In this blog, the Direct Democracy Forum have spoken often of the ills of our society such as here and here, and again, some poor unfortunate woman is a victim, not just of an isolated group of disassociated thugs, but because they are the product of a dysfunctional and disassociated society, they, Anene and Letty, were victims if this, our dysfunctional and disassociated society, and we have to fix it before it becomes endemic.
The DDF have policies which will raise the poor and the destitute out of their cycles of poverty, restore the role of families and communities to be the foundations of our society, restore respect and care for our women by our men, and return South Africa to sanity.
But to do all that the DDF need support from all who want those good things to happen.
It seems that if you are prepared to be a professional bureaucrat at whatever level in whatever field, that is, you are prepared to do your duty without picking sides and indulging in favouritism, you are going to be attacked by people whose political agendas you threaten by simply doing your job. This happens wherever you are. It happened and is happening toGlynnis Breytenbach, it happened toLindiwe Msengana-Ndlelaand now it seems to be happening toShadrack Sibiya and Anwa Dramatof the Hawks (our elite crime fighting unit), for apparently doing too good a job and endangering politically protected persons.
A Direct Democracy Forum administration would empower the likes of Breytenbach, Ndleli, Sibiya and Dramat and anyone else who is doing their jobs without fear or favour and however possible would free them from unjustified political interference.DDF policiesspeak for themselves, particularly those on theJudiciary, SecurityandLocal Government.
The Direct Democracy Forum believes that successful prosecution would set yet another precedent in the challenge to the reigning political elite, that even the most senior of them can be held accountable for their actions and abuses. The DDF believe the government of the day are avoiding this precedent at all costs so as to avoid a domino effect that could bring down the highest of the high in the corridors of power.
Does this mean the scrabble to avoid that domino effect arises from widespread criminality in the corridors of power? The DDF suspect as much. What other reason can there be for such telling and panic induced behaviour? The alternative of letting justice prevail and letting the truth out is certainly being avoided, almost at any cost.
A DDF administration would stand back and allow the full prosecution of criminals in government, no matter who they were, nor the manner of their criminality.
The state must be above reproach in all matters to engage the trust of its citizens. This is something DDF policies will ensure at all levels of government.
Traumatized by the events of the past decade or so, a glib prescription, take two prozac and read on. This for South Africa in her time of illness. The implication, it could get worse, you may need the prozac.
There was a time, not so long ago, when violence was such an everyday occurrence in SA that our nation was in a state of shock, where each act was considered to be something of the norm, where we were numbed by it and existed almost in a state if disbelief. We seem to be headed that way again, this time it is violence against the nation as a whole perpetrated by those in whom we place our trust. As one person put it, ‘something has to change’.
The Direct Democracy Forum can bring about that change, restore a sense of decency and reality to the affairs of the nation, where those guilty of violence and greed and sedition are judged accordingly and dealt with appropriately and her citizens can walk the streets of the nation free of fear and go about their business without let or hindrance and know that their economic security will not be undermined by the acts of by those in whom we place our trust. Look at DDF policies and judge for yourself.
The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (or PAIA; Act No. 2 of 2000) is a South African freedom of information law intended to impose compliance with section 32 of SA’s Constitution. It allows access to any information held by the State or by private bodies required for the exercise and protection of any rights.
Why is it, then, that requests for information in accordance with the act are so often met with silence, obfuscation and delaying tactics that force committed appellants to court in order to obtain compliance? This behaviour is so endemic and systemic that clearly government can only be trying to impose a general acceptance of secrecy regarding its affairs so when it acts unlawfully or unwisely it’s misbehaviour is simply buried amongst all other of its dealings. In short, civilians must simply “put up and shut up”. What SA’s government and politicians get up to is simply not any of our business. This tale, “finding-truth-in-a-culture-of-secrecy” expresses the frustration experienced by anyone trying to obtain information from government, particularly about contentious events, such as but not limited to Nkandlagate.
The Direct Democracy Forum have news for anyone taking advantage of this sort of behaviour. As a body which respects constitutional compliance, the DDF find this sort of behaviour unacceptable from government institutions and undertake to enforce strict compliance with the constitution by all branches of government and to prosecute recalcitrants to the full extent of the law. That should bring about a sea-change in bureaucratic attitudes and probably also in bureaucratic behaviour.