LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Policies to reimagine divided cities still outstanding

Ivan Turok, in “Constitutional Court got Sea Point right” (July 9), says my column “A city’s soul is a sum of hard choices” (July 6) “ignores the crucial role of governments in building functional cities …” Yet this is really at the heart of my argument.

He writes, “Urban economists understand full well that without the guiding hand of the state, cities will turn out chaotic and dysfunctional. The same argument applies to the fragmented, sprawling and inefficient character of South African cities inherited from the past due to deeply misguided apartheid spatial planning.”

I agree. I described the effects. But the crucial question concerns the nature of that “guiding hand” and the extent to which “policy instruments” (my words) match the dynamism and choice of today’s free society rather than reverting to the restrictive, stifling conditions of the unfree one that preceded it.

Hence, I wrote that, in South Africa’s cities today, “already home to 67% of the population … unless the property developer and the labourer can more or less recognise themselves and their interests in policy instruments directed at overcoming the apartheid spatial plan and everyone’s right to ‘adequate housing’, the truly transformative answer to our long-delayed reimagining of a liberated or democratic or just South Africa will remain elusive”.

I am not qualified to appraise the Constitutional Court’s Tafelberg School decision as law, but, plainly, whatever one’s ideology, the ruling is not, on its own, among the policy instruments on which that long-delayed reimagining must depend.

Michael Morris

Institute of Race Relations

Kubayi’s claims damage South Africa’s credibility

I applaud your editorial, “Kubayi’s Israel claims risk undermining the state’s credibility” (July 10). As always, it presented a clear, balanced and persuasive argument.

My only point of disagreement is your description of the justice minister Mmamoloko Kubayi’s claim that Israel is fuelling anti-migrant sentiment as “reckless”. To me, that is too charitable. It appears less an act of recklessness than a calculated and malicious attempt to bolster South Africa’s standing with the anti-Western bloc by promoting an allegation for which no credible evidence has been presented. That bloc includes governments and organisations that have openly supported — or, in some cases, perpetrated — acts of terrorism.

By repeatedly aligning itself with such regimes while distancing itself from long-standing democratic partners, South Africa risks both its international credibility and its moral authority.

There is an old saying: “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” Sadly, after decades of choosing questionable allies, South Africa should not be surprised if some of their disrepute begins to rub off.

David Wolpert

Sydney, Australia

The DA’s challenge is identity, not perception

Anthony Butler’s article, "DA’s perception problem goes beyond John Steenhuisen" (July 10) refers.

Reading the article gives the impression that the DA is the “big bad wolf” of South African politics, driven by external forces.

The “perception problem” the DA suffers is simply the identity and racial emotional preferences of the majority black voters. This is the main reason simple democracy does not work in a multicultural society but morphs very quickly into majoritarianism and, in South Africa’s case, black nationalism.

Even our esteemed Constitutional Court is not immune to this weakness.

Politics is a numbers game and one in which the DA can never win regardless of perception.

Ian Ferguson

Via Business Day online

Criticism of the DA needs better evidence

Anthony Butler’s column, "DA’s perception problem goes beyond John Steenhuisen" (July 10), is light on facts and heavy on speculation that sweeps across years and unrelated events and catches all in its path, like a fishing dragnet, and does the author no favours.

The recent spate of negative reporting on the DA starts to feel more like a well-planned campaign than legitimate criticism.

The uproar around Tony Leon and his PR company is utterly devoid of legitimacy — it honestly appears that the people writing about it never knew that lobbying was and is a fundamental part of how businesses interact with the government. The whole “State Capture 2.0″ narrative is ignorant conjecture.

Then the Constitutional Court found against the DA, confusing metro and provincial decisions, broadcast by this paper, that the DA had three months to reverse the legacy of apartheid, which is a new level of absurdity.

Last week, the public protector dusted off a case from 2022 (under the disgraced and later impeached Busisiwe Mkhwebane) that it launched itself following a “community outreach” roadshow in Langa and Khayelitsha where Cape Town was “failing to deliver services”, when every metric confirms the city’s best-in-class track record on this.

Interestingly, the public protector did not feel it necessary to run roadshows in other metros yet staged visits to Bloemfontein and Kimberley, where all was found to be in order.

The political cynicism in all this is breathtaking but also on display for all to see.

The ever-thoughtful Frans Cronje, through his The Common Sense platform, attacks the DA practically daily now, with other journalists horrified that former DA leader John Steenhuisen displayed some personal emotion at being demoted by his friend. Really? It’s easy today to say stuff, no facts needed.

As November approaches, perhaps a modicum of honestly will emerge from quieter corners of editorial rooms to provide some balance.

Martin Neethling

Via Business Day online