Media Flaws

Yes and NO!
************** Arguing from the perspective of how organisational politics usually works - Yes she had it coming. To challenge those in power so openly is looking for trouble.
Most organisations (government is no different) cling to the status quo. The way things are now, bring some (some say false) sense of security, some reassurance. From this standpoint one could say yes: She had it coming.
********************************
From a different standpoint one could argue- Huh? She had it coming? Is the governments policies on AIDS not so backward that the only honourable thing to do would be to challenge the powers that be - openly. She did that. She got fired.
Now we will see if civil society can bring its part and rally around her in a useful manner.
******************************************
What I find MOST interesting about the whole affair is the opportunists who jump on the band-wagon and argue in support for the axed deputy minister inconsistent with other things they have put out in the public domain....newspapers are full of it. Go figure!

********************************************************

Posted by Hein — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

Dismissal of competence usually indicates insecurity, feeling threatened - and I certainly think that's the case here. She continued to show up her useless minister and others, not only on HIV/AIDS but on basic issues of service delivery (like the Frere Hospital saga...) and so they had a choice - get their act together, or silence the critical voices. They took the route most organisations take - and dismissed her. Technically she was in breach, in terms of the Spanish trip, but her justification sounds authentic, and if we're going to purge on issues like that, we'd be without any ministers, deputies, DGs or pretty much anyone in government or state bureaucracies.

She was fired for insubordination, essentially - for daring to fulfill the mandate she'd been given by voters, and by the constitution.

Posted by Vicki — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

Anyone who didn't see this coming suffers from selective blindness. She was on the ANC sh*tlist ever since she got a taste of popularity last year, and decided to rub it up her bosses faces. It's only logical - why was she bahaving the way she was? why? why didn't she just cross floors if she flet she had back-slidded from the ANC faith. She could have joined the DA or something more aligned to fighting government. But to fight it from with the organisation was plain stupidity on her behalf (for that she cannot be forgiven). Imagine you, Unathi, continuously mocking your boss in public and revealing your bosses weaknesses and whatnots - where do you think you'll end up? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Posted by Destiny's Child — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

she was apparently fired for not being a team player, (not supporting the collective, think the words were) not only as dep health minister, but also from her deputy minister of defence days ....

Posted by Anon — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

In the interest of being fair and allowing freedom of speech on my blog I will not delete Action's advertorial and protest calls. I am however concerned on the number of people who are behind this Madlala-Routledge character. Even after reading the president's letter, explaining the reason he fired her, it still seems not everyone is convinced. Accept it. The reasons for her dismissal are clear - she's not a teamplayer and quite a difficult person within the context of the ANC. Petitioning for her return will not work instead let's rather work on getting her a job with opposition parties (so she can give them a rough time too - I'd love to see the cat-fights between her and Zille should they collude).

With that said. I'd like to repeat: She had it coming from her deputy of defence days, to her Manto-rubbishing days, to her big mouth and lack of sports(wo)menship.

I hope for her own sake she can find someone who will employ a non-teamplayer

Posted by unathi — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

Lets take some action. Click on my name below this comment to sign the ONLINE petition :-)

Posted by Action — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

SASCO Press Statement: The ANC must defend the President of the ANC as leader of government!
10 August 2007

The ANC must defend the President as leader of the ANC-led government!

The African National Congress as a governing party has a duty to defend its deployed cadres as a matter of principle. To an extent that we have to urge the ANC to do so, it is unfortunate. It must be natural and automatic for the ANC to do so. It is even so strange that we have to talk about defending the President these days.

The attack by the Democratic Alliance (DA), interests groups, the so-called analysts and others on the President for his decision to release the Deputy Minister of Health is hypocritical and cheap politicking to say the least. We say it is hypocritical because, it was the DA in particular that questioned the overseas trip of Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka last year, accusing her of abusing state resources and now the DA conveniently does not raise similar questions in the case of the Deputy Minister of Health who allegedly has done the same. The DA chooses to focus on HIV and AIDS and thereby masquerading as the champion of the poor. This is a clear attempt to portray the President and the ANC-led government as an uncaring. The President did not give reasons and it ends there. Why speculate now?

We must tell the DA that we are not fooled by their cheap heroic act. We will not accept this hypocritical double standards. This demonising of the President and the Minister of Health around the issue of HIV and AIDS must stop immediately, it is now old-fashion and extremely out of order! The critiques must wake up now, it does not stick!

The media must also stop reporting on the basis of speculation and sensationalism because, this misleads the public and puts to question the integrity of the media. If the media is so critical and vibrant it ought to ask for the reasons why the Deputy Minister was released from the President himself and not feed the public with speculation that suggests the President of the ANC and his ANC-led government is not sensitive to key challenges like HIV and AIDS. For some media reports to speculate sensationally that, the reason why the Deputy Minister was released is because of her views on HIV and AIDS is sheer poor journalism and has no facts. This media attitude reminds us of the key task on shoulders to accelerate the transformation of the media.

SASCO salutes the role played by the Deputy Minister in her entire tenure in government. And equally we salute the continued profound and progressive leadership role of the Minister of Health thus far.

President of the South African Students’ Congress:
Contact David Maimela 0834731938

Posted by Lebogang"HavoK" Hoveka — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

"profound and progressive leadership role of the Minister of Health thus far" - you cannot be serious! What is so progressive about AIDS denialism?

Is ignoring proven scientific evidence so as to avoid having to provide resources to prevent HIV transmission to unborn babies, or to treat AIDS in your own citizens - many of whom are likely to be the voters who gave you the position you flaunt - is hardly the hallmark of a "profound leader"!

This blind obedience to His Master's Voice that some Charterists are demonstrating in this matter is really worrying. Particularly when some of the people offering these opinions are university graduates. Did they learn nothing from their education? Critical thinking skills, anyone?

Posted by blind leading the blind — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

This is not a matter of critical thinking but being able to see through the smokescreens and ill-conceived realities that are being continually perpetuated by the South African media which seems hellbent on tarnishing black governance/competence. Instead one should question why this constant paranoia towards the "Master's Voice" is continuously playing itself out.

I guess people who fear out of paranoia can only accept what will discredit/belittle 'His Majesty'. As for Manto (surely there should be a plan behind her madness - but no one wants to hear it); aren't people receiving ARVs and whatnots. Remember that issues like HIV/AIDS are YOUR responsiblities. Again I punt - If you couldn't control yourself or use a rubber or at least stay clear from the Virus - IT IS YOUR FAULT!!! NOT GOVERNMENTS!!! STop using this suicide virus as an excuse to discredit our leaders! They have a long way to go and we will support them until they can overcome the obstacles created by those REAL idiots of the past order - which were blindly (if not willingly) supported by sheep who claim they were not aware it was happening or they were liberal as hell.

Continue fearing him and use this white dominated media to discredit (while you still can. This convenient realities will not last - transformation within the media is bound to occur. As University people you could use your own skills to visit these people in power, conduct your own research and find facts for yourself - instead of gulping everything you are fed by this pseudo-media we have in this country.

Posted by Pissed Off — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

"The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think - rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men."

Posted by quote from Bill Beattie — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

I just had a strange notion... What would happen if we raised the level of conversation beyond personalities, and political point scoring? I've been wondering about a few questions eg

- What was the political strategy behind our President's choice to appoint Ms Madlala-Routledge in the first place?
- How did she last so long as Deputy Minister?
- What does it mean to fire someone who happens to be No 3 on the SACP list and from KZN at this stage in the ANC succession battle?
- What's wrong with our HIV/AIDS policy (and implementation strategies) and how can these be improved?

Posted by Wondering ... — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

It seems that the debate continued as I went up the west coast in search of blommetjies. Most interesting the various aspects that are coming to light.

As Vicki pointed out technically the deputy ministered had indeed "transgressed" and some form of action was probably justified. (my interpretaion)

It seems also to me that the Presidents public explanation for his action has gone some way in clarifying the matter for some people but not for others.

I will restate what I said earlier - she probably could have decided to "play along" and not challenge authority so openly and gotten away for a bit longer with playing a useful role.

Personally I think she could have accomplished a lot had she gone this route.

What is actually far more intersting to me than the actual debate about wehther or not the deputy minister should have been fired is this: what lies behind the arguments emerging form within the different camps?

It seems that on the one side there is an incredible defensiveness and on the other end incredible opportunism. This is probably too much for a comment and should be the subject of my next BLOG POST

Posted by Hein — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25

I see the attempt to defend the president in this manner a little mis-guided. Defend him against what: people dis-agreeing with him? Why would the president need to be defended against that? Is this a democracy? If yes, why should ppl need to defend the president agains citizens dis-agree-ing with him

Posted by ? — 10 Sep 2007, 19:25