WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTINE QUNTA AND SATAWU?
Introduction
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, President Mbeki enjoyed the services of two loyal political bullies: the late Dumisane Makhaye and Peter Mokaba.
They were political thugs of the first order and two of President Mbeki’s most trusted henchmen.
If the President was in a tight spot – which he was for most of that period – it would be one or the other, or both, who would come out all guns blazing. For example, when the ‘does-HIV-cause-Aids’ controversy was spiralling, Peter Mokaba saw fit to tell the New York Times Aids didn’t exist at all; and, as Robert Mugabe systematically began to lose the plot in Zimbabwe, Makhaye would tell South Africans it was all part of some Western imperialist plan to take over the continent.
(Anyone doubting that their line came straight from, or was directly inspired by, the President should bear in mind that Mbeki himself would later say he knew of no one who had died of Aids and, if the quote attributed to him in the latest edition of the New African is accurate, he certainly believes imperialists are using Zimbabwe as a platform to promote some or other agenda.)
There are numerous other examples of Mokaba and Makhaye making volatile and, often, poorly thought through statements, which typically presented an extreme version of President Mbeki’s views on an issue – views he could not vent to that degree in his personal capacity, constrained as he was by his official position.
Since their passing, new pretenders have risen to the throne, eager to ingratiate themselves with the President and to pick up where Mokaba and Makhaye left off. A few are slightly more sophisticated than Mokaba and Makhaye although the underlying intent is exactly the same.
The veiled threat
Christine Qunta is one such example. Many people might object to the description of her as a political thug but, actually, scrape away the (often rather thin) intellectual veneer that coats some of her arguments and, sure enough, the underlying message boils down to nothing more than a blunt, crude, threat.
For example, writing in her weekly column this past week, Qunta took up the hot topic of transformation and South African sport. It’s an ideal illustration of how she punts a harder version of the President’s line, and just how hard that line can be.
As a general rule, Mbeki himself stays well clear of sport and the controversy surrounding it. He made that dubious remark, off the cuff, some five years ago – about transformation and the need to include “our people” being more important than winning (which gives us a good idea of his thinking on the matter) – but, other than that, not much. True, Jake White has sucked him into the most recent round of political squabbling by requesting a meeting to plead his case but that is an exception, rather than the rule. Normally the President leaves the political running in this area up to his lieutenants.
And, between the likes of former-sports minister Ngconde Balfour, current minister Makhenkesi Stofile and chairperson of the sports portfolio committee Butana Komphela, there hasn’t been much room for subtlety and nuance over the past few years.
But, even against that background, Qunta’s contribution brings something else to the table.
Qunta sets the scene for the transformation of South African sport. She puts forward a theory related to her by a colleague:
| Posted on 13/6/2007
 |  | |