Boesak and the Duckworth-Lewis method of political morality

In case you aren’t aware of the Duckworth-Lewis method, it is in fact a mathematical formula used in cricket to calculate what the team batting second has to score in order to win, as a result of the match overs being reduced by bad weather. This calculation it seems has now been extended by Allan Boesak to include selecting a political party where one’s options appear to have been reduced by certain factors seemingly beyond their control.

If there are any mathematicians among you lot please check my workings.

As your point of departure it would be beneficial to your understanding of the background to Boesak joining Cope if you read through this article by Gaye Davis of The Mercury. Please note, however, that when reading my article that it has to be done while it is raining outside or the formula should not be employed.

To my way of thinking Boesak should never be employed but that has nothing to do with the Duckworth-Lewis.

In 1999 Boesak was convicted and sent to jail for three years (serving one thereof) for fraud as a result of the misappropriation of funds received from Paul Simon, a Danish charity and the Coca Cola Foundation, which were supposed to have been used for development projects.

” Boesak did not testify in his own defence at his trial, because his lawyers, according to the statement, felt “there was in fact no case to answer” but also, because of his “desire and commitment to protect persons in sensitive positions during the struggle, in the ANC and the new government, some of whom had received support through the Paul Simon funds in the 1988 emergency”. (IOL)

Now call me an idiot but isn’t there something horribly rotten in the state of Denmark and here I’m not referring to the dollars that went missing, but rather what Boesak is saying now in 2008. He is suggesting that he was innocent in 1999 but decided to be the fall guy for a number of criminals within the ANC. In essence that he was laundering(?) the money on their behalf but kept quiet in order to protect them. He had better make sure his pardon covers more than just fraud because it appears that he was neither charged nor convicted of some of the more serious charges he should have faced during his trial.

But far, far worse for Boesak 2008 is his confirmation that he was covering up for criminals within the ANC. If they were innocent he had no need to protect them and if they were guilty of stealing money from charities destined for upliftment of our poorer communities and he believed them worthy of protecting, then he should never be allowed near a pulpit never mind a political party.

Notwithstanding and in light of Boesak’s outpourings it does seem strange that he was pardoned by the president in 2005.

Now in Duckworth-Lewis they utilise runs, wickets and overs to calculate the figure. Here we can use wickeds (as in number of those who have been half-inching the charity dollars), runs (same word but here it means those who run away and aren’t prosecuted) and because it’s Christmas, overs means end of criminal record through a presidential pardon in a pear tree.

By my calculation it’s 6 (thumbsuck)wickeds x 6 runs less a presidential pardon in a pear tree, which leaves you with 35 (make sure it’s raining or this won’t work). In other words, according to the political Duckworth-Lewis method, Boesak believed that unless he received the 35th (you may have a different answer — check that it is raining) highest position within the ANC he would switch allegiance.

As we know from the article by Gaye Davis Boesak was demanding a statement from the ANC that would clear his name. In addition that he was weighing up his options in terms of where he could best place himself within the ANC. Of course when he didn’t get his clearance and whatever else he may have demanded he decided to join Cope.

In other words the policies of the ANC and Cope are irrelevant — the deciding factor was his demands being met, failing which he would jump to another party, which is precisely what he did. In addition he then went about making public what he was demanding from the ANC. This means that any claim to be protecting people during his trial out of some sense of misguided decency is belied by his current actions. Here he is in 2008 demonstrating that “covering-up” comes at a price and if you don’t pay it you better look out: Santa Allan is coming to punish bad boys and girls.

Of course he misses the point that, in setting this all out publically, he is confirming that at the time he was guilty of offences which are far more serious than the crimes for which he was convicted. How well the presidential pardon covers all that and what assurances he was purportedly given by the ANC when he started serving his term are within his own knowledge.

What is clear is that regardless of his claims to innocence, the misappropriation of those funds could never have taken place without him. He was either front and centre or a conduit being used to get hold of the money. When he received a presidential pardon he should have thanked his lucky stars and got on with his life.

Unfortunately using his Duckworth-Lewis method of political morality he, staggeringly, believes that he is a victim and that he is owed something by someone or else.

Man, I hope it stops raining before Derby-Lewis gets hold of the formula.