Arch's arrows nothing but a point-scoring exercise

It is now common for Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu to talk of boycotts, be it of the elections or attending the peace conference. Of course, this creates a lot of publicity and mileage for the Arch to maintain his position as one of the most outspoken critics of the South African government.

But I am quite unsure of the effectiveness of this strategy because, inevitably, he changes his mind and does the opposite of what he threatened. The case of “boycotting” the elections is very instructive because not only have citizens defied his advice, for example, but have come out in their millions to register.

Now, the Arch himself has since changed his mind and will be participating in the elections. Thus one cannot help but wonder whether the Arch is still a man of his convictions or just a barking dog that seldom bites.

Ironically, one of the easiest things for the Arch to do today is to attack the ANC government.

This is so because in the last 15 years the ANC government has been distracted from its major focus of transforming the country. Instead, it has been forced to mop up the mess that has been created and left by imperialism, colonialism and, of course, the apartheid regime.

In fact, the politico-economic landscape remains, largely, structurally unchanged except that apartheid agents have been substituted by ANC apparatchiks in governing the country. But this does not mean that there has been no progress in efforts to satisfy the aspirations of the African majority, for instance.

Essentially, cleaning up or dealing with the apartheid legacy is what the ANC government’s transformation effort has been focused on. This political self-help strategy has entailed not only creating strong links with the world’s emerging superpower, China — which has increased its trade and investment in the country — but putting the interests of the country first.

Until the Arch has alternatives for what the ANC government should do, I think his threats of boycott will remain practically empty. It does not help his political credibility much that he shares the same anti-South Africa sentiments with former apartheid head honcho, FW de Klerk, who is notorious for bad-mouthing the country.

The fact that the Arch is on the same wavelength with De Klerk makes it easy to begin to question the purpose of his unpatriotic utterances and gestures. The controversy that he has initiated on the alleged decline of a visa to the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, begins to take meaning when we ask: who is of more practical help to South Africa, the Dalai Lama or China?

It often turns out that supporting the Dalai Lama only amounts to making correct political speeches that endear some to so-called freedom-loving people of the world. But to what extent does this noise-making advance the freedom struggle for ordinary Tibetans or help create jobs or feed South Africans?

I am not too sure if common people in the 21st century are still interested in leaders who are good at pontificating on their behalf while they continue to suffer.

One is not suggesting that the Arch should shut up now that he is old and retired. Put like this it may appear that one is calling for blind patriotism that borders on the immoral. But we have to ask ourselves whose friends should come first. Is it leaders who will help individuals like the Arch to up their points in moral standing and thus win more American awards? Or is it friends of our government like China who will help bring jobs and put bread on the table of the jobless and hungry and not to forget affordable clothing at Mr Price and city pavements?

We have to distinguish between things that will benefit so-called respected leaders to win more international awards and political bilateral that will alleviate poverty, unemployment and hunger. Being a darling of the world simply means nothing while the majority of our people suffer from the apartheid legacy.

After all, the Arch and De Klerk are well-fed and comfortable while the poor majority stands to gain from business with China, whatever its international standing.

Perhaps the only way to resolve this impasse is for us to answer one question: How does it help if the Arch and De Klerk gain the approval of the world while people are dying of joblessness, poverty and hunger?

Judge for yourself!