Thabo Mbeki is quite right
As per my previous post, the Mail & Guardian Online has invited me to blog for their new opinion section, called Thought Leader. This is my second post:
The elevation of axed deputy minister of health Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge to heroine status is a little farcical. The president has every right to relieve members of the executive of their duties, for any reason, or indeed for no reason whatsoever.
It is true that she has been publicly hostile towards both the Minister of Health, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, and President Thabo Mbeki in the past. If that isn’t enough, Mbeki certainly has the right to fire her if the member in question disregarded protocol or acted against direct instructions, one of which is almost certainly true. Besides which, flying to Spain accompanied by her son, on business class, at a cost of seven RDP houses, is among those profligacies that the opposition and the media have consistently — and most aptly — criticised before.
So why not be consistent and welcome Mbeki’s prompt action? After all, Madlala-Routledge is a member of the Communist Party, so she hardly deserves loyalty from the classical liberals in the Democratic Alliance. Mbeki was quite right to fire her, and setting her up as some kind of saint smacks of shortsighted partisanship.
You can read the rest of it here.
i can’t disagree. just as tsvangirai(sp) is at least an alternative to mugabe even if he may not be worth much himself, routledge is at least an alternative to beetroot tshabalala-msimang. i agree that routledge should have been fired, but that does not distract from the appaling behaviour/policies/person that is our present minister of health.
Very true, what you say about Don’t-Call-Me-Manto. By every measure — performance, ability, conduct, policy positions — she’s a grave blot on our cabinet’s scoresheet.
Mbeki is right only inasmuch as he was entitled to fire Madlala-Routledge, and in saying that she’s no kind of heroine. He’s wrong in his double standards about firing officials who misuse public money, he’s wrong in the extent of his loyalty to those who are loyal to him, and he’s wrong about the paranoia and outright insults with which he handles criticism. He’s right the matter has become polarised to unjustifiable extremes, but wrong in contributing to it himself.