[DEBATE] : The meaning of 'inherently repressive'

Thu May 11 01:00:36 BST 2006

Dominic:

I am not quite sure what you mean below when you refer to the 'inherently 
repressive tendency of the liberal bourgeoisie' - something apparently 
curable (lower down) by revolution.

You refer variously to this tendency being represented by constitutional 
fictions, by parliament (?) and even on this list. You further say that the 
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is 'transparently obvious'.

Now I am aware that this is all said in the context of the Zuma case. Your 
argument here may simply be a matter of polemical reinforcement of the main 
point you are making.

But I am wondering whether you really believe that the D of the B is 
transparently obvious (in which case fictions would not function), whether 
you believe that liberal-democratic forms of bourgeois rule are no more than 
fictions, and, finally, what evidence you might mount for revolutions being 
free of 'inherently repressive' tendencies. (I leave aside the matter of 
this list for fear of finding myself suspected of the IRT of the LB).

I am wondering, further, why the SACP would in fact be co-responsible for 1) 
instituting lib-democ in South Africa, 2) being heavily involved in creating 
its advanced liberal democratic judicial order (the name of my 1950s-60s 
part comrades, Kadar Asmal and Albie Sachs come to mind), as well as 3) 
publicly committed to parliamentary democracy, and 4) in favour of the 
liberal (pre-democratic) doctrine of innocence till guilt proven, if the 
above was the case.

My own feeling is that liberal doctrine and liberal-democratic practice is 
both complex and contradictory, and currently becoming more liberal and less 
democratic. However, it bears within it historical achievements, many 
established by popular or working-class struggle. And that dismissing it as 
the D of the B only justifies revolution on the grounds that this is a D of 
the P. Every acclaimed case of the latter has been accompanied by open 
represssion and crude political fictions (including the frequent 
*reproduction* of liberal-democratic institutions such as constitutions, 
laws, parliaments, elections and even a multiplicity of political parties). 
As we also know, most of these regimes have been overthrown by 
classes/masses for whom such fictions had been long transparent. (Witness 
here the Berthold Brecht joke after the worker uprising in East Berlin, 
1953: 'There has obviously been a serious breakdown in the relationship of 
confidence between the Party and the People. I propose we dissolve the 
People and elect a new one in its place'.

My conclusion from all this is that we need to understand the contradictions 
within liberal democracy, to criticise and reduce the fictions, and to 
deepen and extend the democratisation - to be understood as a process 
without limits. This might not fit the insurrectionary model of revolution, 
it would represent a 'revolution in everyday life', this taking place 
against capital, state, patriarchy, racism, militarism and 
industrialism/consumerism [space for more..............]. The existence of 
Debate, the current exchanges, and your very presence on this list, would 
seem to me to contribute to such a process.

It is way past my bedtime (now almost 0200) and tomorrow at nine I have to 
be at a seminar on globalised production chains and union strategy in the 
face of such. So any possible implications of this argument for the Zuma 
case (or the debate around Debate) will have to be left to anyone else with 
interest and sleeplessness. As they say,

Goodnight and Goodluck
(a movie about the contradictions of liberal democracy).

Peter W.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dominic Tweedie" <hypercube at telkomsa.net>
To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:19 PM
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Fwd: TAC statement on verdict in Jacob Zuma trial

Russell, you are inadvertently spreading a false rumour, I'm afraid.

The position of the Alliance as a whole, including the ANC, SACP and COSATU,
has been consistently to say: "innocent until proven guilty".

There have been many attempts to disinform people about this. One was the
Western Cape phoney story you refer to. Another was Steven Friedman's
article last month which Blade Nzimande responded to with an article,
whereupon Raymond Suttner wrote a letter, and so forth and so fifth.

But the position of the Alliance has never wavered, and by the way it
remains fully in force, because there is another Zuma trial to come, don't
forget.

This has been an honourable position and something to be proud of. People
were taking pot-shots at us all along and from all points of the compass but
we didn't flinch and we were never provoked into violating our no comment,
innocent until proven guilty stance.

Now, we are in a very strong position indeed because we were principled
about this matter, and we were seen to be so.

As for TAC; COSATU and the SACP in particular have been their main political
backers (as distinct from their overseas funders). Hence the point of my
question.

In other words I am asking: Is TAC supporting the Alliance position or is it
turning on its own allies?

It is unfortunately not clear. The mention of One in Nine (a special purpose
vehicle for the anti-Zuma campaign, as their web site makes clear) inclines
one to think one thing, but the other meaning is also possible.

The inherently repressive tendency of the liberal bourgeoisie is an ongoing
situation and not at all absent from this list. It is nothing new. For
example the (fictional) doctrine of "Constitutional Supremacy" is formally
ten years old this week. It is fictional because the actually-existing class
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is transparently obvious. So it is a
bourgeois class "supremacy", not a piece-of-paper one or a judicial one.

But the subordination of the bourgeois-democratic parliament to the grey
eminences is explicit. The contempt for people's democracy or power to the
people, is directly stated. Repression based on "Constitutional Supremacy"
is latent. It sits there like the Divine Right of Kings, except that in this
case the Parliament is a dead duck politically.

There is a big idea. It is the old mole, revolution. Never far away.

Domza.

Web site at: http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/
Blog at: http://domza.net/
Subscribe for free e-mail updates at:
http://groups.google.com/group/Communist-University/
Library of documents at: http://cu.domza.net/

-----Original Message-----
From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org]On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: 10 May 2006 10:31 PM
To: debate: SA discussion list
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Fwd: TAC statement on verdict in Jacob Zuma trial

Nothing surprises that much any more. Those who once might have been
expected to display at least a few progressive impulses are now baying for
more repression and controls. Didn't the Western Cape region (I think) of
Cosatu recently call for the reversal of the tradition of innocence until
proven guilty in rape cases? Is this not just the logical conslusion of
calls to alter the adversarial nature of rape cases?

Could it be that as tendencies to fragmentation grow amongst the political
elite/new middle class (as manifested in the whole Zuma affair) and the lack
of any political "big idea" becomes obvious, the inherently conservative and
repressive nature of their politics is starting to manifest itself?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominic Tweedie" <hypercube at telkomsa.net>
To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Fwd: TAC statement on verdict in Jacob Zuma trial

Can anyone give clarity on the following line from the TAC statement:

...(under the banner of the One in Nine Campaign)... "Mobilisation to end
social tolerance of rape with guarantees that all accused are innocent until
proven guilty."?

Does it mean that TAC wants to end the principle of innocent until proven
guilty?

Or does it mean that they want to guarantee that accused are innocent until
proven guilty?

The sentence seems to me to be capable of either construction.

Web site at: http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/
Blog at: http://domza.net/
Subscribe for free e-mail updates at:
http://groups.google.com/group/Communist-University/
Library of documents at: http://cu.domza.net/

-----Original Message-----
From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org]On Behalf Of Richard Pithouse
Sent: 10 May 2006 10:23 AM
To: debate at lists.kabissa.org
Subject: [DEBATE] : Fwd: TAC statement on verdict in Jacob Zuma trial

      TAC accepts verdict, concerned at judge's reinforcing of
      patriarchal prejudices in framing his judgement

The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) accepts Judge Van Der Merwe's
statement that the state did not succeed in establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt in the case of alleged rape of his family friend and
daughter of a comrade. The Judge criticized the police for their shoddy
investigation. It is tragic that this is true in thousands of cases of
rape in our country.  A lack of empathy with victims of violence, police
sexism and a lack of resources hamper police investigations in most cases.

Judge Van Der Merwe could have made a finding of not-guilty for Zuma
without dehumanizing the complainant and resorting to patriarchal
prejudices and stereotypes of women who allege rape as pathological. For
those in our country who already hold these attitudes towards women,
such utterances by a judge can only serve to legitimize their unjust
beliefs. These utterances can also serve to confirm the belief by many
women who have survived rape that our country's justice system is biased
towards men and treats women as unequal citizens.

Former Deputy President Zuma and all accused have a right to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty. The court process has found him innocent.
We understand the pain his family, comrades and the former
Deputy-President faced. But we also work with countless women who
struggle to get a complaint heard.

Regrettably, the former Deputy President has failed to condemn violence
and vilification of women carried out in the name of his defense by the
Friends of Jacob Zuma. This is an assault on the dignity of every woman
and rape survivor. It also undermines the integrity of men who do not
support violence against women.

Despite his patriarchal positions on women and sex, Judge Van Der Merwe
pointed out that former Deputy-President acted irresponsibly towards
himself, his family, the woman he had sex with in the context of
tragically high rates of HIV infection in our country.

The Former Deputy President's position on gender reflects the sexism
which continues to plague our society and drives our HIV epidemic. Such
views are not acceptable in any man, much less a leader who fought for
freedom and equality.

It is indeed tragic that someone who led SANAC and the country's "moral
regeneration" campaign has made the kinds of utterances he has on HIV.
One of the biggest challenges facing HIV prevention efforts in our
country is people's ability to internalize their personal risk to
infection and act accordingly. It is therefore sad to note through this
trial, that Mr. Zuma did not perceive himself at risk of infection.

TAC calls on all women, civil society, the unions and government to
unify under the banner of the One in Nine Campaign, immediately to ensure:
1.proper investigation of all rape cases and the ending of the current
backlog
2.The protection of the dignity of all complainants of rape,
particularly women
3.The passing of the Sexual Offences Bill with appropriate amendments
4.Mobilisation to end social tolerance of rape with guarantees that all
accused are innocent until proven guilty.

The conduct of this trial has put in question the principles of the
equality of women; the prevention of HIV; the exercise of responsible
sexual behaviour; the right to fair trial and the independence of the
judiciary.  TAC and civil society must not compromise on these principles.

We urge all survivors of rape not to allow the statements made during
the course of this trial to deny their right to access justice. Rape is
always a crime and we must fight for the legal justice system to always
be accountable.

On this 10th anniversary of Parliament's approval of our constitution,
TAC remembers Lorna Mlofana, Nandipha Matyeke, Gugu Dlamini and many
women who were victims of gender based violence. TAC will continue to
strengthen its efforts to build a society in which women can live as
equal citizens, where men respect women and where women can enjoy the
freedoms guaranteed by our constitution.

http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find our disclaimer at http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<gwavasig>>>>
_______________________________________________
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

_______________________________________________
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

_______________________________________________
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

_______________________________________________
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate