Prof. Jansen asks or is it asserts, what a leader of a divided community ought to do - unite the divided community - that is the primary function of a leader, says the good Prof. This is an interesting read, like most of the good professor's writings. It is also a little less than what I would have liked to get from the pen of a man of his academic stature. This, however is the end of the world as most of us know it. It is not easy to argue against a pen as fluent as that of the Prof so I won't even try. What I will attempt will be a nudge towards a different perspective - something along the lines of organised chaos in contrast to the Prof's uniting wisdom.
What am I on about? Have a read of Prof. Jansen's piece on wisdom which he recently penned for The Times. In this piece the good Prof questions the wisdom of a leader of a public institution who nails her colours to a mast of one or the other political party. According to the Prof, a leader of a divided house such as SA's biggest institution of higher learning, has only one key responsibility: "to bring people together rather than tear them apart". This he says of an institution of higher learning, where enquiry abounds and scholarship is encouraged. I don't know about you but this scares me a little. I have always been of a tentative view that scholarship is by definition fuelled by dissent and disagreement, good natured and otherwise.
The good Prof does however concede that a leader of an academic institution such as Unisa is entitled, like any other citizen to participate in the political activities of his country. He does qualify that entitlement by saying that to participate in the political sphere and to declare support for one or the other political party equals "lack of good judgement". So, everyone is entitled to exercise their political choices except those who are charged with the leadership of divided houses and large academic institutions. Especially if the choices are going to be made public. If however choices are made in the broederbond open-secret style then maybe it would be ok, I don't know and I don't suggest that's the Prof's position on the matter. This whole thing does have a stink to it I tell you. It reminds me of the rainbow nation days when no-one wanted to piss no-one off. Back when we were all friends and springboks had their place in the sun too. Now, it would perhaps follow that Madiba was a leader after Prof Jansen's own heart. He as the world will testify put peace and unity above all else. Madiba, most will insist, skilfully presided over a divided house, brought people together rather than tearing them apart - to use the professor's language. Who can forget the number 6 rugby jersey, the flamboyant shirts and allround good naturedness of the great Madiba? But then again, he was the first democratically elected president of the country, he sort of had no choice did he? He appeased the white people, told the darkies to be patient and so on and so forth. All agreed that it is in the interest of the country and all put their narrow interests aside. Looking back, I am not sure that was such a hot idea, but hey I don't have an alternative either but such is the joy of not being a wise leader.
However good Madiba may have been at his job, it does not follow that we should judge leaders by their political affiliation. Infact Madiba was never judged like that, he remained above that kind of thing. We cannot forego the maturity that an academic environment by definition requires for party-political narrow interests. It is in the administration of the institution that Mr Pityana (yes, that is what this whole rant has been about all along) should be judged, his political membership notwithstanding. I know of atleast one dean of a faculty at one of the more prestigious of university in SA who is a supporter albeit quietly, of the ANC. Now there are of course supporters and members of a host of other political organisations in that community and that does not seem to catch anyone's attention, least of which that of the good Prof.
Students come and go, so do their political affiliation and support. I still remember how proudly I wore my SACP T-shirt and swore on communal ownership. I concede, I am more flaky than most people so the fact that I have moved on should not be a measure of anything.
We can take this even further. Let us take our judiciary. It is made up of men and women of different political and social persuasions. Some drink some don't, some read some write and so on and so forth. There are religious judges who will be well advised not to hold that against any atheist litigant who come before them. Consequently, if the suggestion is that membership of an organisation predisposes a member to do injustice to others as a definite consequence then I am with the good Prof. Otherwise, let Barney be what he will be for as long as he continues to work tirelessly towards a better education for all - if he can cope with such mammoth a task that is.
I am not sure what it is about political parties that makes the Prof uneasy. There are certain rules, regulations and requirements for running an institution of higher learning, all of which I believe Barney Pityana to possess. Except for wisdom (if the Prof is to be believed) Barney Pityana is in my view the person for the job. I don't see how his support for Cope will make him any less qualified to do the job. Justice Malala (a man I don't often agree with) warns against the very reasoning employed by the Prof in his piece for the same newspaper "You are with ANC or out of a job". Just so that you don't get overly excited, the same measure applies to all those individuals who are in positions of leadership and are supporters and/or members of the ANC. It is the job they do in those positions and not the political party they support or are members of that should be the measure of their success or failure - a measure of whether they should keep or lose their job.
Wisdom, I believe is the ability to see the woman separate from her political affiliation. Unity of a divided house is more readily achieved by the inhabitants of the various divisions of the house acknowledging each other's right to exist and not by glossing over the divisions as we did in 1994 under a wise leader. It cannot be that you are only to be politically active when you are fighting some universally accepted evil such as apartheid. Once again, it is the end of the world as we know it. Besides, more time was spent fighting people than the oppression, all that under what are generally accepted as leaders with good judgment.
Wisdom appreciates and promotes diversity. Wisdom appreciates that like does not mean same. Wisdom welcomes changes and deviation from the norm. Wisdom tolerates dissent.
What am I on about? Have a read of Prof. Jansen's piece on wisdom which he recently penned for The Times. In this piece the good Prof questions the wisdom of a leader of a public institution who nails her colours to a mast of one or the other political party. According to the Prof, a leader of a divided house such as SA's biggest institution of higher learning, has only one key responsibility: "to bring people together rather than tear them apart". This he says of an institution of higher learning, where enquiry abounds and scholarship is encouraged. I don't know about you but this scares me a little. I have always been of a tentative view that scholarship is by definition fuelled by dissent and disagreement, good natured and otherwise.
The good Prof does however concede that a leader of an academic institution such as Unisa is entitled, like any other citizen to participate in the political activities of his country. He does qualify that entitlement by saying that to participate in the political sphere and to declare support for one or the other political party equals "lack of good judgement". So, everyone is entitled to exercise their political choices except those who are charged with the leadership of divided houses and large academic institutions. Especially if the choices are going to be made public. If however choices are made in the broederbond open-secret style then maybe it would be ok, I don't know and I don't suggest that's the Prof's position on the matter. This whole thing does have a stink to it I tell you. It reminds me of the rainbow nation days when no-one wanted to piss no-one off. Back when we were all friends and springboks had their place in the sun too. Now, it would perhaps follow that Madiba was a leader after Prof Jansen's own heart. He as the world will testify put peace and unity above all else. Madiba, most will insist, skilfully presided over a divided house, brought people together rather than tearing them apart - to use the professor's language. Who can forget the number 6 rugby jersey, the flamboyant shirts and allround good naturedness of the great Madiba? But then again, he was the first democratically elected president of the country, he sort of had no choice did he? He appeased the white people, told the darkies to be patient and so on and so forth. All agreed that it is in the interest of the country and all put their narrow interests aside. Looking back, I am not sure that was such a hot idea, but hey I don't have an alternative either but such is the joy of not being a wise leader.
However good Madiba may have been at his job, it does not follow that we should judge leaders by their political affiliation. Infact Madiba was never judged like that, he remained above that kind of thing. We cannot forego the maturity that an academic environment by definition requires for party-political narrow interests. It is in the administration of the institution that Mr Pityana (yes, that is what this whole rant has been about all along) should be judged, his political membership notwithstanding. I know of atleast one dean of a faculty at one of the more prestigious of university in SA who is a supporter albeit quietly, of the ANC. Now there are of course supporters and members of a host of other political organisations in that community and that does not seem to catch anyone's attention, least of which that of the good Prof.
Students come and go, so do their political affiliation and support. I still remember how proudly I wore my SACP T-shirt and swore on communal ownership. I concede, I am more flaky than most people so the fact that I have moved on should not be a measure of anything.
We can take this even further. Let us take our judiciary. It is made up of men and women of different political and social persuasions. Some drink some don't, some read some write and so on and so forth. There are religious judges who will be well advised not to hold that against any atheist litigant who come before them. Consequently, if the suggestion is that membership of an organisation predisposes a member to do injustice to others as a definite consequence then I am with the good Prof. Otherwise, let Barney be what he will be for as long as he continues to work tirelessly towards a better education for all - if he can cope with such mammoth a task that is.
I am not sure what it is about political parties that makes the Prof uneasy. There are certain rules, regulations and requirements for running an institution of higher learning, all of which I believe Barney Pityana to possess. Except for wisdom (if the Prof is to be believed) Barney Pityana is in my view the person for the job. I don't see how his support for Cope will make him any less qualified to do the job. Justice Malala (a man I don't often agree with) warns against the very reasoning employed by the Prof in his piece for the same newspaper "You are with ANC or out of a job". Just so that you don't get overly excited, the same measure applies to all those individuals who are in positions of leadership and are supporters and/or members of the ANC. It is the job they do in those positions and not the political party they support or are members of that should be the measure of their success or failure - a measure of whether they should keep or lose their job.
Wisdom, I believe is the ability to see the woman separate from her political affiliation. Unity of a divided house is more readily achieved by the inhabitants of the various divisions of the house acknowledging each other's right to exist and not by glossing over the divisions as we did in 1994 under a wise leader. It cannot be that you are only to be politically active when you are fighting some universally accepted evil such as apartheid. Once again, it is the end of the world as we know it. Besides, more time was spent fighting people than the oppression, all that under what are generally accepted as leaders with good judgment.
Wisdom appreciates and promotes diversity. Wisdom appreciates that like does not mean same. Wisdom welcomes changes and deviation from the norm. Wisdom tolerates dissent.
Wisdom, some would say, begins when the Lord is the only one Barney Pityana fears; and that the Prof will not find in a dictionary. Wisdom is not the one thing, it is many things to many people.
Posts
I think the good Prof has just shown a lack of wisdom there. Unisa is an international institution of higher learning and how Barney Pityana will unite it by not actively engaging in politics escapes me. One would be forgiven for thinking that the good prof is pussyfooting to the ruling party. Shame on you Prof!!!
ReplyDelete