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.
The DDF understand that people in government who see opportunity to enter into business dealings with Government are tempted to do just that, and there should be clear cut and reasonable rules which permit freedom of association and freedom of trade without compromising the integrity of either the government, the service provider or the transaction itself.
The only way this can happen is for the government employee/service provider, to completely disassociate himself from government (resign) and tender (get in the queue) along with all the other bidders, and that all the other bidders should be privy to the same information available to the most privileged bidder.
The penalty for not disengaging in this manner should be an all expenses paid sojourn in one of our prestigious places of incarceration. In short, deal-rigging, should be a criminal matter with meaningful consequences.
The DDF are committed to this sort of transparency and corruption busting. DDF policies speak for themselves.
All involve politicians diverting or stonewalling investigations into their activities. There is indeed something rotten in the state of South Africa that a Direct Democracy Forum administration will take the wraps off and let the law prevail.
Our bureaucrats are not the only people subjected to power grabs and interference in their jobs. It seems South African athletes are subjected to similar attacks. The South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc), a body designated by the Minister of Sports and Recreation as mandated by theNational Sports and Recreation Act No.110 of 1998to act as an umbrella body for multiple sport activities, such as the Olympics and Commonwealth games, is trying to assume overriding authority over SA’s sports federations.
The act does not state that the body allotted that task (currently Sascoc) has the right to interfere in or with the various national sports federations, either in their leadership, management or selection processes, yet this is exactly what Sascoc seem to be attempting with Athletics SA (ASA) by inserting Sascoc choices into ASA (at least one of which apparently resulted in financial mismanagement at ASA).
This is apparently a similar pattern of interference experienced by other national sports federations. In terms of the new companies act, to which both Sascoc and ASA are subject, you cannot have control of one non profit company vested in another and this seems to be what Sascoc is attempting to achieve. ASA would not play ball and Sascoc suspended ASA from Sascoc.(do Sascoc even have the right to do that?). Sascoc also seem to be usurping the reporting channels of national sports federations to Parliament by inserting themselves into that line of authority and accountability. This doesn’t look good for Parliament or South African sports or SA sports federations.
The practical effect for South African athletes is theyno longer have representation at the IOC or the Commonwealth Games and are no longer recipients of any funding that is normally channeled through Sascoc. A ray of light is that the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) recognise ASA and not Sascoc as the controlling body of athletics in SA and continue normal relations with ASA and athletic events under IAAF auspices continue.
A Direct Democracy Forum administration will ensure that power grabs by Sascoc will cease and the authority, accountability and responsibility of national sports federations to their members and Parliament will be reinstated and reinforced. Sascoc will have to limit their activities to that of mediator and coordinator of multiple sports activities, as envisaged by the act. Then our national sports federations can get on with doing what they do best – seeing that our sports men and sports women continue winning on international playing fields and bring honour to our country.