AndrewLaGrange.Com

In a democracy, all figures are equal before the law. But some of a citizens rights are removed because of their actions. Most notable of course are the rights of criminals. We all agree, as a society, that sometimes the the rights of the individual are balanced against the rights of society and are found to hold less weight in the eyes of law and justice.

When we see criminals punished, their rights limited, we as a society are generally happy. Because the criminal has taken away the rights of others. But there are other cases where an individuals rights are subject to limitation which we, as citizens, might find a little more curious or harder to balance.

The one which no doubt has erupted this week is the right of the press, and indeed all citizenry, to criticise public figures. No public figure in South Africa as of late, has been the subject of as much criticism as Jacob Zuma. He now intends to sue Jonathan Shapiro, aka Zapiro, a man famous for lampooning all and sundry (and a bastion of the free speech the end of Apartheid has brought us, thanks to the work of the ANC, and all South Africans), because he feels that the cartoon published in the Sunday Times’ defames him.

I can’t comment on the legalities of this, I’ll leave that to people better placed, however I would like to speak to the reality of Jacob Zuma’s position and role in our society, which he has reached for in his craven desire to hold the highest office of the land.

Zapiro’s cartoon may be in bad taste, considering the scourge of rape that faces our nation. It may desensitise us the true calamity that rape is to its victims, and it may falsely continue to accuse Zuma of being a rapist after the very justice system, which Zuma and his cronies do now denounce, found him not guilty (the interpretation of a not guilty verdict being equal to innocence is another matter!)

But I’m tempted to say that Jacob Zuma should be a big boy about these things, and let it go. I honestly can’t see how this cartoon can defame Zuma any further than he does so himself when he answers questions of foreign media, or through his answers in his various court cases, civil and criminal. Jacob Zuma is a tarnished man. That may not be fair. It may not be just. But for anyone to suggest that Jacob Zuma has any sort of reputation that can be further lowered by the pen of Zapiro is ignorant of the public’s thoughts on Zuma, alliance party insiders and other sycophantic cronies besides.

A public figure places themselves over the public. This should be a role of duty, honour, service and sacrifice. But more often than not this is the act of an adult reaching, like a child towards a cookie jar, to the public purse, or at the very least the power and privilege which public office provides.

It is wrong then for a public figure to expect the same protection against criticism as the private citizen. The social contract requires public figures to be held to greater account, maybe not in the courts, but certainly in the court of public opinion. Jacob Zuma, and his allies, are enemies of the judiciary. Not because he stands accused, he may very well be found not guilty, but because they have shown contempt towards the judiciary, have attempted to subvert its independence, and therefore the very basis of separation of the three branches of government.

Carl Niehaus (as he did on IOL today) and others in the ANC are starting to gloss over  and get nostalgic to the days of political education that the struggle brought to common South Africans. Instead of remembering the ‘good (bad) old days’ of Apartheid they should be fighting the new struggle against a tyranny which aims to subvert justice and create two sets of rights for South Africans, one for the poor and suffering, and one for the privileged few who deign to suckle on the teat of the state.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Comedy, Commentary, Corruption, Language, Law, Politics, Rant, Society, Zuma, ethics by Andrew la Grange