Question du jour
So why does Helen Zille say that Lennit Max’s affair is a ‘private matter‘ but she says that Zuma’s conduct is “a matter of public concern, for example, if a politician does not practice what she or he preaches“. Could it be that she would be OK with Zuma’s 22 children if only he wouldn’t ask citizens to practise safe sex?
Or is Helen only protecting Lennit Max because he’s a member of the DA?
One has to draw this gevolgtrekking, I’m afraid.
The other spooky part was where she said that “this matter has nothing to do with anyone except the Max and Petersen families, their consciences and their respective churches.” So now we know that for Zille churches have jurisDICKtion over the private sphere. We must remember to pray before we eat. Ya feel me?
You left out the “Unless there is evidence to the contrary,” bit. Helen wants politicians to remain consistent in their political beliefs and their private actions.
Well firstly, I left out large chunks of her quote, since my point was not to regurgitate all of her remarks (I’m off the DA payroll, and Anel Powell does a very good job of mouthpieceing the premier.) I was interested only in the elision of church and private spheres.
But since you brought it up, it’s not true that she’s just after consistency. As she blogged
The last “and” is telling. She wants consistency, yes, but in addition leaders must lead by example. The reference to “social norms” refers to the mores surrounding infidelity and unprotected sex. I’ll help myself to the assumption that ethical labour relations (“don’t screw with the crew”) is also a social norm that DA leaders are held to. When we run that with the fact that Zuma and Max live in the same society we get that they’re bound by the same restrictions. Which raises the issue of double standard, more thoroughly canvassed by Pierre de Vos.
I’m old enough to remember Tony Leon’s reaction to the Jurgen Harksen affair. The usually outspoken anti-corruption crusader had his bodyguards shield him from TV journalists who tried to question him when it emerged that the DA had been on the take. It looks like double-standard is a party tradition handed down.
The saga continues here.
Ah, I feel you.
I agree with de Vos on this: “Personally, I would not vote for a party who considered possible sexism a private matter. (A party housing a few philanderers would not really get me upset though.)”
Helen does state again that “when politicians do not practice what they preach, it also registers higher on the scandal scale.” so it seems as though she’s very much more concerned with the consistency issue.
>so it seems as though she’s very much more concerned with the consistency issue.
Clearly not. While it does seem to matter to her, it isn’t the essence for her.
She stresses that there are two other principles at the heart of her answer to your Question de jour. One, the distinction between allegation and fact. Two, the context scale (of which consistency is a part.)
But consistency is less relevant because she’s already stressed that conformity to societal norms is an absolute constraint (see my earlier post.) In other words, if Max and Zuma announced that they’re in favour of infidelity, she wouldn’t excuse them for being consistent, but would continue to excoriate them for setting bad (because socially inappropriate) examples.
Putting it bluntly: If you’re a bad-boy, you won’t get off Zille’s hook by owning your behaviour in word and deed. She’s not judging you by some internally determined yardstick.
Well, at least she is investigating this and will fire him if the allegations are true but I’m confused — she now says that she never said this is a ‘private matter’.
“If Ms Petersen can prove that her version is true, Max will have lied to me, and it will terminate the trust relationship essential between cabinet colleagues. I will then take commensurate action. ” (from the M&G article you reference)
Interpretation: If Max gets fired, it won’t be for scoring extra-mural poontang (in the line of duty) but for the rather more substantive crime of pissing of the premier. I’m surprised that this gives you comfort.