 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
If you want to contact us,
please email info@insidepolitics.org.za
|
09 September 2010
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
NO ARGUMENT, NO CONTENT, NO CLUE
By Gareth van Onselen
The point has been made a number of times, but it is worth repeating: as a general rule, the ANC and its alliance partners consistently refuse to argue on the facts, relying rather on character assassination and misdirection instead.
More particularly, whereas Thabo Mbeki and his acolytes often used quite complex logical fallacies and the manipulation of language to misdirect debate, Jacob Zuma and his confidants rely on more brutal ad hominem attacks, along with far less complicated and far more direct language.
Both are equally dishonest and both say something about the character of the relevant individual.
Briefly, here is a quick analysis of the latest such example.
University of South Africa rector, Barney Pityana, in a recent address to the Law Society of South Africa, warned against a Jacob Zuma presidency. He presented various pieces of evidence, in support of his argument. I will not set out all of them here, but by way of illustration here are three:
•He faces charges of corruption and fraud: “To many of us, Jacob Zuma, popularly elected by the branch delegates at Polokwane in December 2007, remains a flawed character in his moral conduct; he has been indicted for serious crimes that involve corruption and dishonesty.”
•His policy positions are inconsistent: “We have seen the leader flip-flop on crucial matters of policy - the death penalty, silence when his supporters mount a savage and uninformed attack on the judges, ostensibly with his concurrence, the dance of back step on the reform of the labour market, and so on.”
•He and his supporters have a disregard for SA’s criminal justice system and the constitution: “That is the reason South Africans should be very concerned when the ANC Youth League confronts the Deputy President of the Constitutional Court about remarks he is reported to have made at a private function, and the sentiment about the integrity and independence of judges that is thrown up, the effect of which is clearly to intimidate the judiciary.”
Evidence is the base on which any argument must be built; and that is exactly what Pityana did. He has a particular view of Jacob Zuma, a view which he presented and supported with evidence.
Now, that is not to say that view cannot be refuted. I happen to agree with it; but, if I was to play Devil’s Advocate, I could refute each of those points with a counter-argument, also supported with evidence. I might argue for example, with regard to the first point, the charges were the result of a conspiracy, that there was evidence to support this - the fact that almost every other senior official implicated in the arms deal has been protected from prosecution - and that it is therefore unfair to make deductions about Zuma’s moral character in this regard.
As it so happens, the evidence presented by Pityana is very strong, which make any defence all the more difficult and any counter-argument relatively weak. Nevertheless, you cannot properly refute the argument he presents without dealing, first and foremost, with his evidence.
But the reaction to Pityana’s address, by those loyal to the ANC president, suggests an organisation which is simply out of its league when it comes to producing cogent arguments and analysis; or, alternatively, has chosen to embrace bullying and intellectual thuggery as its modus operandi, when attempting to deal with criticism.
Let’s look at two such responses, by way of illustration.
First, the SACP’s rather radical youth wing, the Posted on 4/4/2008
 |  | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|