Many years ago at the Holiday Inn in Bloemfontein the late advocate Douglas Shaw QC from Durban was asked by one of the staff what had brought him to their hotel. He replied: ‘misfortune’. Pallo Jordan is suffering his own misfortune but due to his own misrepresentation. Gareth van Onselen has today written in Business Day that he did the right thing to own up and resign. “He also did the wrong thing. And he will live the consequences of both. For all the great good he has done, which is profound, he is seen by many as a metaphor — for the ANC of old, for academic excellence and intellectual fortitude and for those who try to walk on the side of the angels”.
Pallo Jordan resigned from parliament according to a report by Natasha Marrian in Business Day on 11 August 2014 Pallo Jordan resigns from Parliament. Gareth van Onselen’s article Pallo Jordan and South Africa’s conspiracy sickness was first published in BDlive today and here are some extracts.
I WISH to focus on one particular response to the Pallo Jordan issue — the tendency of many South Africans to evoke conspiracy as an explanation for current events. It is the sign of a broken society, where human agency is made subservient to victimhood. Simply put: no one is ever responsible for his or her choices. There is always a third force assumed to be pulling the strings. In this way, everyone is a victim and accountability is undermined.
The list goes on but these represent a typical sample. As it happened, prior to Jordan’s resignation, I had publicly given an explanation for the origins of the investigation. In a context rife with examples of false credentials, it had come up as an angle to pursue in conversation with a colleague. There was an obvious ambiguity to his curriculum vitae, which afforded him the title “Dr” but cited no PhD or thesis, which would have been the basis on which he could legitimately have used the title. That prompted further investigation.
But frankly, it doesn’t matter what explanation was offered, many would not believe it anyway. South Africans’ self-esteem is generally so shattered and damaged, for perfectly understandable reasons, that many of us cannot bring ourselves to accept anything at face value. We are so riddled with insecurity, self-doubt and a lack of trust for our fellow man, that we cannot process the possibility that anyone acted of their own volition. Some powerful, unseen force must be behind it all, manipulating circumstance.
Thus, the reporter must have been an “agent”, who received a “brown paper envelope” from “whisky drinking” ANC members, most probably Zuma himself, who was disgruntled over Jordan’s Nkandla criticism. What fantastical nonsense. And how pathetic.
Jordan did the right thing. He also did the wrong thing. And he will live the consequences of both. For all the great good he has done, which is profound, he is seen by many as a metaphor — for the ANC of old, for academic excellence and intellectual fortitude and for those who try to walk on the side of the angels. And so it is tempting to indulge those things in favour of the case at hand. But, like it or lump it, that case exists, supplemented by powerful evidence and couched in reason. And you cannot wish it away by seeking refuge in the comforting embrace of conspiracy. If he was willing to look in the mirror, the least everyone else could do is the same thing. He deserves that much.
It is interesting to read the website The Protocol School of Washington’s Honor & Respect The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address where there is a discussion about ‘How to Address a Person with a PhD’ and ‘How to Address a Person holding a Doctorate’.
1) Holders of doctorates who work in academia or research institutions use Dr. (Name) professionally and socially. Thus a PhD in biology doing research at the local university or lab probably uses Dr. and everybody thinks it’s right. Protestant clergy with doctorates typically use Dr. (Name) too.
2) Holders of doctorates who work outside academia or research typically don’t insist on Dr. Neither a PhD in finance at a Bank & Trust Company nor a PhD in American history working for Xerox is likely to insist on being addressed as Dr.
3) In hospitals (and some other healthcare environments as well) there is often a practice no one except the physicians (medical doctors, dentists, osteopaths, podiatrists, veterinarians …) are addressed as Dr. (Name). This is out of consideration for the patients who want to know who are the doctors and who are nurses, support staff and allied professionals. It can be confusing with so many people walking around in white!
I have been told this makes for some unhappy PhD’s in hospital administration, physical therapy and nursing, etc. who might prefer to be addressed as Dr. (Name) too. It’s my understanding that all of these professionals might well be addressed as Dr. (Name) in other situations (teaching or consulting, for example). But for patients in the hospital, the practice makes sense.
4) All that said, ultimately how one is addressed by others is up to the individual and usually everyone goes along. For example, if you and I meet a woman who identifies herself as Monsignor Alice I think … it is unlikely she’s a Roman Catholic Monsignor. And, it’s unusual that she has only one name, like Fabian, Rhianna, Sting, Cher, or Madonna. But we should say to her — Monsignor Alice, it’s nice to meet you. That’s what she says her name is. But, when she’s out of range, we can talk about her.