle East after Islamist parties made significant inroads in Egypt, Lebanon and Bahrain. But to be fair, Hamid wasn't taking sides here. He quotes Barack Obama as saying, 'All I need in the Middle East is a few smart autocrats.' Hamid read this as Obama giving up on the Muslims to be peaceful. Whatever the answer, a lack of trust about the ability of Middle Eastern countries to govern themselves isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. Hamid goes on to write that 'My argument in this book is that the entire American paradigm, and not simply part of it, has been faulty in its starting premises, and so the resulting policies are built on a broken edifice.' True, but has Hamid happened upon why the premises are wrong? The view here is that he hasn't. The problem with the so-called 'American paradigm' isn't hypocrisy, it's the paradigm itself. Put more bluntly, government intervention that never works stateside hardly becomes brilliant overseas. Which means the problem is in the conceit that the United States can improve the world. It can't. See the myriad of government initiatives here over the decades. To name but one, how did 'The War on Poverty' work out? Medicare began as a $3 billion program, it's on the verge of $1 trillion in annual expenditures, so this must mean all Americans have abundant healthcare? The problem is that Hamid has an interventionist side. He writes that 'doing nothing' is 'not a neutral posture,' or it's not a non-policy since when 'we do less,' they 'do more.' It's true, but that's the point. We need the people in cities, states and countries to do more for themselves, wholly free from those who want to bring 'democracy' or 'smart autocrats' to their countries. Intervention is invariably fatal, and a conceit. Hamid quotes General James Mattis as wondering, 'Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States?' Mattis goes on to 'suggest that the answer is no,' but as with Hamid asking if democracy is worth it, Mattis is asking the wrong question when he muses about whether 'political Islam' is in the U.S.'s best interests. There's no way of knowing. If there were, newspapers could be written months and years in advance, and markets would be fully priced. Rather than engaging in the obnoxious, nation-enervating conceit that we can fix other nations, the better approach would be to simply allow countries to succeed and fail. Yes, the above is a recession metaphor. Why did the Great Depression last so long? It did because the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations routinely intervened in the healthy corrections that markets were trying to bring about. The problem was that in fighting markets in the way that foreign policy types fight democracy, strongmen, and in between, the U.S. foreign policy establishment robs countries of the essential cleansing and recovery that can only be preceded by allotment of failure. Hamid asserts that while 'emphatic' about not wanting to be ruled by a democratically elected Islamist government, he's also of the mind that 'Islam itself is not the problem.' There's no disagreeing with him there. Sorry, but the people are the marketplace, including their arrival at or embrace of religion. What holds countries back is the endless intervention that fails everywhere it's tried. Yes, countries need less policy including less foreign policy. Interesting here is Hamid reporting that in Iraq, Lebanon, and Tunisia, 'significant parts of the population long for strongmen as an antidote to ineffectiveness, gridlock, and endemic corruption.' Hamid's retort is that bad as democratic governments can be, authoritarian regimes 'are only good at responding to crises when they're good,' but when they're not, 'which is most of the time – there is no obvious way to correct course.' That's true, but it's also true about democracies. That's why freedom works so well. There's no good or bad authoritarian, just as there's no good or bad powerful democracy, there's just government error in each interspersed with the policy edition of the truth about stopped clocks being correct twice a day. Hamid points to Singapore's authoritarian in Lee Kuan Yew as evidence of a 'benevolent autocrat,' but the more likely truth was that Yew could be an authoritarian precisely because he didn't need to be. As John Stuart Mill made plain, the most corrupt societies have the most rules. Which brings to a brief detour into our own authoritarianism stateside, as in what happened in the spring of 2020. This was where it seemed Hamid really stumbled. A fifth of the way through the book he wrote that 'The largest Western democracies, as well as some of the smallest like Belgium, were among the world's leaders in per-capita deaths from COVID-19.' A comment like that, one pregnant with insinuation, naturally caught my eye as an author of a book about the tragic global response to the coronavirus, When Politicians Panicked. I'll lead with what should be obvious: the more lethal the presumed virus, the less necessary the governmental response, if any. Really, who among us needs to be forced to avoid sickness or death? It rates asking given Hamid's evident insinuation that too much freedom resulted in excess deaths; that authoritarian regimes are able to force compassionate outcomes are their people in the way that nominally free countries cannot. Nonsense. It had me wanting to ask Hamid if he was close to anyone who died directly from the virus. I kept asking it while writing When Politicians Panicked, a book that footnoted the New York Times more often than any other source. You see, underlying all the alarmism on the front page of the Times was honesty about who was really getting sick from, and on the rarest of rare occasions dying with as opposed to from the virus. Eventually the Times just acknowledged on the front page what could always be found deeper in the newspaper: that the virus's lethality was almost totally confined to a tiny percentage of very old Americans; nursing homes the routine locale of deaths once again with the virus. Ultimately the Times brought the truth to its front page in December of 2021, 'COVID HAS KILLED ONE OF EVERY 100 OLDER AMERICANS.' About the headline, it's not meant to minimize death, but it is to ask who Hamid was reading during the lockdowns and beyond? More important, how did he conclude from what transpired that it was the dying that caused 'a growing number of Americans and Europeans to doubt not only their politicians but their own political systems.' More realistically, the doubt that continues to this day is an effect of how badly politicians panicked in ways that were not just bad for well-to-do Americans and Europeans, but monstrously so for the world's poorest. It raises another question: in addition to wondering how many people Hamid knew who died from the virus, how many politicians can he list who still brag about imposing lockdowns in 2020? As for 'democracies' being where most of the deaths occurred, let's be serious. This wasn't an effect of too much freedom, rather it was an effect of a virus so meek that it infected everyone (the mass infection a certain sign of its meek qualities), and since everyone dies eventually, lots of people were going to die with the virus. With each discussion and example in Hamid's book, it was hard not to return as the reader to a belief that Hamid himself seemed reluctant to embrace or accept: democracy is authoritarianism. Say it repeatedly. That's why it was so puzzling when he wrote that 'democracy allows for the peaceful transfer of power.' That's true in theory, but not nearly as true in practice precisely because majoritarianism logically can't be about the peaceful transfer of power when so many important decisions are being made by majorities. Quoting Henry Kissinger about the U.S. removing Allende from power in Chile, 'I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.' Kissinger was mistaking the problem. It was too much democracy, with Allende the symptom of it. That's once again why the Founders wrote the Constitution as they did. It was all about restraining majorities, though as evidenced by every four-year refrain that 'this is the most important election in our lifetime,' the Founders surely failed in making their founding document airtight. In other words, liberty yielded to governments of men and women elected by men and women, and here we are. Great for sure, but Oh My what could be! Hamid seeks some form of 'democratic minimalism' where voters 'have a say in the laws and decisions that shape your own life.' He might agree in a light moment that the 'minimalism' part is a platitude. What's not is his expressed preference for 'majorities or pluralities' over 'liberalism, which prioritizes individual freedom.' Ok, but for the problem that there's no getting a little pregnant with democracy. What's limited must be kept limited lest we get to where we are in the U.S. today. No doubt we're still spectacular as just alluded to, no doubt we're in many ways the envy of the world, but the 'unseen' with the United States is staggering. Again, what could we be if we'd not allowed democracy to get out of hand? Notable about the U.S. trying to bring democracy to the Middle East is what the Israelis thought. Hamid quotes long-time Republican foreign policy eminence Eliot Abrams as saying that 'it was mockery behind our backs' when Bush and his team explained their plans for the Middle East through the prism of democracy. Along these lines, another source for Hamid's book indicates that after the 2013 military coup in Egypt, 'AIPAC was the best lobbyist for the Egyptian government you could ever imagine.' They all like strongmen. More on that later. For now, it's arguably useful to address the elephant in the room: would Hamid have written The Problem of Democracy with an accent on the Middle East if the region were bereft of oil? Hopefully the question answers itself. What's frustrating, however, about contemplating the question is how economically clueless the whole foreign policy establishment is. The simple, economic truth is that the United States could be 100% bereft of oil, at war with or embargoed by every oil-producing nation on earth, yet it would still consume abundant Middle Eastern oil as though it had bubbled up in West Texas. That's because there's no getting around the economic fact of life that there's no accounting for the final destination of any good. Short of Middle Eastern countries literally sitting on their oil, something they're not going to do, they'll be trading with us. Always and everywhere. This requires mention as a plea for the U.S. to once again get out of the Middle East so that its countries can succeed or fail on their own, the failure in any country the source of rebirth so long as allegedly 'benevolent' governments don't intervene in the failure. It's a long way of saying that speculation stateside on the right form of government for other countries, and even more foolhardy, the right form of government for other countries vis-à-vis the U.S., is bad for us AND the countries whose futures we're intervening in. Since people are different, so are governments different. Let people choose. Realistically the only foreign policy stance the U.S. should have is not just openness to foreign production, but also openness to the people in countries who want to get out. Immigration isn't a popular word now, but it's the purest market signal of all exactly because it signals the movement of the world's foremost capital (human) to its highest use. What a deal to offer the world: we won't meddle in your affairs, but we'll provide asylum for people eager to escape what is dangerous, dysfunctional, or both. The cost savings would be enormous. Alas, it's not happening. Hamid is clear that something else of importance is similarly not happening, the end of religion in the Middle East. As he puts it, 'religion isn't going anywhere in the Middle East.' Which means there's nothing much the United States can do other than at long last removing its burdensome self from a situation that it can't fix, but that in trying to fix, is yet again delaying the necessary failures and economic corrections that will position countries in the region to start over based on getting real in the first place. What's interesting is that some in the Middle East, and probably many more than Americans are aware of, grasp the above assertion about what not only the Middle East needs, but every country reliant on American money, military protection, advice, or all three needs. Hamid quotes a Muslim Brotherhood type asking Hamid 'why would the West help Egypt become a powerful country, so that Egypt becomes independent and not needing the U.S.?' The right question, and one that bears asking repeatedly. Public choice theory at work. We all want to perpetuate our employment and foreign policy figures are no different. Since billions annually flow from the U.S. to the Middle East, jobs aplenty spring from this. That won't be the case if Egypt and others are allowed to experience the failure without which there won't be success. Of interest to readers who would expect lots of negativity about Donald Trump coming from a Brookings Institution, Washington Post columnist, they might be surprised. Without assuming Hamid a fan of Trump, he's not critical while frequently laudatory. Eager for a rethinking of U.S. foreign policy, Hamid indicates that 'the Trump administration helped make this rethinking of U.S. policy possible.' He adds that 'For the first time, at least in my adult life, there is real room for ideas that would have previously been dismissed as 'radical,' or wishful thinking, or both.' Mostly it seemed that he found appealing Trump's honesty. Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal has said the same before. In some ways Trump is the most honest president we've had in a long time. In Hamid's words, 'Under Trump, the U.S. was less hypocritical than it was under previous administrations.' He writes that latter without while saying the lack of hypocrisy 'does not necessarily produce better outcomes,' but that overall 'there was something refreshing, for instance, about Trump's complete disinterest in American support for human rights and democracy abroad.' Hamid is not as laudatory of Obama, though it's easy to conclude that his disappointment was rooted in high expectations for #44, and bottomless expectations for #45? Whatever the answer, he writes that 'the Obama years proved devastating - in a way they weren't with Trump or George W. Bush – for anyone holding out hope for a different approach to the Middle East.' Which in some ways made Trump and Obama the foreign policy heroes of the book. Whether it's indifference or impressive rationality hidden behind the bluster, Trump's instinct has largely been to avoid trying to fix the world. In Obama's case, his foreign policy was 'don't do stupid shit.' Precisely. Intervention in foreign countries, along with muscular military responses meant to not give the impression of weakness, are invariably stupid. Hamid is disappointed that Obama didn't embrace his lofty campaign rhetoric of the kind which said 'If history is to bend, someone must bend it.' Good for Obama. The best foreign policy of all, other than fully open trade no matter what other countries do, is not doing anything. Because when governments do, it's invariably stupid shit. Neither is Hamid's book stupid. It's quite good and interesting, and it will make people of all stripes think.

Paul Mashatile: We will support all budgets in Parliament, and defeat DA's motion against Ramaphosa
Paul Mashatile: We will support all budgets in Parliament, and defeat DA's motion against Ramaphosa

IOL News

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • IOL News

Paul Mashatile: We will support all budgets in Parliament, and defeat DA's motion against Ramaphosa

Deputy Preseident Paul Mashatile spoke to journalists in the Free State province, where he was joined by Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae in leading the Clean Cities and Towns integrated service delivery programme in the Matjhabeng Local Municipality near Welkom. Image: South African Government Deputy President Paul Mashatile on Tuesday vowed that any motion of no-confidence brought against President Cyril Ramaphosa will be defeated in the National Assembly. Mashatile spoke to journalists in the Free State province, where he was joined by Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae in leading the Clean Cities and Towns integrated service delivery programme in the Matjhabeng Local Municipality near Welkom. 'We will be ready to defeat it,' said Mashatile. Deputy President Paul Mashatile spoke to journalists in the Free State province, where he was joined by Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae in leading the Clean Cities and Towns integrated service delivery programme in the Matjhabeng Local Municipality near Welkom. Image: South African Government IOL reported earlier that the Democratic Alliance (DA), a key coalition partner in the South African government, filed criminal charges against the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Nobuhle Nkabane. The DA accuses Nkabane of lying to Parliament about the appointment of ANC-linked individuals to Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) boards. On Tuesday morning, DA Federal Chairperson Helen Zille and DA MP Karabo Khakhau, who serves on the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, laid the charges at the Cape Town Central police station. Khakhau said the charges relate to Nkabane's alleged deliberate misrepresentation of the appointment process for SETA board members, during which she claimed an 'independent' evaluation panel was responsible for the selections. The DA insists it will not support the budget of the Department of Higher Education and Training while it is under the leadership of Nkabane. The blue party said it will vote against the budgets of departments headed by 'corrupt ANC ministers'. Reacting to the DA's assertions, Mashatile said his party, the ANC would vote to pass all budgets in Parliament. 'The GNU (Government of National Unity) is going to continue. We are going to vote for all budgets. If the DA does not vote for any budget, it is their problem. The budget is not an instrument of a minister. A budget is for the nation. Even if there is a minister of the DA, that is not their budget. That budget is to help the people, so we, as the ANC, will vote for all budgets. 'We want this country to work, we want things to proceed. We will vote for all budgets because our people want us to fix the roads, they want water, they want electricity, they want us to grow the economy, employ people and that is what the budget is all about. So, we are proceeding,' Mashatile charged.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store