Dear John Steenhuisen,

I think the difference between Bheki Cele and Zweli Mkhize represents two different views on the coming lockdown. It is about a government using a 'state of national disaster' to fight the spread of corona virus; the former wants to enhance state power (executive power - a 'state of exception' ) over the citizen and its natural and constitutional rights and the latter, more wants to be more respectiveful of these. Minister Mkhize appreciates that citizens ultimately are the best judge of everyday behaviour, they are rational, and will respect a law that protects themselves and all others. They can monitor their behaviour if the appeal makes sense. Minister Cele, in typical fashion, confuses this with a 'a state of emergency' wants to constantly show his power and the power of the state (more unconsciously it would seem) - and this lockdown is an instance and opportunity to show this. When Mkize says 'dog walking and jogging' are fine he emphasised that the point was to 'keep groups' from forming; ultimately it is the conditions that 'spread the virus' that must be avoided, because that is the aim of the entire exercise. Rationally, this means that an individual citizen walking a dog or jogging is not threatening the national appeal, because he or she will be keeping a distance as if he was in his or her own house. Forcing people into ridiculously defined behaviour in the long term is unproductive to 'win them over,' to give democratic legitimacy to the effort. SA should show that a 'lockdown' can be implemented under democratic conditions and should not veer in the direction of state authoritarianism, which most states and their uncritical political represenatives will use the opportunity to promote. This should a cautiously monitored against by all who value democracy and understand also, the conditions of soceital emergency, and responsible opposition parties should constantly point this out as part of their democratic mandate.