Letter from Pretoria: John Pilger is at it again. Riling the powers that be. Lambasting hypocrisy where he sees it, writes Joe Humphreys
The only difference is that his target this time is not the US nor Britain - his staple foes - but a fledgling democracy recently liberated from what Pilger himself describes as a fascist and genocidal regime.
South Africa's rebirth as "the rainbow nation" is generally interpreted as a good news story. In Pilger's hands, however, it is a lesson in betrayal. In his latest book, Freedom Next Time, the campaigning journalist condemns the African National Congress (ANC) government for embracing the "neo-liberal" economic policies of its racist predecessors.
"The black majority were misled," he writes. "The political decisions made by Mandela, Mbeki and their fellow 'moderates', regulating the needs of the poorest, have allowed the continuation of suffering by exclusion, apartheid by other means." The book has caused a storm in local political circles with several ANC heavy-hitters debating its contents in the newspapers.
Minister for finance Trevor Manuel accused Pilger of using faulty data to draw "exaggerated and flawed conclusions" about the government.
Joel Netshitenzhe, chief of policy in the presidency, suggested the journalist had a hidden agenda. He said: "Pilger set out to look for a democratic revolution betrayed, and he found it."
Pilger isn't the first author to question the ANC government's commitment to poverty-alleviation. South African journalist and academic William Gumede gave a similar analysis in a recently published biography of president Thabo Mbeki - and for his troubles was blacklisted by the state broadcaster SABC.
Pilger is more difficult to silence, however, and to ignore - given the hard miles he put in covering the apartheid story, getting himself barred from the white-controlled South Africa in the process.
Returning to the country 30 years after his banishment, the author identifies a disappointing degree of change. He notes that most blacks still live in neglected townships, providing cheap labour to often unscrupulous employers.
Half the population still lives in poverty, while social supports remain depressingly low.
As usual, Pilger invokes no small amount of innuendo when critiquing his subject. Secret deals are alluded to, with the devious hand of Washington never far from sight.
Criticising the ANC leadership for stooping to negotiations with the "fascist Broederbond which stood behind the apartheid regime", he asks:
"Was it simply a matter of the ANC having been in exile so long it was willing to accept power at any price? . . . What role had the Americans and international capital played?"
The author alludes to "declassified files" in the US showing the White House had in the late 1980s sought to use big business to encourage South Africa to "move more rapidly against apartheid".
Just why the US would be criticised for doing so is not clear, but Pilger states: "The declassified files leave no doubt that [ former apartheid president FW] De Klerk and the Broederbond were on notice to rescue capitalism in South Africa."
Pilger also dares to question Mandela's motives, arguing that the saint-like figure gave rise to "much of the inspiration for the new cronyism". Mandela's successor is, meanwhile, portrayed as a puppet for big business, and President Mbeki's New Economic Partnership for African Development is dismissed as a vehicle for "the spread of 'neo-liberalism' throughout Africa".
Mr Mbeki likes to believe the world is divided between Afro-optimists and Afro-pessimists, and on the face of it the Pilger debate supports his thesis.
The investigative journalist admits "admirable" progress has been made in certain areas, while Mr Netshitenzhe says "Pilger is correct in highlighting inequality in our society".
In reality, however, the main fault line between the two is not a "glass half-full versus glass half-empty" outlook. Rather, it is a more traditional "left versus right" one, with Pilger bemoaning the fact that "it was mission Christianity, not Marxism, that left the most indelible mark on the ANC elite in exile and prison".
In this regard, the Pilger debate highlights a broader schism in South African politics.
Many within the ANC believe the party has lurched too far to the right, while other members of the so-called "tripartite alliance" - the trade union umbrella group Cosatu and the Communist Party - are in open revolt over the direction the government is taking.
Whether the ANC government is best described as "left, right or centrist" is a matter of some debate. But unless it makes greater strides to improve the living conditions of ordinary South Africans, it could find itself increasingly alienated from the electorate.
Mr Gumede puts it somewhat more diplomatically than Pilger would. "Should a new opposition emerge that is prepared to speak out for social justice, redistribution and a better lot for the poor," the academic writes, "the . . . ANC could find itself in real trouble".