The gloves are off, and it’s clear that the folks over at the New York Times don’t care much for the ANC in its current state.

In an opinion piece by the editorial board, which “represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher”, the Times took aim at a party that has quite clearly sold its soul, and its supporters, down the river.

We feel you, guys.

Anyway, let’s get down to business. With a few omissions for brevity, here’s what they had to say:

It may seem unfair to single out South Africa for its corruption. It’s not the worst offender in sub-Saharan Africa, and far from the worst in the world…But countries should be measured less against the rest of the world than against their own potential and promise, and on that score, the same African National Congress that Nelson Mandela led to a triumphant victory over apartheid a quarter century ago has become gorged on corruption.

What is particularly galling, as Norimitsu Onishi and Selam Gebrekidan reported in The Times, is that so many of the millions filched from state coffers were earmarked to lift up the poor left behind by apartheid. While politically connected companies and individuals have grown wealthy, the gap between them and the poor, most of them blacks, has only grown…

The potential for change was evident when the A.N.C. finally forced President Jacob Zuma out of office in February. Mr. Zuma’s nine years in office were a byword for obscene corruption, and he now faces corruption, racketeering, fraud and money laundering charges. His successor, Cyril Ramaphosa, promised in his first state-of-the-nation address that “this is the year in which we will turn the tide of corruption in our public institutions.” Yet President Ramaphosa is himself a veteran A.N.C. member and made a fortune largely through his ties to the party, and his cabinet includes officials who stand accused of corruption.

Mr. Mandela may have been partly responsible for the state of affairs when he struck a grand bargain with the white minority that finally gave the black majority control over politics but left many economic resources in the hands of whites. That, according to current perceptions cited in The Times article, created incentives to give and receive bribes.

Yet while the flawed transition may explain the rise of corruption, it cannot justify the perfidy of officials who were reared on the ideals and aspirations of the movement Mr. Mandela led. The corruption described by Mr. Onishi and Ms. Gebrekidan is not simply bribery, but rather elaborate schemes to siphon off tens of billions of public dollars intended to improve the lives of the very people the A.N.C. promised to lead to a new, equal and just nation.

That is one reason that it is fair to single out South Africa. Another is that the “beloved country” of Alan Paton’s South African classic has the democratic tools to combat the blight of corruption, as the unfolding case against Mr. Zuma demonstrates. The question is whether Mr. Ramaphosa or the A.N.C. are any longer capable of wielding them.

The ANC has become “gorged on corruption” – nail on the head, innit.

Who knows if any other political party would have handled the situation much better, but they sure as hell couldn’t do worse.

Oh well, at least Jacob Zuma has other things to keep him occupied for the time being.

[source:nytimes]