Construction of the new truth: Human Rights Day

The appeal of democracy is said to be that is it government of the people, by the people for the people. I don't know what it is about our brand of constitutional democracy that makes it government of some people, by some people for some people but it turns out that way or there are at least enough instances where it is the case.

By way of an illustration, there are many people from all walks of SA lives that contributed to a lesser or greater extent to the eventual dismantling of Apartheid. In fact as some of you may have learned, nobody actually ever voted for the Nats, they just kept themselves in power through repression and fictional votes. Only Helen Suzman got actual votes. So, one would expect that if the idea of a new country and new morality is that we honour those that contributed to the bringing about of the new era; then that idea would apply to all. It is understood that not all the people can speak and be heard all the time, hence the idea of representatives. The representatives of the people went about doing all sorts of things on behalf of the people, one of which was the declaration of certain public holidays.

21 March was prior to the new era always known as Sharpeville Day. I am not sure what deliberations led to this historic day being named Human Rights Day but there it is, our new reality. This was probably done on some nation building argument - the mantra of the Nelson Mandela government. In his book, Long Walk to Freedom, the South African saint characterises the actions of the Pan Africanist Congress in relation to the Sharpeville protest and subsequent massacre as somewhat opportunistic. Benjamin Pogrund writes differently about the same history in the biography of Robert Sobukwe. What then is the truth about Sharpeville Day?

Whatever the truth may have been about that day, it has now been replaced by the new truth, that of Human Rights Day.

Prof. Jansen's Wisdom: politics of unity?

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.

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.

Knowledge may be power but reading is downright dangerous

In the last few weeks I have had the privilege of reading Ben Tourok's "Nothing but the Truth" and I am currently reading "Slave: My True Story" by Mende Nazer and Damien Lewis. A few hours ago I chanced upon "This time it's Mrs Clinton's turn" an article by James G Abourezk, published at http://www.counterpunch.org/

It is no small wonder that Hendrik Verwoerd and his cronnies would not let black people read in this country (SA) and why Adolf Hitler and the other similarly inclined fascists burned books. Lately, it is also no wonder there is so much money spent to keep people away from books. There is so much else to do these days that there is hardly ever time to read. There is the TV, which I must confess, I am hooked on, and all manner of other forms of entertainment (read distraction). Is it a coincidence that the most successful purveyors of pop culture is the US of A? Now that is a nation in need of a whole lot of distraction or books, lots of books and even more time reading.

I am not suggesting that the books and articles I referred to in this post will suddenly make a militant freedom fighter out of you. There is however a noticeable energy caused by a realisation or the learning of new facts about matters one has previously glossed over, taken for granted or matters that one was ignorant of. The kind of energy that screams out "how could that be?" Reading, can be as exciting as it can be inciting. I think "pornographic" literature was banned following the same logic not so long ago, but that is a whole different post.

Ben Turok tells the story, with humility, of the early days of the struggle against racial discrimination and apartheid. He tells the story of the early days of the trade union movement and the influence of communism on liberation politics. He tells the story of the rejection of communism by the early leadership of the ANC and the later co-operation between the nationalists and the communists; and the latter blurring of the lines. Through Turok's story, one begins to appreaciate the ongoing stresses and strains between the ANC and its alliance partners. One gets to appreciate the internal intolerance of dissent among the ranks in the ANC. An element that is understandably part of the survival kit of life in exile, especially when there are people who are constantly trying and sometimes succeeding to kill you. It is a facinating story and quite enlightening too. According to Turok, shortly after the victory in the first ever democratic elections, he sought to persuade the ANC economic think tank to seek closer co-operation with other African countries. He was rebuffed in his attempts and told that "Europe is a bigger trading partner and why he wants SA to pay attention to "basket cases", referring to other African countries". This is paraphrased, without changing the meaning. He also tells an equally fascinating story of how the Reconstruction and Development Programme, the fateful RDP was sidelined and ultimately committed to the dustbin.

Mende Nazer, tells me how her own mother and sisters held her down, forced her barely teen legs open while some woman cut off a piece of her privates and then sewed the very privates to make them smaller, in preparation for her wedding night someday. She tells me how one evening some arab raiders attacked her village, burned her home and those of her neighbours, killed her family and other villagers and abducted her and other little girls. She tells me how the raiders raped them along the way and how they were eventually sold to a Khartoum slave trader. All of this, in this century.

James Abourezk writes an inspiring piece on why the middle east will never see peace inspite of or maybe because of secretary Clinton's efforts. The peace-making efforts lack one critical element, truth. One needs to be fair in peace-making, one needs to be consistent, etc. For these to be achieved, one needs to be truthful. For an example, if one encourages Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, then one also needs to put the Israeli nuclear war-heads on the table. One needs to investigate and visit retribution upon perpetrators of war crimes, and so and so forth. Without truth, one cannot end hostilities and make peace.

As one continues to read newspapers and other publications and one comes accross untruths, you can understand how one's blood temperature may be raised. We owe it to ourselves and our children to seek out the facts and be fearless in our exposition of the facts and the truth.

A word of caution though, this reading thing can be dangerous . . .

Pardon me while I take my foot out of my mouth . . .

I am embarrassed and rightly so.

A few days ago, February 25 to be exact, I published a blog brazenly accusing the Weekender (a weekend newspaper related to Business Day) of not publishing a letter I had written in response to an article by one of their columnists. I was wrong. I have just learned that they have in fact published that letter in their edition of January 31.

See for yourself: http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/TarkArticle.aspx?ID=3478199

I hereby unreservedly apologise to the Weekender for wrongfully accusing them of not publishing the letter concerned albeit that I never received an acknowledgement of the letter. I concede that I am not owed such an acknowledgement. I should have checked with them prior to making the statements that I made in my post of February 25. I expect the media to be thourough in verifying their statements and I owe them nothing less than the same rigour when I make statement about them.

I trust my apology will be accepted and taken whence it comes.

Suffer the Children

I remember the T-shirts bearing these words from the late 80's and early 90's or thereabout. It was with reference to what apartheid was doing to black children, children in the townships. I borrow the phrase for a different purpose but with a similar reference point: the suffering of children as a consequence of the actions of adults. This time it is not apartheid I seek to blame for the suffering of the children but the conduct of the parents going through divorce and often post divorce.

It is not easy for me to deal with this subject because I don't have the comfort of objective and uninvolved distance of a commentator. I am what my friends (if one can call them that) would refer to as a returnee - I am remarried. I have 3 children from my first marriage. When it comes to divorce I am alas, not an innocent but officious by-stander. I regret to admit that through my actions during and after the divorce my children have suffered. I would like to believe that I have always done what is in their best interest or at least what I believed to be best for them. I continue to do so. I do not wish to make this about me but I owe the reader this background. Divorce is not easy but that is no excuse for the manner in which people who ostensibly loved each other at some point, should conduct themselves. This is not about me or the couple going through divorce, this is about the children.

There is also some morbid fascination with the news of dramatic or maybe it is traumatic break-ups, like people wait for the divorce, hands a-rubbing. So, the newspapers do what newspapers do and report on these dramatic/traumatic break-ups. I kid you not, there is nothing more soul-bending than a messy divorce. How then, can one avoid the mess when one is in it?

It is admittedly hard to be rational about what are primarily matters of the heart. There is also really nowhere to turn because primarily, very few people and institution want to get involved (whatever that means). and when they do get involved, matters hardly ever take a turn for the better. So, what do you do, do you give in to irrationality - trust me there is a lot of it when you are going through a messy divorce.

The formal process is no better. Lawyers get involved. There are lawyers and then there are lawyers. The trauma just gets perpetuated. No one should really care about adults who choose to behave like children. The problem is that children, the real children suffer through this battle of wills. There must be a rational way of dealing with this or am I delusional. On paper, there are good laws and good institutions to apply the good laws. In reality, there are human beings who take positions and whatever else they can lay their hands on. Through all this - suffer the children.

Here is the thing, the two adults have decided rightly or wrongly that they don't want each other anylonger. In fact, the one adult has decided for whatever reason s/he no longer wants the other, in fact there is in all likelyhood another adult s/he would rather be with. Such is the nature of human relations regardless of what you may have read in Matthew chapter 5. When that point has been reached, what is the point really of fighting over anything? In the process one of the two adults gets confirmation why in fact s/he should not be with the other. Emotionally, it does not any simpler than that so, just let go! Otherwise - suffer the children.

There are of course the proprietary issues such as who keeps the mercedes and who will pay the bank for the luxury home. These are technical legal matters that should be resolved as such. Yes, people lie and cheat (they are breaking up for pete's sake). Here you can only rely on the legal representatives to be less unscrupulous than their clients. Remember, s/he has seen you naked (hopefully) over the years, s/he knows things about you that you probably would prefer to keep out of the open. This is probably the time to be truthful about all things. It is time to give yourself the opportunity to really move on. If you fail to do so - suffer the children.

Then, the children. They are the children of parents who no longer want to be within 5 metres of each other. They are still children, they still need love, reassurance, routine and care. They need a place they can call home where all their stuff is, where discipline, love and care reside. Your divorce should never deny them that. They have two parents, good or bad, that is what they have. She is their mother and he is their father - do not stand in the way of that relationship, regardless of what you may think. The only qualification here is the well-being and best interest of the child. No one should be expected to give up their child to an abuser. The alternative - suffer the children.

Your life is your life and you have made your choices. Give the children an opportunity to make theirs.

All this ranting was brought on by a newspaper article of a couple that is going through a messy divorce. They have two children who are caught in the middle of all this. Fair enough, the poor things have in any event been caught in the middle of a love-less, conflict ridden marriage. No matter what we may believe, there is simply no safety-net for the children during a messy divorce. Sadly, the parents or at least one of them, is the children's best hope at this time. We owe it to our children to step up to this responsibility. Failing which - suffer the children.

Our failure to step up - suffer the children. It is you, only you, not your lawyer, your priest, your parents, your accountant - nobody but you who can protect your children and no-one can protect them from you. Or maybe you would rather - suffer the children?