The Republican party is not dead; long live the filibuster

Sorry I can't remember where I got this image from. If it is yours let me know and I will change it. 

Majority leader Harry Reid has been castigated over the last few days after what was supposed to be a filibuster-busting vote to reform the way the Senate works. It didn't pan out that way, to the ire of many,  particularly MSNBC primetime pundit Ed Schultz who blasted Reid on The Ed Show as being wary of the Senate passing gun control legislation with some vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2014. 

While I think Schultz's concern is slightly misguided, his core principle is correct. While everyone has treated the 2012 election as the death of the Republican Party, there is a very real chance that in two years' time the House of Representatives and the Senate could be controlled by Republicans. 

Mark Begich in Alaska, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Max Baucus from Montana are all Democrats defending seats in conservative states (although to be fair Baucus' Senate partner from Montana, Jon Tester, won re-election last November). Adding to Democrat woes are the retirements of long-time senators Jay Rockerfeller in West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa. In West Virginia (which can and does elect Democrats) the challenger Rockerfeller was going to face was Republican Shelley Moore Capito, who is now most certainly the front-runner for that seat. While Harkin was correctly regarded a liberal during his terms, it is worth pointing out that Iowa's other Senator, Chuck Grassley, is most certainly not. There is absolutely nothing to justify speculation that Harkin may be replaced by anyone like him. And although Minnesota is beginning to slide firmly into the blue column, Senator Al Franken won his election in 2008 by only 312 votes (in an election in which 2.8-million were cast). 

By my count that is 8 Democrats Senate seats at risk, plus Franken. And the Democrat pickup opportunities are slender, with hopes being pinned on Georgia (due to Saxby Chambliss' retirement and possible strong Democrat contender in Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed), Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Susan Collins in Maine; however, all of these are reliant on a serious right-wing Tea Party-backed candidate being so unelectable that people are driven to Democrats (see Todd Akin). None of these three are probable. 

When it comes to the House of Representatives, Republicans are unlikely to lose this until 2020 when re-districting takes place after the census. In this last election Democrats won 1.2-percentage points more of the vote than Republicans but still see a deficit of 33 seats. Some estimates claim Democrats may need to win by as much as seven points to retake the House. 

From my point of view, it looks as if Reid is mindful of the fact that Democrats could be on the receiving end of a bad midterm election in 2014 (cast your mid back to the Democrat disaster that was 2010). This Senate reform undertaken on Thursday shouldn't even really be filed under anything resembling "filibuster reform" because it hardly did any of that. 

The rules around filibustering were preserved mostly by what is being referred to as the "old guard" - and it's noticeable that the two senators spearheading this cause were freshmen (Jeff Merkely from Oregon and Tom Udall from New Mexico). The old folks are far more keen to preserve Senate traditions - Reid even added on Thursday, "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House," - and it is tradition that is really being preserved here. It isn't difficult to extrapolate that Republicans feel the same about the filibuster, and are unlikely to mess much with it should they take control in the next Congress. Had Democrats busted tradition this time around, there would have been ample reason for Republicans to do the same at the beginning of the 114th, should they win control of the Senate. 

The Republican Party is not dead. And neither is the filibuster. 

Dilma Rousseff’s anti-corruption struggles

The president of Brazil is having struggles; her cabinet members are dropping like flies as her anti-corruption drive is being manipulated by politicians pushing their own means. 

 Brazil president DIlma Rousseff. Image: http://nearshoreamericas.com

Anti-corruption drives are supposed to be a thing of beauty. But putting corruption above all else might not be the best way to run a state, and this is quite beautifully displayed by the political recession in which President Rousseff finds herself. Brazil’s wiliest, and, to be honest, some of its average, leaders have often used the media to one-up each other, but its complicated system of coalition governance (the current government majority in parliament is made up of ten parties, and the opposition, six) sports so many fingers in the pie that it is often quite hard to work out whose knife-handle happens to stick out of any particular back.

Rousseff happens to have made two honourable calls since taking the reins of the world’s seventh largest economy. The first being to weed out corruption (a huge problem – Transparency International’s corruption index places Brazil in 69^th position – South Africa is 54^th), and the second to slash $30 million from the state’s expenditure for the year in preparation for a turn in the roaring Brazilian economy’s fortunes. Most of these cuts came from discretionary spending enjoyed by politicians, including niche “pet” projects. This has caused severe strife amongst some leaders, and the procession of cabinet ministers leaving the side of Rousseff because of accusations, proven or otherwise, that have forced them out. The most recent under fire is Orlando Silva, the sports minister, accused of siphoning off funds from a ministry programme intended to bring recreational facilities in poor areas.

Brazil has lost four cabinet ministers during Rousseff’s seven-month presidency, and on Monday the procession began to excise a fifth. When Rousseff began her anti-corruption drive in July, she focussed it on the ministries of transport and tourism – both headed up by officials from outside the Workers Party (of which Rousseff is top member). The growing middle-class of Brazil, much like in South Africa, has far more of an issue with corruption than the poor who care more for things like housing and poverty alleviation schemes. Think Maslow. In fact, under Rousseff’s predecessor, the highly popular Lula da Silva, 36 million people moved into the lowest rung of the middle class (earning between $1,000 and $3,900 per month). Out of an electorate of 135 million, that’s a hefty number of votes. Rousseff therefore took a political opportunity, very publicly clamping down on corruption before the centre-right opposition, who are supposed to cater for middle-class concerns, did (simply, it’s like the ANC getting to a solution to Rondebosch and Randburg voters before Helen Zille wakes up). What looked like a smart political move has gone completely tits-up though, and threatens to spiral out of control. In fact, it looks nowadays as though the president isn’t even running it.

The Brazilian media, most notably the influential weekly, Veja, has whipped up allegations from a surging wave of anonymous sources who claim to be whistleblowers, which Rousseff now has to treat seriously as the drive is her own initiative – in spite of a heft portion of them having as much proof as the Yeti’s recipe for Loch Ness Monster soup.

Aside from the four members who have already left cabinet, Rousseff is due to lose a fifth, has seen 30 transport officials go, and 38 warrants of arrest have been issued for tourism ministry staff.  It’s probably also worth pointing out that her initiative has only initially examined two ministries. The Brazilian cabinet has 37. While the tourism chief has somehow kept his job, chief of staff, Antonio Palocci (who also served under Lula) resigned under a corruption cloud, the defence minister left after he told everyone he voted for the opposition, the transport minister, Alfredo Nascimento, also gave in, as did the agriculture minister, Wagner Rossi. In fact, both Nascimento and Rossi claim there is no truth to the allegations against them, but have walked anyway. Cities minister, Mario Negromonte has the same, oddly familiar noises. This last weekend has been ugly for her too: Glesi Hoffmann, who replaced Palocci as cabinet chief, has been accused of claiming unemployment benefits when she left the board of a giant power company to run for a senate seat.

The media’s willingness to air alleged/suspected/reported dirty laundry of just about anyone in cabinet has meant that political scores are being settled in the media. Allegation after allegation has been scribed and will now be processed, and obsessed over, and more people will fall. More pressure is weighing on Rousseff’s shoulders as five of the six cabinet minsters have been from other parties in her coalition – only Palocci came from the Workers Party. Whether their departures are justified or not, it is putting pressure on her governing alliance. In fact, when Nascimento was replaced by Paulo Sergio Passos (both from the Party of the Republic) as head of the transport portfolio, and intra-alliance spat ensued as members weren’t consulted in a fashion they thought appropriate. They are no longer part of the coalition although the effect of them leaving is negligible; they are a minor player.

The relationship Rousseff needs to look after is the one with the Brazil Democratic Movement Party – her vice-president, Michel Temer is the leader of the party, the second largest in Brazil. (Incidentally one of last momth’s smuttier news stories is that Temer’s sister-in-law earned the right to appear on the cover of Playboy Brazil). So don’t be surprised if the new agriculture minister gets an easy time of it, along with other PMDB-run ministries: Mines and Energy, Social Security and the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs (which oversees things like nuclear, space programmes, national intelligence). But naturally, dirt on anyone that could begin to affect the ruling alliance would be wonderful for the centre-right opposition.

Rousseff, in response to this crisis which is threatening to derail her presidency has offered meek responses so far, claiming that the “PT (Workers party) and the PMDB (Brazilian Democratic Movement) are the basis of the stability and trust of the government” while also maintaining she is not trying to force people out of cabinet. It’s not quite enough when senior politicians are falling like dominoes.  

Dilma Rousseff’s near future is going to be damn hard, and she would do well avoid making Brazil’s actual issues contest for attention.

An interesting... disingenous statement

Here is a quote from SA Today, Helen Zille's weekly newsletter. (Cannot find the text online but will post link when I can - it usually goes onto politicsweb)

A colleague in the National Assembly, Donald Lee, reminded me of an exchange with Manuel on the issue of quotas back in 2005. Manuel wrote:

“You argue that [quotas are] racism and the equivalent of apartheid. I think that you are so wrong.”

So, six years ago Manuel endorsed racial head-counting as a legitimate practice, now he says it is akin to apartheid.

This is disingenuous. The picture Helen Zille is trying to paint here is that Manuel is a racist and that it is merely convenient that he is pushing the "coloured agenda" in the Western Cape near election time and this quote is supposed to prove that he had some major race-profiling "agenda" when he said this. Whether this is true is not what I am arguing here.

The exchange with Donald Lee that Zille mentioned above was actually about SPORT (You can read the full exchange here) and "quotas" therein. One of the examples Lee uses in his criticism is "And yet today – in a new South Africa – we find ourselves facing the exact same situation, players like Kevin Pieterson [sic], along with many others, feel that they too cannot reach their full potential and have moved elsewhere".

I digress, but yep, Donald Lee reckoned that the "quotas" in sport meant no opportunities for white people. Yep - only seven of the current South African team are white folks.

Taking a quote outrageously out of context, which was made in response to Lee incorrectly saying that white South Africans have no chances in sport (citing parallels with Basil D'Oliveria nogal) is not fair.

Now understand something, I am not telling you whether or not this racist legislation was signed or not signed by Manyi or Manuel or whoever - or who is being hypocritical or incorrect or whether Manuel is indeed just saying that for the electoral benefit of coloureds in the WC or whatever. But, in line with what I have written previously, I think that communication from the DA is (becoming) acidic and horrible. To take something Manuel said 6 years ago about a different matter - yes, "quotas" in sport and spreading coloured and Indian people around the country are two very different matters - is unfair.

It is the equivalent of Zille saying six years ago that she hired someone to help paint her house and that proves she is anti-workers rights and it is why she stands by the DA's stance on labour broking.

Not cool, DA.

An interesting... DA e-aggression

(Image pinched from The Daily Maverick)

This morning my inbox spat out a press release from the DA’s Lindiwe Mazibuko. I usually read DA communication at arms’ length, scared that it’s usual super-aggressive tone will snap at my eyes. Instead, Ms. Mazibuko’s lengthy campaign document was easy to read, and didn’t make me feel like I was being shat on.

I’m certainly not saying that there is a right or wrong way to do it, merely what I prefer dealing with. For example, here are some quotes from Helen Zille’s weekly newsletter:

7 Feb: “Being an “all-weather friend” to authoritarian rulers is clearly more important to the ANC than promoting economic growth.”

10 Jan: “The ANC will ensure that SADC continues to protect former "freedom fighters" who have morphed into despots.”

10 Jan: “Perhaps the biggest flaw of all is Zuma’s continued delusion that the state can play a leading role in planning, managing and leading sustainable economic growth and job creation.”

These are just three examples. And I am not debating whether Mrs. Zille is right or wrong in the points she is making. What I do think is that the way she writes is not conducive to changing people’s minds. If someone shouts at you or speaks to you like you are stupid, you are unlikely to listen to the points they are making. Mrs. Zille’s tone is very aggressive.

Gareth van Onselen is the DA’s executive director of communication (head of communications for the DA?) and this is a comment he left on The Daily Maverick recently in response to a column by Sipho Hlongwane:

Hlongwane, who strikes me as distinctly mediocre, suggests it was a good thing that Mbeki avoided accounting for his various Aids madnesses; that he did well to give Coetzee a good 'tuning'. It's the analysis of someone who doesn't know the facts and thus, suggests Mbeki was doing the right thing by avoiding being held to account. But perhaps that is exactly what Hlongwane thinks - transparency is a bad idea and anyone who avoids it, 'deserves a generous helping of grog'. Certainly I don't remember him speaking out against Mbeki at the time. How idiotic.

Once again, I am not here to debate what he says. But I do notice his tone. And it isn’t pleasant. He was possibly commenting in his personal capacity, but to expect viewers to think this has noting to do with the DA when he’s debating in a public arena is silly.

This is what made Lindiwe Mazibuko’s press release so different. Read it. She writes beautifully and explains the DA’s municipal records – persuading people rather than telling them they are stupid for voting for anyone else. (While you may never find that written down in DA communication, tone-wise it does allude to it.) Am I seeing something that isn’t there? Possibly. But communication specialists should make me avoid doing so, surely?

While both Mrs Zille and Ms Mazibuko both present arguments, I find Ms Mazibuko’s far easier to engage with. She points out where the ANC has fallen down and in comparison shows where and how the DA has done better. Take this, for example – a snippet from the release:

In its 2006 manifesto, the ANC said:

"By 2010, when South Africa hosts the Soccer World Cup, all households will have access to clean running water and decent sanitation."

Now the ANC says the target is no longer 2010, but 2014, and the Cooperative Governance report shows why. In Tshwane, for instance, one in five residents still do not even have access to the most basic level of sanitation.

In Cape Town, on the other hand, 94% of residents have access to basic sanitation.

Personally, I think that if the DA are to make massive inroads into government like they aim to, it will be due to communication like Ms. Mazibuko’s that gets them there. People care about what she has written about and she doesn’t alienate people who aren’t DA-voters. She has shown what he DA has done well without hysterical angry-white-people-tone. She has shown DA solutions and advancements, a stark differentiation to the yapping opposition political fox terrier which the DA is often accused of. She hasn’t used terms like”deluded”, “crony”, “blind” or “idiotic”. She’s presented facts in a very personable way.

And it's is far harder to argue with facts than it is to resent and ignore a crap tone.

An interesting... SABC fairytale

Set in the future...

Once upon a time King Jacob had a rather large headache. "Stop consuming the SABC" said Dr Motsoaledi, the royal doctor, "for this is what causes your head to be sore". So King Jacob phoned his friend, Sir Robert Gumede, and asked him to buy the SABC and take it off of his hands. Gumede agreed and purchased it for R120 which, all things considered, was its value to the public.

However, this angered many people and pleased other people.

Prince Zwelenzima Vavi said publically that he was against this happening and he cold have used it to employ another 3 million people by raising TV licence fees, but no one heard his message because of the Protection on Information declaration which banned all of his press releases because they made King Jacob and his friends so uncomfortable.

Princess Helen of Cape Town said she was glad it was privatised but that Gumede was a shit option when it should obviously have been sold to Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Dr Piet Mulder said that he wanted his own public broadcaster but needed his own public in his own country first.

Prince Mike Sutcliffe said that before the SABC was sold he wanted it to be called the Mzilikazi Umqaqazikababaxelitshalala Kahle Umbuzi Mahatmaguevara TV Station of the Republic of South Africa. Prince Zweli Mkhize agreed absolutely.

Minion Herschelle Gibbs said it was sweETV. But he didn't watch it because they took the porn off. Poor oke.

Imperialist Geoffrey Boycott said it was overvalued and wasn't worth a stick of rhubarb.

The Daily Mail got its facts in a twist and reported that Jacob Zuma actually killed Robert Gumede with his machine gun. No worries. They published a two-line apology the next day on page 47, just after the recipes.

Previous-prince Benni McCarthy asked if there would be food available at the launch of the new station. Khulubuse Zuma said he wasn't coming if there wasn't.

Royal Pastor Ray Macauley invited Gumede to host the new station in the east wing of his mansion. He also got Tom Cruise to fly out and bless it. Silly man, it's so easy to confuse Rhema and Scientology.

Princess Diane Kohler-Barnard said " this is a fucking storming success and about fucking time the national fucking broadcaster was put in new fucking hands".

Princess Lindiwe Sisulu refused to confirm if the sale had happened.

Princess Gwen Ramokgopa said that it didn't matter because no one in her constituency could afford TVs anymore because they were spending cash on generators and having their garbage removed by private companies.

The Mail and Guardian's editor, Heathen Nic Dawes, is still in a coma. We wish him a speedy recovery.

An interesting... not enough shock

(image pinched from hevallo.blogspot.com but I think he/she pinched it from the Economist)

Menzi Simelane took over as the head of the National Prosecuting Authority at the end of 2009. We ummed and aahed and shook our heads but no one really gave a fuck.

Why was it important for us to get pissy about Simelane? Because it was the most blatant sign that the government was screwing with the judiciary - basically the people who decide whether to prosecute a crook or not, and then prosecute him if they think they have a strong enough case. Remember the folks who decided that Zuma couldn't be investigated because Mbeki has fiddled with his case? That was them. The people who clobbered Schabir Shaik? That was them.

It is shocking that the politicians are allowed to fiddle in the justice system. And, rightly so, there was criticism from all sectors - including overseas - until we all got bored and realised we didn't feel like couldn't really do anything about it, such is the way of South Africans. We all knew it was the wrong decision. Blatantly.

Similarly, though, Turkey voted in the last week or so in a referendum (with 58% agreeing with the motion) to allow the government to have more control in the country's judiciary. From the Guardian: The outcome presages a transformation of the judiciary, long seen as a staunch secular bastion. It would give the government more control over appointments to Turkey's highest court, the constitutional court, and the powerful Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, which currently appoints most senior judiciary officials. (Click here to read the full story)

And the worst bit? The referendum results give Turkey a far better chance of joining the EU. Said Stefan Fule, the commissioner for enlargement (of the EU I assume): "These reforms are a step in the right direction as they address a number of longstanding priorities in Turkey's efforts towards fully complying with the accession criteria". Bloomberg (the news agency, not the mayor) says that the judiciary will be expanded from 11 members to 17 - with 14 selected by the President and 3 by Parliament.

To be fair, I will mention that the referendum does reduce the military power of the Turkish army which has staged four coups in the last half century. But it must also be made clear that it could impact Turkey's secular society as the ruling party, the Justice and Development Party has faced criticism of pushing an Islamic agenda in one of the Middle East's few secular states.

However, the EU is pushing its own agenda here - backing constitutional reform to join the EU which could impact on other values the EU holds dear, particularly those which mean a lot to members of Turkey's public such as its secular society and independent justice system.

Only politics could twist government interference in the judiciary into a good thing.

We should be shocked.
We might be.
But it won't last long.

An interesting... frustration

Image from iafrica

If anyone is in any doubt that politics is a huge heap of shit and should only be taken seriously in the rarest of instances, look no further than the dog show that is the Tripartite Alliance – the folks allegedly running the country.

I say allegedly, because the cabinet runs the country how it sees fit without giving two hoots to its alliance partners, Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the South African Communist Party (SACP).

Cosatu and the SACP should bandy together in many respects with the worker-protecting social ideals being reflected in the commies manifesto. But no, as Cronin, Mantashe, Blade Nzimande and Rob Davies all have cabinet and deputy cabinet posts, their lust for power keeps them ANC-aligned while Cosatu carries on complaining about one of SA’s biggest cripplers – corruption.

Add to this: the ANCYL which, together with Cosatu and the SACP, ran a massive movement in Polokwane to get Zuma elected as the head of the ANC, has also changed their tune.

The system has gone backwards. Steadfast allies who kicked out the previous president are all broken in 2 short years.

This is not even the first time this has happened in SA politics. Remember when the New National Party merged with the DP? They were all buddy-buddy until the ANC looked more attractive to Marthinus van Schalkwyk whose political ideals – opposition, remember? – changed on the turn of a tickey.

The UK election a few short months ago resulted in an alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. In case you missed that, it was the LIBERAL Democrats against the CONSERVATIVEs. Competing ideologies sacrificed (by the Lib Dems, not the Conservatives) for positions in government.

These aren’t the only instances. If you dig enough you’ll see more and more of it.

As if anything was required to make us believe politicians less. They sit and wank on about how steadfast their way of running the country is and then sell it out when a teeny bit of inter-political gain raises its head.

It makes me sad.

An interesting... party alliance

I am sure you are all aware of events hapening in opposition politics in South Africa. Recently, the Democratic Alliance, United Democratic Movement, Independent Democrats and Congress of the People all had a chinwag and decided to put up a united front to the ANC. Honorouble in its intentions, but it is unclear what path they are going to take - parrticularly in light of conflicting philosophies.



However, if we can assume for the purposes of this post that the parties agreed on policy - considering Cope have none, that shouldn't be too hard for them - there are a few options for them. One is a solid working agreement against the ANC - but, really, is that any different to what is going on now?



Another is coalition politics - this was key in wrestling the city of Cape Town from ANC control and having Helen Zille take over as mayor, leading to huge success in the Western Cape in the 2009 elections, where the DA now rules.



However, there is a possibility that the four parties will unite into one alliance and play the part of one party. This is what many people seem to be excited about, but I think we should be weary. As much as people may swear for a political party, many South Africans vote against the ANC. And with over 65% of the electorate, nabbing at least 15 of the ANC's percentage points of that is key in making us a stronger democracy.



Here come the mass generalisations...



Should the parties unite, serious questions will be asked as to who will lead it. None of de Lille, Zille, Holomisa or Shilowa/Lekota will want to be the numbers 2-4 in the party. In fact, Cope have been arguing for the best part of 18 months as to who will lead them. I fear that if Helen Zille is the party's number 1, black votes will remain with the ANC and the united effort will look only very slightly different to how the DA looks now, and then where will Cope's 8% of the vote share go?



No matter what happens with this alliance, white people will continue to vote for it. There is no alternative to the DA for the majority of white voters, as the staunchly conservative and right-wing FF+ is in bed with the ANC - who many vote against. Helen Zille is enough of a brand that pale folks will continue to vote for whichever party she stands with. I still think that Cope is the hottest and most underused political hot property in the country right now, and I am excited about what they can do if they ever come up with a policy, differentiate themselves and choose a damn leader - parties need faces - and although I reckon Lekota would initially be my pick, it SHOULD be Mbhazima Shilowa who is far more marketable - and if this alliance becomes anything, he should head that too. Holimisa comes with a lot of baggage - he was top dog of a homeland and turfed out the ANC, and quite frankly, you hardly ever hear of his party - even in the Eastern Cape. I know Patricia de Lille is well-known in SA politics, and I like her, but I am not sure she is enough to boost this party enormously.And her and Holomisa only have 8 seats in Parliament combined... whereas the DA has 67 and Cope has 30.



Fact: This alliance will only ever be a success if it takes black votes from the ANC. But I have a sneaky feeling that Cope have the potential to do that on their own anyway, should they ever sort themsevles out. Their scope for growth in the short-term is huge, wheras the DA's outside the Western Cape is not - their next best performance in 2009 was in Gauteng where they achieved just over 22%.



So if this alliance is going to be a success, it needs Patricia's continual stance on poverty and anti-corruption, the DA's organisation and balls, the UDM's (insert whatever you can think of) and Cope's potential.

To Cope in South Africa

Twitter was alight this morning with debates about Cope and their attempted, yet very-predictably-doomed-to-failure, vote of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma yesterday.

Some said that the no confidence motion was a desperate attempt at PR for Cope. This I would agree with - and I don't think anything is wrong with a political party searching for PR and new reaports - that's the way politics, particularly opposition politics, works. The DA does it all the time.

However, the motion was too late. A month ago, the country was crucifying Jacob Zuma because of his affair with Irvin Khoza's daughter - that included senior and junior ANC members and MPs who were criticising him. A week later it came out that he had no declared his financial interests to parliament and he got more criticism. Vavi soon launched into the ANC and the ANCYL ordering lifestyle audits. The SACP began a (nother) spat with the ANCYL who in turn made it clear that they want Gwede Mantashe replaces as ANC Secretary General by Fikile Mbalula. This was when Cope dreamed up their PR stunt - in this midst of this chaos.

However, since then, JZ went to London where he was castigated by that pathetic attempt at a newspaper - the Daily Mail - and all of a sudden people began defending him. Yes, even WHITE people! Cope's no confidence motion laagered the ANC and united - albeit temporarily - the party when it was looking to possibly splinter naturally.

And so the no confidence motion didn't do so well - for more than one reason. (EDIT - I am not saying it would have worked. JZ would never have been sacked, but a "succesful" result for Cope would have been favourable press, and hopefully a few members of the ANC would have turned on their own party)

Cope's biggest problem is that they have so many holes in their party. No matter what Cope says - meaningful, accurate or just made up - anyone can retort with "You still hanker after Mbeki" or "We may have problems, but you don't even know who your leader is". Cope also have no apparent policies, other then the forceful message of non-racialism which has failed dismally as two prominent white politicians have stormed out (ok, admittedly one is prominent because he has represented almost every political party in SA, and the other because she was the first instance of gratuitous white window dressing) . I remember Lekota going on about how BEE should be aimed at currently disadvantaged, not historically disadvantaged people. Well that message has never been communicated properly.

Cope's other major issue is that no one knows who runs the party. Is it Lekota (who has vanished)? Shilowa (who makes more noise than anyone else)? Mluleki George (who asked the offending question in Parly that caused Diane Kohler-Barnard to use the term I emphasise when the Sharks play rugby)? Or Dandala (whose face is on the election ballot, but that's about all)?



Cope's issues can be solved by simple marketing and logic.

- Firstly, stop the infighting and choose a damn leader. Do that today.And then put their face on an election ballot and in newspapers and TV.

- Secondly, there is a niche (more like gaping chasm) for a non-racial alternative to the ANC and the DA. Find it.

- Thirdly, get rid of all the Mbeki baggage. All of it. Dump it now. Otherwise people will point at you and bring it up all the things he did badly forever. The ANC has enough brand power, and political clout, to deal with it. You do not. Stop being the "We lost in Polokwane" party.

- Make your own policies. In many people's minds you are nothing more than the ANC with a different name and a nasty temper-tantrum like demeanour. Start shouting about HOW you are different to them, not just that you are.