GNU revolution or failed marriage?

BARELY a week after it was announced the ‘Government of National Unity’ (GNU) appears to have faltered. At contention is the difference between 8 cabinet posts or six for the Democratic Alliance and the tricky subject of who is to be named as deputy president alongside many regional agreements within provincial government.

Of course there were bound to be hiccups, the two major players at the center of the emerging coalition hold diametrically opposed views on many issues, including land distribution, taxation, and foriegn policy but with some convergence around democratic centralism, and especially the urgent need to maintain a stable economic outlook — one that allows for a thriving market economy capable of supporting a social wage — avoiding the pitfall of inflation and Rand volatility.

No sooner had the ink dried on the GNU pact (which includes up to 10 parties with over 60% of the popular vote), newly re-elected President Ramaphosa was calling for a joint sitting of Parliament amidst the political deadlock. This signals an extraordinary start to our new Parliament and the seventh administration, which if it fails to reach consensus on the vital subject of the cabinet, could make way for the eighth and nineth before the year is out, with the resulting inability to pass legislation.

Any thought that the ‘grand old party’ which has ruled South Africa for thirty years can simply absorb its detractors, or rule by commandeering votes or gerrymandering Parliamentary seats needs to be dispelled forthwith.

Following the ANC historical loss of a ruling majority during the May election, ‘business as usual’ for the party, which has a history of absorbing opposition and coalescing around the so-called ‘tripartite alliance’ is now a practical impossiblity.

The COSATU labour federation which formed a key component of the previous election-winning strategy, may be extremely unhappy at the outcome of the election, since the electorate apparently favours ‘economy over ideology’.

The South African Communist Party (SACP), the other partner besides the trade union holds no actual seats in parliament, which begs the question, has this tired formula run it’s course? Is the labour left of old, a mirage congregating around a once formidible oasis of BEE patronage?

This as the rise of right-wing factions under ultra-Nationalist Jacob Zuma, signals opposition politics, especially when it comes to the left-right cleavage, is inexorably altered?

At the time of writing, the leader of the official opposition has yet to be announced, but I dare say those amongst the rank and file will be eyeing any instability at the centre of politics with much glee, perhaps anticipation — upsetting the ANC apple-cart would bring exoneration for Zuma, unable to take up a Parliamentary seat due to a criminal conviction — several of his so-named MK party MPs, including impeached judge John Hlophe, would certainly face charges if they were not elected.

One can only hope and pray that our nation’s politicians are able to set aside their differences in the interests of the country.

Why software should not have owners – Richard Stallman

Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman

Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.

Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold software’s potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.

The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for mass production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.

Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That’s the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):

  • Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.
  • Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.
  • Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
  • Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA’s request) of people such as MIT‘s David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.

All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as “samizdat”. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html