In South Africa there is a particular section of the population that appears adamant that we must all suffer from collective national amnesia!

And I am deliberately saying "a particular section" of the population because it seems that one is a lot safer resorting to euphemisms than if one were to say "some white people" (not ALL white people, though the qualifier is often useless because they never notice it).

Last week I wrote about the little broedertwits in the ruling ANC involved in the dirty ploys around the succession to the party presidency and, consequently, the leadership of the country. In the course of the discussion, I referred to what I thought were pertinent, comparative points and examples.

As I often do, I placed events in their context, and said "apartheid South Africa" or "... regime" and "white academics" when I felt that was fitting.

But for that I am being mercilessly crucified, mainly by white correspondents who read my columns on the News24 website.

Very few of them actually debate the issues I raise but, instead, lecture me quite uselessly on my "racism" and "anti-white" attitudes.

Yet the same people are often deafeningly quiet whenever I write in strong condemnation of some practices by blacks, as I have done in the past few months.

The News24 response

In response to last week's column, letters copied to me by the editors range from the very crude and vulgar to the tame pleas that I must tone down my "anti-white" attitude.

As I have often stated, I have absolutely no intention to call a spade a "huge spoon".

The outpouring of scorn, laced with invective in some cases, concerns my displeasure with the way the ANC is treating former deputy president Jacob Zuma.

For that I am pilloried for "supporting a crook", often by people whose understanding of the issues involved appears to be very shallow, if not downright nonexistent.

Where is the much-vaunted principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? Does it apply selectively? "Shifty-eyed Zuma" (as an abusive and vulgar white correspondent calls him), is seen to be as guilty as once pronounced by former national director of prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka, who claimed to have a prima facie case of corruption against Zuma but could not win it?

What about Sandile Majali?

But what about the United Nations report, released last week, which totally damned especially one of the big benefactors of the ANC, Sandile Majali, as having paid bribes to the ousted regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein?

As if that were not enough, Majali is at the centre of the scandal in which funds meant for the national parastatal oil company PetroSA, were diverted to the ruling party's coffers shortly before the last general election. Some R11m was inexplicably given - and received in the transaction.

Now in my book that is corruption to the nth degree, but I do not hear President Thabo Mbeki publicly disowning Majali, and telling the country that the R11m will be returned to the national treasury as a matter of urgency (and decency), and that disciplinary action will be taken against Majali and all other shady benefactors of the ruling party.

An old Latin maxim "qui tacit consentire" (silence gives consent), seems most appropriate in this instance; Mbeki has been on his roadshows to municipalities and has preached to all and sundry about corruption, corruption and corruption.

But Mbeki has not uttered a word about Majali and the millions he has siphoned out of PetroSA and diverted to his party.

At the time of writing, Mbeki has still said nothing about the Iraqi bribes, or the fact that Majali allegedly passed himself off to the Iraqis as the "South African president's advisor". Nothing!

Not a word

And not a word has been said about the senior ANC officials, including secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe, who accompanied Majali to Iraq on his bribe-tainted mission. At least Tokyo Sexwale's company, Mvelaphanda, has made some noises in protest.

When things like this happen, is it any wonder that a certain Graham Masondo has no problem whatsoever going around fleecing gullible and poor people out of their savings, all the while masquerading as the "son" of Johannesburg mayor Amos Masondo?

One feels very sorry for the mayor, and supports his call for the con artist to be arrested and for there to be a stop to his filching and out-and-out defamatory claims. However, one is also inclined to chuckle mischievously that the boot is now on the other foot!

It is perhaps understandable why our white compatriots would rally against Zuma and come out supporting Mbeki, whom they totally disliked in the beginning; journalist Mark Gevisser actually wrote a whole lengthy series explaining who Mbeki was and his history, just after his accession to the presidency, and to my mind those were the things that somehow helped turn the tide in the president's favour.

As for Zuma, he is still viewed as a "crook" and as someone in whose hands the country will never be safe.

This is all thanks to the uncritical and unquestioning but very gullible "mainstream" newspapers and to Hillary Squires, the judge who hinted at the beginning of Schabir Schaik's trial that he would not call Zuma because "the deputy president is not on trial", yet ended up making a verdict on him.

So far uMsholozi has been unfairly tried by the media to the great delight of the white community (no racism, this!) and the small and obscenely wealthy clique of Mbeki BEE supporters, all of whom are very wary of a truly much-loved man whose support-base is where it matters most: among the masses.

With acknowledgements to Jon Qwelane and the Sunday Sun.