Ramaphosa’s ‘finish and klaar’ in cabinet debate echoes Selebi’s infamous phrase
A week ago, DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis asked President Cyril Ramaphosa to reshuffle key DA members of the national cabinet. At the weekend the president was reported to have said, “Ministers are appointees of the president … only the president can appoint ministers, finish and klaar.”
Was the president channelling late national police commissioner Jackie Selebi with his colourful choice of phrase in two official languages? “Finish and klaar” is the infamous phrase Selebi used in 2007 to defend his close friendship with convicted drug trafficker and smuggler Glenn Agliotti.
Those words were uttered before Selebi was convicted for having a corrupt relationship with Agliotti, following a thorough Scorpions-led investigation (remember those days?), which Selebi unsuccessfully attempted to thwart with some assistance from the Mbeki-led cabinet (as then chief prosecutor Vusi Pikoli remembers).
The phrase has since become synonymous with arrogance, corruption and the ultimate fall from grace of South Africa’s only Interpol head, a prestigious appointment Selebi secured before his corruption was exposed and he was tried and severely punished for it (remember when corrupt bigwigs went down big time on corruption charges?)
While it may be that cabinet posts are usually and constitutionally the president’s prerogative, with the advent of coalition politics in national government in South Africa, it is advisable, and indeed often necessary, to accommodate one’s coalition partners’ preferences for cabinet positions on pain of rendering the coalition “finish and klaar” (to coin a phrase).
Paul Hoffman
Accountability Now
Coalition era fuels calls to limit cabinet size and curb political patronage
In answer to the call by parliament for proposed constitutional amendments, Free SA has launched a campaign calling for a firm constitutional limit on the size of South Africa’s cabinet, arguing that the constitution grants the president excessive discretion to expand the executive at taxpayers’ expense.
The campaign forms part of Free SA’s broader constitutional review submissions and proposes an amendment to section 91(3)(b) of the constitution to limit the number of cabinet ministers to no more than 20. Under the current wording the president may appoint any number of ministers from among members of the National Assembly, creating the potential for unnecessary cabinet expansion and political patronage.
As South Africa enters an era of coalition politics, the temptation to create additional ministerial positions to satisfy political interests rather than improve governance is greater than before. Larger cabinets place a big financial burden on taxpayers through ministerial salaries, support staff, official residences, security, vehicles and administrative structures, while often creating overlapping mandates and reducing accountability.
A smaller executive would strengthen governance by clarifying ministerial responsibilities, reducing duplication between departments and improving public oversight of government performance. Constitutional safeguards are necessary to prevent the executive from expanding purely to manage coalition dynamics rather than to serve the public interest.
We believe such a reform would promote fiscal responsibility, enhance accountability and help restore public confidence in government institutions.
Anneke Burns
Free SA
US-Iran talks falter as Trump’s Middle East strategy draws criticism
James Cunningham should not be celebrating Donald Trump’s foolish negotiations with Iran so soon (US-Iran peace deal leaves Israel isolated and tensions high in the Middle East, June 23). Before his letter even arrived in the editor’s inbox, the negotiations between Tehran and Washington had already broken down.
Continued conflict between Iran and the US is inevitable, not because of Israel but because Iran literally identifies the US as the “Great Satan” in its founding mythos and mandate. Without regime change there can be no lasting peace between the US and Iran.
If peace is declared and economic aid is allowed to Iran, we may be dooming the region. North Korea was given aid in the 1990s to bribe it not to develop a nuclear weapon. It used the money to develop a nuclear weapon. The same will happen in Iran, but unlike North Korea, which has a selfish rationality, Iran is directed by a theocratic dictatorship with an obsession with apocalyptic prophecy. If they attain nuclear weapons, they will use them.
It is also pertinent to ask why a peace treaty between the US and Iran needs to put conditions on a third party. Trump is the one chickening out, challenging Neville Chamberlain in the foolish statesmanship stakes. Israel’s self-defence against terrorists firing rockets at its civilians from Lebanon should have no bearing on any US-Iran peace deal.
Israel doesn’t have the privilege of deciding to just pull out. It did not start this war. It has been attacked again and again, and only by virtue of its resilience and desire to survive has it continued to punch above its weight.
Trump is making a mistake by pushing Israel aside. The US will suffer not just from alienating its key ally in the region but also by showing the world that it can’t be trusted to stand alongside its allies.
Nicholas Woode-Smith
Cape Town
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.