GNU: Cooperation, Co-option, or Radical Change

Good day, everybody. Assalamu alaikum. Peace be upon all of you. Welcome to another session with Musa, the movement for United South Africa. For those of you that haven't had an opportunity to be on Musa's programs before, I thought I'll just quickly mention to you that we have a series of programs.

Musa's been actively meeting since the lockdown days every night for about an hour or two, in fact, sometimes three hours for over a year. And then we decided to have a more broader program, more inclusive program after establishing the purpose of Moosa, which is essentially conscientization influencing towards greater good amalgamating and working with other organizations, activists, NGOs, civil society, and even government to try to have more and more participation on aspects of common interest, things that we all agree on. Everyone wants to do good, but how do we amalgamate it, aggregate it, and work together? And that's the main objective of Musa, to try and get more selflessness and activism coming together. We then progressed last year with the appointment of our new chairperson, Karuna Mohen, who's also with us, to try and have quarterly sessions rather than every Saturday because the Saturday sessions were becoming quite quite a lot, and we weren't doing justice to following up.

So now we have we've been having quarterly sessions, and these quarterly sessions have been broad. So in the past, we've had sessions with economists, we've had sessions with youth, we've had sessions with specialist groups including areas of gender based violence and women, We've had sessions with political associates. This last few sessions have been with faith groups and business people. And today, we're having a session on aspects which Musa is quite keen on because it's it's related to unity. You've all seen the, local and global aspects of the government of national unity when the ANC, the liberation movement of South Africa, which has been running South Africa for for a few decades now.

In in this last thirty years, we haven't seen the kind of progress we wanted to, and the ANC has lost ground. And there's a lot of acknowledgment of the weaknesses within the ANC, but we've also seen this move which relates to what we often called for, but it's not a perfect gel. What we've always called for is that government shouldn't be opposition and a ruling party. Everyone elected has a mandate, and everyone should be in parliament serving the people on common objectives. So we've often pushed for that, but the reality is it's not as simple because different agendas, political left, right views, conservative views, we'll hear a bit more about that from our speakers, hopefully.

These influences, egos especially, and the element of corruption and also ability, you know, is is is key. So Wassa also decided to have a session on what's quite important in the debate in South Africa, and that's this decision of the government of national unity. How we can look at the questions that have been posed for the speakers to talk about. And if we if we try and address these questions, hopefully, we'll come to a better understanding, try and help each other influence things in in a better way. And we're quite keen to get perspectives from stalwarts and people like yourselves.

So in my opening year, and welcome to all of you from all over the world, I see also some associates from Korea. Welcome to you. And other participants and activists from our different groups. We want to have a dialogue, conversation between the three panel speakers and also with all of you that may have questions or contributions to make. These kind of conversations is what Musa has been trying to promote more and more so that there is a better understanding and a better influence on some of the common vision we have for unity and for selfless leadership.

So without further ado, let me ask our one of our founding members of Musa, Youssef Patel, to give us a clear overview and in summary form of what the purpose of this session is and the document that he shared with all of you on the government of national unity. Briefly, over to you, Youssef.

Thank you very much, Faiza.

Before you before you go into it also, I think just if you could briefly do a introduction of the three speakers, that would be appreciated.

Yes. So greetings to everyone, and it's a real pleasure to be part of this dialogue. And I think, also, we're really grateful to be joined by, you know, the the group of panelists that that we have. These are all renowned and influential people that I think is going to enable a very useful discussion on this topic of government of national unity. We we obviously have you know, just just just briefly as as we go into the the the the overall purpose, as Faisal was mentioning, the movement for United South Africa is an advocacy platform for socioeconomic justice, ethical leadership, and and for promoting a transformative consciousness and transformative activism.

Now Musa is of the view that many years of governance erosion has resulted in a situation where the entire liberation project is potentially at at risk. We've seen with the outcome of the twenty twenty four elections a, you know, complete political split that has taken place with the with the ruling ANC having now lost a a majority, and I think this is quite a significant moment in the evolution of South Africa's development process. Our people are still living in, you know, dire poverty, and we have one of the highest unemployment and inequality rates in in the world. So the GNU, government of National Unity, is being presented as a stabilizing force, And I think stability is is necessary. But what does stability stability means maintaining the current economic status quo, you know, then that is going to be a major challenge for us as a country in terms of dealing with the with with our particular challenges of overcoming economic exploitation, subjugation, and really uplifting uplifting the majority of our people and promoting socioeconomic development and justice.

So the government of national unity is a is a sort of hard or pit bull to swallow for many people. I mean, in the buildup to the elections, you know, there were certain red lines that were put in place in terms of political parties that were campaigning and were openly even supporting injustices globally, parties like the Democratic Alliance

Yes, sir.

Supporting supporting the the situation, in fact, the genocide in in in in Palestine. So with those red lines that that were in place prior to the elections, with the formation of a government of national unity and bringing all different parties, you know, together, obviously, you know, poses a poses a great challenge. You know? So there are views that, obviously, a GNU in its current form may even represent a a total sellout and, you know, a a sellout to the forces of owners of of capital, Zionist forces, etcetera. Now I think irrespective in terms of what we're sitting with in the current situation is that we do have now the a government of national unity, an irrespective of form of a government.

As citizens and civil society, there has to be a relationship and an engagement with government. And if we're saying on the basis of the fact that there has been a, you know, fairly credible election and the center still holds in terms of the constitutional democracy and the electoral process that we have, then within that framework, how do we, you know, then approach and as citizens, how do we look at the issue of a government of national unity? And we've posed, you know, sort of in in terms of the topic. So the government of National Unity, could it advance cooperation in the country so we see better cooperation between a range of different forces and interests for the betterment of the country? Or could it be that the governor of National Unity presents us with a case of co option where we're really actually, you know, resolving to give up on the project of really moving ahead in a meaningful way with development and a developmental approach in the country.

Or could a government of national unity actually mean that we really begin to shift towards some sort of radical change? And this is, you know, a radical change, I think, from a perspective of how government works and operates, but also from a perspective of citizens and civil society in terms of how civil society and citizens can begin to formulate a more activist basis, a way of involvement and holding government accountable, but also progressing in, you know, in terms of meaningful contributions towards socioeconomic development and upliftment. So, you know, these are the fundamental issues that have been posed. What does the GNU really mean for socioeconomic justice in South Africa? What is the local and global governance context that we're finding ourselves in?

We know that whatever is happening in South Africa is fitting within broader global power dynamics. How should citizens and civil society engage with the government of national unity? And how do we continue this sort of a dialogue and in a way that we can begin to move towards more practical outcomes. So that's the broad kind of context for, you know, for the discussion. And I think joining us is professor Alan Alan Busak, And professor Busak, obviously, is a world renowned activist, and he's been fundamental in terms of being a stalwart in the freedom struggle in South Africa.

And, you know, as early as 1983, he called for the formation of a United Democratic front at the time when we were in the midst of the anti apartheid struggle. And the UDF, you know, grew into one of the largest nonviolent, non racial, and anti apartheid formations in the history of the struggle. Professor Busak is also a recipient of many honorary awards. He's an award winning author as well, 24 books, and he's especially active in advocacy of Palestinian rights and freedom. So we we're really grateful to have professor Busak with us.

And then we also have and welcome Shayet Bolson, who's a renowned geopolitical analyst and the founder of Middle Nation. And I think many people, you know, he's he's prolific on social media, so he doesn't need too much of an intro. And I think many people have follow follow his work quite closely, and he's provide very, you know, interesting perspectives on global issues as as they stand. He's, as I said, he's the founder of Middle Nation, and he's a sought after commentator on on global Muslim affairs. Beyond his analytical work, he's also a prolific speaker engaging audiences worldwide.

We also have on the panel, you know, an important and critical local voice in Teto Mahalapwana, and Teto's a high impact and dynamic multidimensional strategies in governance and and policy research. She has a background in in journalism specializing in in political economy, and her her expertise in political political economy has positioned her as one of the leading voices in South Africa. She's also, you know, received prestigious fellowships. She's showcased exceptional leadership in in navigating challenging situations in the country, and she continues to make significant contributions to civic education, community engagement, and strategic narrative building. So I think we really, you know, we're really grateful, and I think we are also blessed to have a panel that's going to be able to really lead and provide insightful debate and discussions with regard to the topic on the government of national unity.

So, yeah, thank you, Faisal. I think on that note, we would be ready

for it. Thank you, Youssef. That was quite comprehensive and a good outline of the fantastic panel that we've got today. And remember, this is a dialogue and a conversation. So relax, share your deep views, share your perspectives freely and openly.

It is a safe platform. I also want to inform everyone that there is a recording taking place. So we will, like always, secure the recording, make it available for everybody on social media, and share it with you as well so that you can hopefully share it with others and spread the word of this of the discussion and the good points that come out from it. One other thing I want to also mention is that we are connected virtually, so please be respectful and courteous and also allow for the fact that there might be some delays in the network and issues. So we've got a couple of people on standby as cohosts who will assist us in ensuring that there aren't too many disruptions in people not putting their mics off and so on.

And, yeah, let's get right into it. We've got fifteen minutes for each of the speakers. You may use that fifteen minutes or less. If you if you less time, I'll take the opportunity to ask participants to ask a question or two so that the next session, which is the panel discussion between the three of you and our questions, can take the discussion further on areas of interest for the three of you, which I'm sure would interest all of us as well. And then we will have open participation for everyone else on further questions and debates.

Clearly, we have much more participants than we anticipated, especially now that the registration's been required. We usually have the the recording shared and which is much more widely, but I'm glad we have all the people here. To Dan Roy and the people from Korea again who've joined, welcome. The insights that we're gonna get locally from doctor Alan Busak and from Theto and insights from Shai Bolson from a external perspective, think, would be interesting for all of us. So let's go ahead with it immediately.

Doctor Alan Busak, the floor is all yours.

Thank you so very much, and thank you to everyone for this, actually quite wonderful opportunity to be part of, Musa's ongoing conversations about South Africa, our democracy, where it stands, where it's going, our place in the continent, and our place in the global situation. I'm deeply honored to have my two colleagues, with me today. In one way or another, I have heard or seen something of yourself, and so it is a great privilege to be sharing these these two hours with you. So thank you for for that. I mean, I one of the things that has been bothering me over the last few years, if I may begin there, was the fact that where South Africa once had a very vibrant and very vigorous and very politically engaged civil society.

Thinking back indeed to the days of, of the United Democratic Front that Lisif has mentioned, that in the last thirty years, we have not been able to maintain that level of public and civic engagement into this democratic experiment that we have been having for this time, partly because I think that people almost accepted that the that the that the end the official end of the apartheid era meant that the kind of activism that we found to be absolutely necessary in the struggle days, how long it may have taken, can now be relaxed a little bit, that we have a government that we have elected. It's a democratic situation. And and and that we will have a government that will take over so many of the responsibilities that we thought were ours, in those days when we were having a government that was, clearly an adversary of of the people and of the dreams and hopes and aspirations of the people. That was one thing. On the other hand, I have also come to the conclusion that the African National Congress itself has done its very best to stifle the voices from civil society, to make sure that with this mantra that we are now in a situation where the government is our government, our elected government, our liberation movement, that they will indeed do what the people always had wanted government to do.

And so so the kind of of active interaction, even if adversarially so, between government and and and civil society was no longer necessary. I mean, I remember speaking from the side of the churches certainly. I remember the the the conference of the South African Council of Churches in 2004 when president Mbeki was invited as the main speaker, and he was very clear. He said, look. This thing that the churches have always thought of themselves as part of the vanguard of the struggle that we were going to be a watchdog over over government and society and that we're going to hold government accountable as as churches representing a large chunk of of of our people, that that that has come to an end.

He says you are that that role is no longer necessary. What the churches should be doing, he says, is to simply accept and support what you call the national agenda as that national agenda has already been set by the African National Congress. And so our role would be supportive. Our role would be in solidarity. Our role would not be in critical engagement of what government wants to do or would in fact be doing in our name.

And while I was not completely surprised that he would say that because in the nineteen nineties, I have seen how president Mandela has reacted to the church's critical stance on the the arms deal scandal, for instance, and how and how mister Mandela spoke to the church and said, this is not your job, to criticize us in this way. So I was not completely surprised. What surprised me was the willingness with which the South African consulate churches accepted that role as now imposed upon us by government. So that kind of situation has grown to the extent that now we are battling to get civil society back into the conversation and back into an activist mode and back into a situation where we realized that what we thought was the end of the struggle in 1994 is actually only the beginning of a new struggle. That what was promised and what was actually done was not by any means the same thing.

So so my appreciation, therefore, just in brackets of what Musa is trying to do is very, great and very deep, and I thank you for the role that you are playing in that regard. This kind of conversation is is very, very necessary. And so since last year, with the sort of renewed efforts from some quarters to revive the United Democratic front to serve a new certain political purpose in support of an African national congress that was clearly understanding that it is beginning to lose ground amongst the people, that it had no confidence anymore in the hearts of the people, that the trust had been broken down, that the support has been breaking down. When that debate began to rise again, I was going around the country trying to understand what is it that people actually want. Is it possible to revise something like a united democratic fund?

Not the UDF of the nineteen eighties, but something like it for our situation now. And it struck me how difficult that conversation was. And one of the reasons why the conversation was so difficult is because the elections keep on coming in the way. Everybody was saying to me, yes. That's a very good idea, but the most urgent thing right now is the elections.

Yes. That's a very good idea, but keep it as a long term project. Let us get the elections out of the way because people still felt that the elections was going to give some kind of clarity in the murkiness of dissatisfaction that we have been feeling for such a long time. Well, now the elections have come and gone. The murkiness has not disappeared.

The confusion has been exacerbated. But the exploitation of the of the confusion is greater and clearer to us now than it was before the election. And so now that we have the comfort of national unity, now I detect that people are much more willing to not just talk, but to participate quite vigorously in these debates. And so when, some weeks ago, I published an article about my views about the government of national unity and how I see that, the responses were were were were quite encouraging. And I am happy to say that that is part of what I see, that there is a new willingness of our people to participate, to debate, to give their opinion, and not just that, but to now talk once more of the possibility of building a civil society, bringing organizations in our communities together, faith communities and and other and other groups to not just challenge the the GNU, but to keep the GNU accountable and to make sure that a set of values over against what we see the GNU is doing and what it stands for, which is not, in my view, very encouraging.

You see, very, very discouraging, absolutely, that that that that that that kind of conversation, those values, those principles, those foundational issues that we believe that we fought for and that so many people sacrificed and gave their lives for, that those things become part of our conversation about rebuilding our democracy again. We also want to make sure from my point of view that we understand that this government of national unity is not just a South African thing. It has a profound impact, and the idea is to have a profound impact on whatever plans or dreams or hopes we have had in building a genuine and a new and a different kind of pan Africanism with everything that is happening in the continent, but that it also has plans to refit ourselves in the global struggles. And we are moving away from a unipolar world absolutely run by American imperialism and hegemony to a more multipolar world. And in my view, the government of national unity as it functions now in South Africa Africa with the absolutely dominant role of the DA and the factions in the ANC that have been part DA for such a long time, to put it that way, that we have to be very, very clear on where South Africa is going geopolitically, where the future of our country lies, where the future of the continent lies, and what is it that South Africans must be doing in order to make sure that we secure a different kind of future than what I see emerging as an agenda for our global participation coming from the GNU.

And maybe, chairperson, I should stop there, to to make sure that my colleagues have enough time to put forth their point of view, but thank you.

Thank you, doctor Alan Bussak. I think that was very refreshing touch on some elements that touched my heart as well as well, particularly the UDF. We were all active in the UDF. I remember marches with you, professor Farid Isak, Imam Hassan Solomons, God rest his soul, Shamu Jepi and so many people from different faith groups. It was a tremendous, tremendous aspect.

And the points you touched on, particularly about the GNU, the accountability aspect, things that we're all concerned about in South Africans. And your extension into the American reference or the the global reference is also really important because we are a connected world. And I think those are interesting points that we can have further discussions on as we proceed. So thank you for that. There is a minute less than the fifteen minutes you were given, so I will give an opportunity for one question.

We're not gonna necessarily answer it now. If there is a hand, you can you can lift your hand and make your point, else we go on to the next speaker. One going one, two, and three. Okay. Let's go on to our next speaker.

Mister Shayet Bolson, there has been a fair introduction of yourself. I'd like to give you the opportunity to add anything more in terms of your own introduction. People in South Africa might not know you that well other than the the aspects that you have already touched on, and that is your your talks have proliferated and touched many hearts and also opened many discussions, including within some of us in the movement for United South Africa. And even your perspectives on South African politics as a person who's aware of global political influences has been quite insightful. So over to you, sir.

Assalamu alaikum. First first of all, I'm I'm absolutely honored to be here. It's it's really a privilege, and I'm I'm humbled to be, for example, on the panel with professor Bosak. It's it's very truly an honor. I'm I'm I'm surprised actually that anyone even knows who I am, to be honest, in South Africa, and and I I I feel a bit self conscious to talk to such experts or or with such experts to be included among such experts to talk about South Africa.

I'm speaking as someone who is not only an outsider, but who is acutely cognizant of being an outsider in talking about South Africa. My perspective is coming from the the the the the three objectives of Middle Nation, which began as as just a channel on YouTube, but then people coalesced around these three objectives that are expressed through Middle Nation and through our content, which is the economic sovereignty, political independence, and psychological decolonization, first of the Muslim world because we're Muslims, but then of the global South more broadly. And so this the content drew people, and it became now a sort of a network or a community of people from all around the world, Muslim and non Muslim, who are dedicated to these three principles or three these three objectives. So I'm looking at the situation in South Africa sort of from a view of analyzing what you can say maybe macro trends in the the overall relationship between the West and the global South, between the West and the Muslim world, between the West and Asia, and between the West and Africa and Latin America and so on. I can't pretend to speak with any particular expertise on the domestic internal politics of South Africa except from, as I said, insofar as I can detect the presence of the West in those internal factors.

I mean, I I I personally have been involved to one in in in one way or another, to one degree or another, in critiquing and analyzing and opposing neoliberal colonialism for about a quarter century in writing, in speaking, in activism, and so on. Now I'm only saying that I'm only mentioning that to say that over the course of these years or decades, I've developed, I guess, a sort of intuitive familiarity with the mechanisms and the tactics and the strategies that they use, that the that that neoliberal colonialism uses in country after country after country because it's a pattern. It's a it's a it's a it's a system that they use, and it's a formula that you that you can you you learn how to recognize. And in fact, it's a it's a it's a formula that isn't new. It's a formula, you know, the same way that you have you had colonialism, then you have neocolonialism.

You had imperialism and neo imperialism. It's the same formula. It's just tweaked

Yeah.

To accommodate current circumstances. So I'm I'm also speaking as a Westerner, born and raised and indoctrinated in The United States. Islam liberated me from the indoctrination, but I retained an intimate familiarity with my society, with America, with the American thinking, with American ideology, with American approach to the world, and American agendas and objectives. So when I look at South Africa let me let me let me mention something that I I I talked about recently. There was a book you may be familiar with by a geopolitical analyst, George Friedman, called the next one hundred years.

And in that book, he was trying to predict what the future looked like, what what it might look like in 2100, in the year 2100. But in the beginning of the book, he talks about what the world looked like in 1900, and then he goes sort of decade by decade by decade at all of the changes that took place in relatively short periods of time between, say, 1900 and 1940 or 1900 and 1950, the world looked completely different in just a fifty year period. And by the world, of course, what he means is the West. England was the center of the world in 1900. London was the center of the world.

There was the Ottoman Empire. There was no Soviet Union. There was no communism. Fifty years later, the world was completely different. And then you go forward again to the nineteen eighties, then you to the nineteen nineties, the February, and so on.

You see drastic, radical, paradigmatic shifts in global relationships, And it's really breathtaking. The the amount of changes that can take place in one person's lifetime, in one man's lifetime, say, you know, a generation, twenty five years, thirty years, whatever. And when you think about that, what's even more breathtaking is when something does not change. When you realize that everything seems to change in the world, then if you see things that do not change, you know that those are deliberately kept the same. They're deliberately maintained.

They're deliberately and strictly preserved. That that status quo is deliberately and strictly preserved. And so when you think about that in the context of the West's relationship with Africa, it's quite stunning because the West's economic relationship with Africa hasn't changed significantly in eight hundred years. Not the the the the changes that have taken place in in ten years within the within the West can be radical and breathtaking, but the but no changes have taken place significantly in the economic relationship between the West and Africa in almost a millennium. That tells you that this is a very entrenched relationship on the side of the West.

Maintaining this status quo is absolutely an entrenched paramount priority for the West because this doesn't stay the same by accident. The relationship doesn't stay the same without deliberate intentional policy decisions and dedication and determination to maintain that status quo. So the the tactics that they use, as I say, will change from time to time. But the point is to understand what their objective is, which is to maintain the exploitation and the subjugation of Africa because the entire so called Western civilization is built upon that foundation. They can have nothing of what we regard as the West and what the West regards about itself in terms of it being this, you know, technologically advanced, high income, high standard of living, so on, all of that is based upon the exploitation and the subjugation of Africa.

There's no way that that can continue without preserving that that status quo. The the the means by which they will pursue the maintenance of that status quo, as I say, will change from time to time and circumstance to circumstance. They'll use violence when violence is viable. When violence is not viable, they will use other means, coercive means, manipulation, financial aid, or the promise of financial aid, and, obviously, loans and debt and so on. And they will use, as I said, some of the same tactics and strategies that they used in the colonial times.

The the the original colonial times will continue to be used in neocolonial times and in neo imperialistic times, what you can call now the corporate colonial times, which is the use of local collaborators. They will use local collaborators who will benefit from their collaboration and have a similar class affinity with the colonizers, if not a similar racial affiliation. They have an ideological affiliation on the basis of class and on the basis of other material interests and so on. That brings us to the DA, to the so called democratic alliance. In my view, it's transparently colonialist, colonizer, collaborating political party that is exclusively aligned with Western private sector power and the interest of private sector power.

It's overtly, in my opinion, radically neo neoliberal in its policies, in its thinking, in its strategy, and unapologetically so. They have received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is understood correctly as basically a wing of the CIA for funding and fostering opposition groups and groups within any given country in the global South to support American and Western interests. They've been they've been funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. They've been funded by the Open Society Foundation of George Soros, which is I hate to even mention George Soros' name because it's always connected with conspiracy theories, but the fact of the matter is that the Open Society Foundation has been factually connected to involvement in opposition groups in all around the world and and and helping to support so called color revolutions. They've been funded by the Conrad Adenauer Foundation.

They've been funded by the Atlantic Council. All of these are neoliberal organizations that promote neoliberal policies and that promote the interest of Western private sector power. So there's not a question about their, how can I say, their their ideology and the source of their ideology that this is they're they're plugged into a network of corporate colonizing neoliberal parasitic private sector power? They have a very close relationship with the with the government of Israel. They have a very close relationship with the government of the UK, and they're extremely close to the Americans.

I think everyone knows that they have regular meetings at the American embassy, or or, anyway, they did before they became part of the government. They have a very close connection to and access to American officials, American officials in the government. They have, again, received funding from the NED and then NED subsidiaries like the International Republican Institute, the National what is it called? The National Democratic Institute, I think it's called. They receive funding from all of these organizations.

All of these organizations are neoliberal organizations, and all of these organizations, have been implicated, and incriminated in supporting regime change, in global South countries all around the world, and, again, obviously promoting neoliberal policies. So in my opinion, as an outsider, but as someone who has some degree of understanding in how the West operates as an imperial power, as a colonial power, and how the owners and controllers of private sector power, the owners and controllers of global financialized capital, how they have become an empire unto themselves and the the new manifestation of colonization and how they operate. As someone who has some degree of familiarity with how they operate, I identify myself, the Democratic Alliance, as absolutely a colonizer, collaborator, political party, a political entity. And to me, this puts South Africa in a great deal of danger. This puts you in a great deal of danger.

This puts any and all advances that have been made post apartheid in danger of absolute reverse. Of course, it puts all of the the problems that you already have in danger of becoming much, much worse. I mean, we're not in a situation in in my opinion, South Africa is not in a situation of, one step forward, two steps back. You're taking one step forward on a conveyor belt that's going backwards. This is the situation when you have the DA.

In my opinion, the the GNU shouldn't stand for government of national unity. It stands for the government of neoliberal unity because the ANC, as everyone knows, for the last thirty years or so has implemented or aligned itself to one degree or another with neoliberal policies. Whether they did that out of naivete or whether they did that out of corruption or whether they did that out of coercion or some combination of all of these three, The fact is that they did pursue neoliberal policies to one degree or another. But compared to the DA, the ANC was neoliberalism light. The the DA is is neoliberalism hardcore.

And in my opinion, what happened, and, again, I'm fully recognized that I'm an outsider, but this is the way it looks to me from the outside. The ANC, in pursuing the, neoliberal policies, economic and social socioeconomic disasters followed, predictably. Socioeconomic disasters followed in South Africa by the implementation of neoliberal policies, and South Africa is light years away economically from where they should be, where they have every right to be thirty years after the end of apartheid. They should be in a much, much better position than they are today. It's absolutely, it's ludicrous that that that that South Africa is in the is dealing with the kind of economic socioeconomic problems that they have.

There's no excuse for that in my opinion. It's a rich country. It's absolutely insane. And and to to be advocating for neoliberal policies in 2024, after thirty years of of of watching the catastrophic consequences of following neoliberal policies, if you have the nerve to advocate for neoliberal policies in 2024, you have to be either insane or insidious. You have to either actually not understand the connection between neoliberal policies and the socioeconomic devastation that they've caused.

Either you have to not understand it or you have to want it. You have to be in favor of that devastation, which means that you're either too either you're too incompetent to understand, which means you're too incompetent for leadership, or you have too much contempt for your own society. You have too much contempt for your own population to deserve being given a position of leadership. And that's what I see the the the DA is. And so I think that America and the West understood that the inevitable consequence of pursuing the the neoliberal policies would cause this devastation because that's all it ever does in any country where it is implemented.

All it ever does is cause socioeconomic catastrophe. So America and the West understood that this will happen, and they could see also the declining popularity of the ANC as a result of following the policies that the West wanted them to follow. Because this is the way that the you have to understand this is the way the West approaches politics, the way they approach politicians.

They have one minute to Sorry? You have one minute to round up?

Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm I'm talking too much. I didn't even think I could fill fifteen minutes.

My apologies. Well, I'll let me let me just sum it up and say that I that I think that that you have to understand that the the GNU is a version of is neoliberalism light and neoliberalism hardcore, and it's united against the population of South Africa, and the people of South Africa need to do something about it. But I don't advocate for them to, actually view their government, as an enemy, even if the government is viewing them and treating them as an enemy. This is still your country. This is still your people, and you can't, pursue a change in a way that will create more instability and confrontation and conflict because that's also something that neoliberalism thrives upon.

They will absolutely thrive upon anarchy and chaos and and problems. And I think that you're going to start to see, and I hope not. Inshallah, no. But I think that you're gonna start to see even greater crackdowns on civil society, greater crackdowns on activism, greater crackdowns on journalists now that the DA is is sharing power. Because, again, that's something that neoliberalism thrives upon, and it it provokes, it baits you into lashing out so that it can justify repression and cracking down on on civil rights and and and liberties.

So I think, that what you're doing here with this dialogue, is extremely important, to to be able to to come up with, ideas and ways of addressing this in a way that is not hostile in in in its form of confrontation, but trying to negotiate because that's the way it has to be, it has to be dealt with through a a mentality of negotiation, not confrontation, in my opinion. And I'm sorry I talked so much,

Thank you very much. That was, again, very insightful and ideal for the conversations and dialogues we wanna have, particularly your view on neocolonial liberalism and what the mid nation middle nation entity that you folks have formed. You know, you mentioned economic sovereignty. You mentioned political decolonization. These are such important aspects for global South.

And we, South Africa, within the social media circles, within the civil society movements, within the NGO circles, there's a lot of debate. And in fact, even in political structures about the fact that there is this foreign influence which exploits Africa, exploits South America, exploits Asia, in fact, whole global South for the benefit of the Eurocentric 20% North. Even though the people in the global North seem to be more aligned to the global South positions, the the governments seem to be a a real problem. And we see it in the way The United States has vetoed the entire world in the in the Palestine issue. So thank you for all those insights.

You also mentioned a few things, which I think a few people would be very interested to take up in the discussion. You mentioned the DA particularly. They eased this dilemma that if a party in the democratic system has the mandate from people and is voted in, no matter what the influences are, whether they left, whether they right, whether they neo colonial, they have a right, and we play the ball. So I think you alluded to that answer in the end of your statement when you said that it's gonna be negotiated, and perhaps there's some openings that that we can pursue further. So we will take up the the questions.

There are a couple of questions I should perhaps ask you to have a look at the questions that have been put onto the chat so that in the in the debate, in the panel discussions, we can address them. There's one question from Rashid Motala on how to overcome Western neoliberal methodologies. There's a question from Andre Jacobs on what qualifies what qualifies or qualities of neoliberal policies. We can discuss that further. What qualifies as neoliberal policies?

Hence, a question from mister Darice on what is the answer of or solution for South Africa? Is socialism an option? And so on. So have a look at those questions. Zayil Karolya has also put a question.

I'm gonna ask you to have a look at it in your own town. There's quite a few, and we can have it have some responses in the panel discussion. Let me now go on to our third guest. Peto, welcome. It's a pleasure to have you with us.

And, you know, we, as Musa, often struggle with the way the world is going with often we used to call it, you know, the male dominant aspect of the aspect of having more men and presence of less youth and less women. And Moussa has made a considered effort to try and ensure that we we are we are more balanced, but we don't we're still not there. So your presence is an asset for us. The perspectives that the different genders bring is useful. And your background and introduction that Youssef gave is phenomenal.

So we look forward to your point of view and also your participation in the discussion. Go for it. All yours.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am quite elated to be on the platform with with everyone having listened to those opening remarks by the fellow speakers. One is encouraged that the conversation may just breed us or lead to to actionable solutions, especially for civil society and for concerned South Africans and activists from from across the spectrum at who are present here today. And I'm I'm gonna pick up from an anecdote that I heard a couple of days ago that has stayed with me deeply and one that I've reflected on and tended and talked about. The leader of the Democratic Alliance, Helen Ziehler, said in an in a in a in an interview that their Trump cut as a party in the negotiations over the government of national unity was the South African brand.