Of writers, blacks and a tragedy

I am still trying to figure out what it means to be black in this brand new 16 years old South Africa. Go ahead and snigger all you like. This is my question, my journey and you don’t have to come with if you don’t want to. What is the one thing that makes me black today? Here? I am sure that I know the answer to these questions - Almost as sure as I am that I don’t quite know.

Ok, I went on this journey after I read Mr Sandile Memela’s latest post on the “Thought Leader Blog”. He is upset (at least that how it read to me) about the ever growing tendency for black writers to trash all that is black and that is government. He is onto their stuff though, at least that is what he writes. He is onto these sell-outs (this is my word) – he has worked out that the reason that they do this (trash other blacks and the government) is so that the white publishers would publish their stuff. The alternative for them, it seems, would be to be a blogger like me, with a dedicated readership of 3 (all dear friends).

I go through the blog and think: he is onto something here. Then suddenly I realise that the very things that he admonishes Xolela Mangcu, Moeletsi Mbeki and others for doing, becomes the very peg on which he hangs his critic coat. I could live with that. You know they say one should not do as another does but rather as the other says. Learn from other’s mistakes and so on. Then I set out to find out more about this Mr Memela. There is a helpful bit on the top right-hand corner of the blog that lets you a little into who he is and where he hangs out during the day. It is when he described himself as a “government funk” that the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. I still thought that I could deal with all that, as I should. My view is, you learn from others. You don’t even have to agree with them – just don’t repeat their howlers for to re-howl is to be stupid and you don’t want to be caught being stupid, right?

Mr Memela also writes that he is tolerant of views that don’t necessarily fit in with his own. I then think: come on, now you just shitting me aren’t you? You clearly don’t like the ideas of Mangcu and Mbeki. You actually call them unpleasant names, right there in your post; you call them such and such, and this and that. You can’t stand these okes or their ideas at least. You write clearly how they are the cancer that is going to kill the black writer. So what am I to learn from you and them now? I haven’t a clue. What I am painfully realising is how difficult being black has become since we started calling ourselves black as opposed to being designated as such by some or other authority.

It seems to me that the views that one may hold – one being black that is – must be carefully checked lest they do not accord with those of the black majority or the government. As I read Mr Memela’s piece and the comments in support of it, I fantasised about writing a book under a title: “the colour of ideas”. I also got stuck on some of the concepts and phrases in the post, so I realised that I need to read more and learn more. I am stuck when it comes to the word “intellectual” even more so if it is a pseudo kind. I am as a general proposition attracted to ideas and thoughts. I am fascinated by how minds work – all kinds of minds. I am no intellectual. I think about things, events, people, my children and the future – among many things that cross my mind. There are those whom I regard as intellectuals but given the use of the term these days, they may well not be; or they may be pseudo.

I am all for disagreements. Especially among black people – intellectuals or not. I criticise and have criticised the government in this space. I do so for the same reason I criticised and disagreed with Prof. Jansen: because I know they can be much better, good as they may be. I would have liked Mr Memela to take these offending black writers on. I would have liked him to engage the ideas and thoughts they express. I would have liked him to engage those ideas and reduce them to nought as they should be. It is a pity his critic stops at name calling and denigration.

This, is the real tragedy of being a black writer.

Government of the People, by the People, for the People

Does this expression still have any meaning? Government around the world is generally by proxy, often on behalf of the people hardly ever for them. Once in a while there is real interest in the politics and the politicians and then the people go out in greater than usual numbers, to vote. Generally, the voters are less than 40% of the population or hover around that. This statistic gets even more interesting if you look at how many of those who are eligible to vote, do register to vote and actually vote, come election day.

But that is only the beginning of the story as it were, more so in relation to our own political system. Of course we had a large turnout for the last elections – people love a good drama, especially when they can become part of it. There was excitement around the elections and some optimism that there will be some change. Will we have the same excitement 4 years from now? Or will it be the case of “the ANC always wins and they will win again then? What will be the draw-card then?

Whichever way I look at it, it seems to me that the majority generally impose their political will and their political candidates on the minority, more so under the proportional representation election system. Like most compromises (the national anthem comes to mind here), proportional representation was meant to leave everyone equally unhappy. By everyone I mean those who would have preferred winner takes all versus those who did not want to be overrun by a black government and therefore sought to have a way of keeping some seats in parliament. Some argued that “winner takes all” electoral system would have polarised the nation and would not be in line with the Madiba nation-healing magic. Proportional representation on the other hand would ensure that there will be a place for everyone under the parliamentary sun. I am not sure whether proportional representation did not result in the very polarisation that the peace negotiators attempted to avoid. That however is a subject of another post.

Consider this if you will: Once elected, members of the legislature go about the business of electing the president who then goes about the business of appointing the executive. Firstly, the legislature is the legislature of the Republic of South Africa and all its people regardless of their errant and somewhat irresponsible voting habits. Similarly, the president and the executive are all ours, warts and all. But this is not so under proportional representation. Each politician is answerable and accountable to the party that put her name on the list. Each politician can (and many have been), be removed from parliament and stripped of her title should the party believe it appropriate. What about the people, I ask. The party is in charge and what the party says goes. Does it mean that the Minister of Justice is in his position to carry out the policies and dictates of the party? I will need to go back and read the oath of office that the president, the members of the executive and members of the legislature take when they assume their respective honourable offices. Maybe there is something in there that allows them to heed the call of the party rather than that of the people, I don’t know.

Do they not swear to serve, protect and to uphold the constitution of the Republic of South Africa – without fear, favour, prejudice or political affiliation consideration? This of course goes back to the party list. The people may have whoever political representative they want; as long as such representative is on the list. I don’t know.

Consider the position of the president of the Republic. As soon as he is elected by the legislature, he then gives up his membership of the legislature and he then occupies the presidency. This I am told is because he now belongs to all of us regardless of his party political affiliation. Now, we all remember the last president and how he “was recalled”. Of course that is not technically true. The constitution only provides for the resignation and the impeachment of the president. We of course know that he chose to resign. Had he not, that would have been some dramatic development in the country’s history – that was not to be though. The man facilitated his own recall as it were. All of this is pretty confusing to me.

I do not know when it will be appropriate for this nation to get out of the meantime of nation-building and step into robust constitutional democracy, where the people say who, say when, say how and say how long. I don’t know when that time will be and whether such would necessarily be the right thing to do.

What I do know and believe is that government should only be of, for and by the people. I am also beginning to lean towards a belief that proportional representation gets in the way of the people and their right and duty to govern.
Is it not so that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians and their parties?

I don’t know.

Isn't it time we said enough?

Who exactly, is the media responsible to? Who do they account to for their actions? I believe there is some ombud or similar body that ordinary Joe Public like me may complain to and hopefully get some redress. The redress is often in the form of an apology and comes after the damage is done. I don’t know what the alternative should be so don’t ask me. The media houses are also businesses and the nature of such beasts is to make some money for their shareholders and other beneficiaries.

To think that somehow the media can (especially in an overzealous democracy like ours) be expected to behave honourably is probably foolhardy. So, I do not wish to write to the editor, be he or she of the public kinds or otherwise (ok maybe I should). I also do not wish to engage the services of some watch-dog. I wish to engage the media itself and appeal to the human beings (believe you me they are in there somewhere) inside the media houses. I do this with the full appreciation of all the other imperatives that they seek to heed, not least of which ought to be, at least in my mind, to be human.

In order to illustrate my plea (yes, it is coming just bear with me) to the media houses, I upfront and unreservedly beg the indulgence of the Sowetan newspaper. You see, this newspaper ran two articles in the Friday, 20 November 2009 edition about Mokgadi Semenya. Even before I read either, I found myself wondering: at what point do we collectively say that she has gone through enough already? I of course appreciate that the matters Sowetan reported on are news-worthy. I also appreciate that there are those who would like to know the matters reported on. However, I can’t help but wonder whether this and similar reports are really necessary or indeed fair. Maybe fairness is not and should not be test or what the media may or may not report.

Mokgadi is in her teens (very late teens but teens nonetheless) she has her whole life ahead of her. A life throughout which she will always have the debacle of her sex (please, pretty pleas not gender) constantly overshadowing all else that she does. At what point does the media say: folks, we have milked this one for all it is worth, maybe it is time we let it go. How about we let the poor kid go? Please, do not get me wrong, I have conceded in this very space that what was callously done to Mokgadi is of great benefit to our society. What happened to her has raised one of the issues our society refuses to deal with. What I regret is how the media went about it. To this day, the tests apparently performed on Mokgadi are still referred to as “gender tests”. Folks, Mokgadi’s gender needs no testing. She is a woman, that is her gender. She has lived her life as a woman (girl if you like). About this there should be little doubt. Her sex, like the sex of many of us, is another story. I have dealt with this issue in this space too.

This is not me dictating to our media what to print and what not to print (as if I would; as if they would care). I am suggesting that the (salacious) details of Mokgadi’s sex have surely passed their sell-by date. Whatever it is that the IAAF, ASA, SASCOC, Mr Malema, Mrs Madikizela-Mandela and whoever else, are in the future going to do or say about the tests, is no longer relevant, at least in my view. This to me takes the broader social issues no further and adds nothing to the fabric of our society (if there is such a thing). What the continued reporting of these details does do, is to inflict unknown pain on a human being that we all agree is innocent. I am yet to come across a report (not an op-ed or editorial) that seeks to re-assure Mokgadi, many others like her and us that she is not a freak. None of the reports I have seen even attempt to give her the benefit of the doubt.
The media plays both the information and the education role. It has the privilege and benefit of some of our brightest human beings. I appeal to them to use this opportunity to educate the rest of us on the matters and complex issues raised by the misfortune of Mokgadi. This, in the stead of constantly hanging her out to dry, as it were.

I ask that the media leverage its immense influence to teach the rest of us, and that way reassure Mokgadi that there is nothing wrong with her. That is the truth, there is nothing wrong with her, she is not a freak. She should not (like Saartjie Baartman many years before her) be put on show, probed, poked and debased. We need this message to come out loud and clear from our media.
We need some education on Sex, Gender and Identity rather than perpetuation of lies, inaccuracies and misinformation. Nothing illustrates the fundamental and crucial differences between sex and gender than this whole regrettable episode in Mokgadi’s life.

We cannot afford to miss these opportunities to contribute meaningfully to the development of our society. Especially the development of a culture of respect, tolerance and care.

We can do this, with the help of each one of us but more so with the help of those best placed to help – our beloved fourth estate.

Prof. Jansen’s blurred vision: A response to Rhoda Kadalie

Forgiveness is a privilege enjoyed by those who offer contrition; a gift from the wronged to the wrongdoer, with reconciliation as a goal. A goal that ought to raise both the wronged and the wrongdoer above the wrong. This is my understanding of the concept of forgiveness. If you disagree with this understanding then I doubt very much whether you will find any of what follows agreeable.

I hold Rhoda Kadalie in high regard. I do so for her incisive and uncompromising ability to articulate her views on many of our difficult social and political issues. This she does without fear, favour or prejudice; not to mention sycophancy. This is the chief cause of my disappointment with her opinion carried by the BusinessDay in its 22 October 2009 issue. I must at this point state that I agree with a lot of what she says in that opinion save for the basis of her defence of Prof. Jansen’s decision firstly to withdraw the charges against the students who have come to be known as the Reitz four and to allow those students back onto campus for the purposes of continuing their studies.

I hold Prof. Jansen in high regard. His credentials both as a human being and as an academic leader are nothing less than impeccable. He is a leader among his peers and considering where he comes from to get here, his leadership is even more astounding than Rhoda Kadalie describes it in the opinion. As much as I hold Prof Jansen and many other leaders of our society, I have on occasion had cause to disagree with him. I am no judge on these matters and I am not qualified to even tie the Professor’s shoes but disagree I do. When the Professor wrote in The Times that the cause of decline of standards and performance of poor previously white schools was the influx of black pupils, I disagreed with him. When the Professor misunderstands forgiveness, as I believe he did when he made the decisions in question, I disagree with him as I disagree with Nelson Mandela on the same subject.

Back to the opinion. That Prof. Jansen is the best thing to have happened to the University of the Free State is without doubt the gospel truth. That he will, all things being equal, achieve the reconciliation and integration he has set out in his inauguration speech, is similarly beyond any doubt. That the ANC is latching onto this issue as with many others, to gain political mileage is similarly true. That is what political parties do. However, to state as Rhoda Kadalie does that his withdrawal of the charges and allowing the Reitz four back onto campus, is visionary, reconciliatory or that it will purge the University of the rot is with respect, ill-conceived. For this reason alone I beg that the decision be reviewed at the least.

Rhoda Kadalie will no doubt remember the late Chief Justice Mohamed. While sitting as a judge, I believe it was in Namibia, he was implored by a defence counsel to show mercy on some white youth who out of primitive passion and alcohol had beaten an elderly black man to death. The defence counsel argued that these young men are but a product and reflection of the society they have been raised by. Their upbringing, so the argument went, has caused them not to have proper regard of black life as human life and so on and so forth. The late Chief Justice rejected the plea and the reasons advanced for it. He said: “To allow the 'racist socialisation' of pre-independence Namibia to operate as a mitigating circumstance, after the new Constitution has been publicly adopted, widely disseminated, and vigorously debated both in Namibia and the international community, would substantially be to subvert the objectives of the Constitution, to impair the process of national reconciliation and nation building and to retard the speed with which Namibian society has to recover from the legacy of its colonial past."

I am persuaded by this argument. Moreover, if the Professor were to follow the thread of integration and reconciliation that Rhoda Kadalie argues justifies the decision, then he will quickly arrive at a point where the “Sotho-Tswana” (sic) members of the community will tell him that one does not call an older person by their first name. Once the Professor arrives at this point, it will be difficult for him to even watch let alone condone the Reitz video. I cannot reach any other conclusion than that the conduct of the students is condoned in the face of the decision by the university not to apply its own disciplinary rules and processes.

That the ANC, Cosatu, Media and other social formations and institutions have come out sensationalizing or have come out against the Professor’s person is a red-herring. That Rhoda Kadalie disagrees with these formations and institutions (largely for good reasons) should not corner her into an illogical support of a wrong and unjust decision.

I ask that Rhoda Kadalie consider the following story that took place at one of our better universities. It was common practice at the men’s residences of this university for students to drink a lot, to be rowdy and then to vomit at various public areas of the residence. This was affectionately known as parking a tiger and some house committees even had prizes for the best tiger parked by a young man, whatever that means. So, the practice was not only tolerated, it was encouraged. The student who had parked a tiger would then have to pay R20 or so, which would then be given to the woman who has the unpleasant task of cleaning the vomit. The woman would be part of the cleaning staff employed by the university who invariably was from somewhere on the Cape Flats. She would invariably have children of her own probably the same age or older than the students whose vomit she cleaned for R20.

I now beg of both Rhoda Kadalie and the Professor to at least review what they believe to be good reasons for the Professor’s decision and to consider whether the decision is as visionary and reconciliatory as it is held out to be.

Finally, I ask Rhoda Kadalie to consider what message she believes the Professor is sending to the women who were humiliated by these sons of the University of the Free State. The apology on behalf of the university and by extension on behalf of the Reitz four nor the compensation cannot be enough to dissuade me that the view of the university community is that these women in their blue overalls do not matter. Just like the women from the Cape Flats who cleaned young men’s vomit for R20.

The University of the Free State could not have found a better leader than Prof Jansen but it can do better; it can have the Prof and a leader who has the courage to admit when he is wrong.

What am I missing?

I think I am losing my mind. There are two stories in the media which completely befuddles me. I am not even sure if they are stories worth telling in the first place (well, maybe as snippets) let alone the analysis and the interviews that I now have to be bombarded with.

The first is the analysis of whether soldiers may or may not belong to a union or participate in a strike or protest. Well, now that you have heard hours worth of debate on this issue, allow me to remind you of what our law provides. Contrary to popular belief, the law is fairly straightforward on this issue. Firstly, the right to belong to a union and to strike and to protest and so on, is conferred on every employee by our constitution. Secondly, this right is then regulated and protected under the Labour Relations Act. So, if you are an employee, you will be protected by the LRA from all manner of evil often visited upon employees by employers; one such evil is the denial of the right to form and belong to a trade union. Now how do you know if you are an employee? This is no simple matter. Well, thankfully the LRA tells us what an employee is. So, if according to the LRA you are an employee then you will be protected from the evils of the capitalists.

Now, here is the thing: the LRA specifically states that "This Act does not apply to members of the National Defence Force". This I would have thought is the end of the matter. Apparently not because for the last two days I have heard all manner of arguments of how the soldiers in question were peacefully exercising their rights. Rights they of course do not have, but hey let's not get technical.

So I ask, what am I missing?

The second story is about a certain Mr Huntley. Well, it is a nice story of how creative this oke from Mowbray can be and don't forget to credit the immigration lawyer that represented him. But, similar to the marching (striking) soldiers, everyone (including me) is throwing their five cents' worth of wood into the fire. Now we have a bonfire building up nicely and in the classic SA style, the lines are once again drawn. Here is the thing, Mr Huntley, ably represented (I guess) told the Canadian authorities a story that entitles him to refugee status. The authorities believed him and granted him protection as a refugee that has fled persecution from back home. I have no idea what test (if any) did the authorities apply but that doesn't matter, it is their test, their country, their laws.

So I ask once again, what is there to analyse?

Nothing; this is fairly straightforward: the Canadian authorities believe that white South Africans on the basis of being white stand to be persecuted by black South Africans. And of course they are doing their bit to help.

Re a leboga Caster, thank you . . .

This is what all South Africans, in fact this is what the whole world should be saying to this gifted athlete. The world does not give a damn though.

There is an apparently Chinese proverb that goes "when you are being shown the moon, do not look at the finger". A lot has been written and said about Caster Mokgadi Semenya, the women's 800m champion. The greater part of what was said and written had less to do with her achievement on the track than it did with the controversy around her sex. I say sex because I have come to learn that gender is another long and complex story. Sad as this whole saga has been, it has also been a gift to us, one for which we should be very grateful. In fact, the abominable treatment to which Caster has been subjected to has for the rest of us become a series of gifts.

The first gift is that we now know that just because people are writing or talking about something, does not mean they know what they are talking or writing about. It just means that they are exercising their right to express their view on the matter. A lot of what was carried in the media, both print and electronic, betrayed gross ignorance of the issues involved in this young athlete's saga. My own bigotry and prejudice made me have a second look when her picture was splashed across the front pages of newspapers. I found myself thinking and saying (to my best friend) ". . . eish, I'm not sure. Just look at . . ." Thanks to Caster and writings of those who know what sex, gender and identity are all about, I have recognised the bigot in me and now have an opportunity to deal with it. It also helped that a friend is a gynaecologist. The issue is that Caster does not fit in with the picture that we have formed of what is female, and therefore needs scrutiny and tests. Please, before you choke me, this is separate from the issues of fair competition that IAAF will tell you about. So, gift number 1: thou shalt no make your bigotry and prejudice into some objective standard or measure, there is lots of science behind sex and gender.

We do this all the time though; from the way people dress, walk or speak; we judge and categorise them into little neat boxes. What they do or say thereafter does not count for squat. One of my own is routinely stopped at the entrance of female public toilets and asked if she's sure this is where she want to be. She routinely lifts her usually baggy top to show that she is female, No she does not flash! Amazingly this always gets her a pass into the "ladies". Well, a lot can be said about the kind people who just want to make sure that she is not lost or making a mistake about the toilets. The fact is, it is on her general appearance that she is routinely suspected of not being female.

The second gift is that it never hurts to find out some facts behind the sensational story. Failure to do so, puts you squarely within the first gift above. Some limited research into the whole gender issue will quickly reveal the complexity that surrounds it. Hermaphroditism, although fairly common, is still spoken of in hushed tones. There are XY's out there with fully developed female genatalia and breasts. You have surely read stories of individuals claiming to be trapped in a "woman's" or "man's" body when in fact they are the opposite. You have also read about the man who has given birth in US. It is in our laziness to fully consider these issues that we are comfortable to dismiss human beings as "freaks". Those that are against homosexuality and are happy to persecute human beings for not choosing to love within the stereotype; do not know anything about homosexuality - oh, except that it is not natural. The fact is, it does not fit in with the generally accepted world view, therefore it must be wrong. And then of course there is the Bible, reportedly written by God "Himself" - enough said. Now, thanks to Caster, people have an opportunity to go and look into the issue of gender and maybe understand that it is a continuum rather than a point.

Finally, the IAAF, like all other world bodies, have now emphatically been shown up for what it and they are, thanks to Caster. Next year will be the first time that the Fifa soccer world cup will be held on the African continent. It is no small wonder that it is the African country that is the most European that earned the honour. South Africa is a lot of things but Black is not one of them. Of course there are millions of Black people living in this country but you know the townships don't count, right? A quick look at TV programming, public events, etc. will quickly illustrate this point. It is only in the last 2 years that advertisers discovered Black people, even then, only those Black people closest to White. On this basis and thanks to the lobby of the current Fifa president, the soccer world cup is coming. Oh, then there was the issue about the vuvuzela? Welcome to my world! You will of course remember the late Dempsey. Can you imagine what happened at the voting that year? All those fair minded gentlemen who said No!

Now what about the IAAF? They have apparently had to deal with this difficult issue of gender on no less than 9 occasions that I am aware of. There were reportedly 8 women tested during the Atlanta games all of whom apparently "passed" the test. And then there was a particular woman who having "passed" the test, subsequently "failed" and was stripped of her medal. Now, here is the slit in the IAAF's fairness skirt: I have not before the Caster furore heard of all the 9 cases. More importantly, no names or photographs of the athletes behind the cases seem to have been made public either during or after their tests. If they were, it was probably in some specialised publications rather than in the general media, I don't know. In short, the athletes, as they should have been, were treated with decency, decorum, sensitivity and respect. Against this background, why did the IAAF now hang Caster out to dry? What about her case did not merit decency, decorum, sensitivity and respect?

There has been something made of the incompetence of the SA athletics body. I'm not sure how this body should have dealt with this issue really. My understanding is that insofar as they were and are concerned, they have among their athletes a talented women's 800m contender now world champion. So, what were they meant to do? Approach the IAAF on some, "we know what you guys are thinking so just to set the record straight . . ."? The IAAF had concerns, which in their own words were fuelled by rumours, so it was the IAAF that had to deal with this matter. By the way, it is their job to deal with these type of issues, I take no issue with that. They however handled this one so callously as to amount, albeit in my mind, to malice. So, another gift from Caster: trust these international bodies at your own peril.

I hope that our collective gratitude to Caster will go beyond letters to the editors, protests, welcoming her at the airport and all those public expressions of outrage. I hope our gratitude to her would be displayed in the way that we look upon and treat those that we see as different. The way we interact with those that do not fit our bigoted pictures of what should be. Everytime that we interact those who are different, and we remember that they are no less human, no less deserving of decency and respect, then we would be paying homage to this talented athlete - then we would be emphatically saying: Caster Mokgadi Semeny, re a leboga, siyabonga, dankie, thank you.

And by the way, congratulations on your victory, you are afterall the women's 800m world champion.

Service Delivery Protests

There is a real risk of this post becoming sanctimonious. The only experience, if that, I have of what the press refers to as service delivery protests, is through the news reports and casual conversations. The facts are that yes, there have been and probably will more protest in mainly the lesser developed parts of our townships. The protesters when asked, say that the reason for their protest is the failure of government to provide basic services.

Protests are without question important part of the broader freedom of expression. Each one of us has a right to assemble and to protest subject only to the limitation imposed by the constitution. There are also other limitations to the right to protest that do not come from the constituion. These limitations are created by other laws, by good manners and common decency. It is a crime to destroy other citizens' or government property and no interpretation of the right to protest, can change this simple proposition.

The protest take place mainly in the so-called informal settlements and other poorer townships. These areas, poor and unserviced as they may be, are also public and communal spaces, shared by a lot of people; poor people. Some of the people caught in the middle of these protests want to carry on with their lives and should be allowed to. This is of course a hollow if not a pointless statement in the context of these protests. To illustrate, during an interview, one of the leaders of the protests expressed disappointment that criminal charges brought against some of the protesters would not be withdrawn as was apparently "agreed" with the authorities. That there is a possibility of an agreement being reached with the authorities in the face of flagrant breach of the law is scary - but hey who am I fooling, these agreements are reached apparently quite often. If you happen to be a victim of the crime, you pretty much have to move on and get over it.

Where does all of this come from? When did it become ok to destroy your neighbour's house in an expression of your frustration with the government? There surely must be a difference between the 1980's "making the country ungovernable" and the present. A look at the Khutsong township protests (which I wrote about) and how those were resolved may give some clues. I was and still am flabbergasted about what went on there. After a court had ruled against the community, they still went ahead and protested (read thrashed the township, burned a house or two, kept the children out of school and stopped people from going to work). All of this was ugly and to me incomprehensible. What did I expect? A counter-revolutionary like me will never understand the processes of the struggle of the people against an oppressive government. Well, the people of Khutsong won their battle. The government has decided that they will stay in Gauteng province and not be moved as the government of Mbeki had wished.

Now, which community would not want taste victory for itself and the predominantly unemployed residents? Counter-revolutionarily speaking, in a democracy the weapon that citizens have against a government, any government is to make sure not to return it to power in the next round of elections - not to burn the mayor's house, which incidentally they probably had paid for. However, for as long as the victory of Khutsong remains fresh on the minds of the people, the struggle (burning, thrashing and intimidating) shall continue.

The next round of local council elections is around the corner. This is the opportunity for the people to make their voices heard and to get rid of the ineffective councillors. It is also conceivable that the people can no longer wait for a better life for all or maybe they are beginning to doubt whether there can be more that can be done - together or otherwise.

The task that faces this government is bigger than huge. It will take a sober and forward-looking approach. This is no time for quick wins, neither is it time to find scapegoats nor to point fingers at this or another government. Today, this minute, people are losing their belongings, their jobs, their dignity. In the meantime, I do not know of any action taken against those that have been identified during criminal actions. The way I see it, there can be no reason in the minds of the protesters to doubt that they too will soon savour the victory of Khutsong.

What are the government's options?

It was just a matter of time . . .

I hear there is some ruction and disquiet caused by one of our best female artists Thandiswa Mazwai, she who is all woman, in my humble estimation that is. My dear wife finds her less agreeable but only in form. Give me that voice, let me enjoy the sway of those enchanting hips, ohh give me Thandiswa. All that of course is not the cause of this post, the ruction however is.

Thandiswa is reported to have expressed, in rather strong and dare I say unlady-like terms, her dislike of the Afrikaans portion of the South African national anthem; a portion more affectionately referred to as "Die Stem". For those who may not know (a very likely event given how long it has been since Black people were official referred to as kaffirs); Die Stem was for a long time the national anthem of the Republic of South Africa. It succeeded God Save the Queen which was the national anthem during the days of the Union; during which days Black people were officially known as natives alternatively savages.

The 90's came around and with them, the winds of change. All hitherto terrorist and seditious organisations were unbanned and political prisoners (yes, there were a lot more than one Nelson Mandela), were released. Celebrations ensued and as in the nature of celebrations, there was inebriation followed by deviation from cause of liberation in favour of peace. With peace comes the necessary cessation of hostilities. For some reason whenever peace is the objective, there seems to be a requirement for general amnesia. There seem to be a requirement that we forget the events that led to the initial hostilities. I can still remember the mantra "let by-gones be by-gones". Just in case you think me smug; I confess that I too chanted that mantra for I too were sick of war and hostilities. We all wanted it to end; so much so we forgot the fundamental requirement of peace making - the truth.

It is in this elated inebriation and lust for peace that apartheid left but Die Stem and Springbok stayed behind; and as Nelson Mandela rose to address the rainbow nation, he said: "I greet you all in the name of peace..." To demur then would be nothing less than being a ghastly party pooper. Who wants to be known by those terms? Truth, logic and common sense do however have a nasty habit of periodically coming to visit (between the festivities), just to see if the brain is still in use and the heart is still pumping. It was in such a moment that I wrote words to the effect that "I am now stuck with Die Stem in the middle of my National Anthem". What is one to do? The blue sky and the depth of the sea poetically expressed in that reminder of my dehumisation are not of the endless beauty and bounty of this land but of my exclusion. Put differently, they are expressions of triumph over the god-less.

Like with most if not all symbols, be they street names or public buildings, very little discussion or sharing was countenanced. The proverbial majority was apparently in favour of all the proposed changes or lack of changes and so it came to pass and thus it remains. For the sake of contrast: when the famous February 1990 speech in the then parliament had been made. Frederick Willem de Klerk still put a question "whether Black people were worthy of citizenship of the Republic of South Africa", to the White people - in a referendum! You do recall "Vote Yes for Change" right? It was still up to the White people to decide whether I was welcome to dine at the national table, as an equal, in the land of my birth and origin. One would have thought that similarly all national symbols (and all things proudly Sout African) would have been put to a referendum too. Not just to a competition to determine who could compose the nicest and most reconciliatory anthem. But making peace and asssuring White people that they will not be systematically butchered or robbed of their hard earned possessions is no easy chore. No less so was the reassurance of the investor community of the natives' commitment to peace. Peace, was more important than doing what in my mind (then and now) was the right thing to do. As one would be encouraged to stop at a red traffic light or to pay one's TV licence.

As in the nature of things, common sense and logic come for their periodic visits. As in the nature of things common sense and logic are often ignored or banished to the back of the national mind. All that until such realities can no longer be ignored, as was apparently the case with the fair and talented Thandiswa. Such expressions of dislike of Die Stem are of common occurence among those that I associate with; which begs the question: which majority was in favour of this state of affairs in the first place?

It was therefore only a matter of time that someone with a greater voice would refuse or hate to subject it "to where the cliffs would give an answer".

Meet Mr Jensen

This is well-written piece on white South Africa as seen by a white foreigner:

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen06092009.html

Take back your dignity . . .

The poor do not matter, this is so regardless of all else that you may have read or heard. In fact, it would suit most of us just fine to not see another poor person. The first line of defence when it comes to the poor, is to look the other way, to convince ourselves of all manner of reasons that they are there. We never pause to think that maybe they are there because we (those who are not poor) are here.

One only has to visit any of our urban areas' public facilities to really appreciate what Desmond Tutu meant when he said that the worst form of violence you can subject people to, is poverty. Whether it is the train station, the hospitals or the schools; those that are meant for use by the poor have similar characters in common. They are dirty, over-crowded, unsafe and downright undignified.

I don't know what it is about poverty that attracts or rather that brings out the worst in human beings. The poor areas of our country are marked by all manner of social ills; from chronic alcoholism to drug addiction, from child and spouse abuse to what seem to be wanton and random murder. In and among these human dumping sites, there are invariably shiny examples of human dignity. There are tidy homes with modest but immaculate gardens and an air of respectability. No rubbish lying around, no family violence, no alcohol or drug abuse.

The government will not and in my view cannot look after the interests of the poor. The interests of the poor are by nature anathema to those of capital, which most if not all governments need more than they need the poor. The present model of wealth creation is such that there will be the top which is very exclusive, the middle which is marginally bigger and then the rest made up of the poor. This is not some Young Communist League rhetoric, it is simply the way this and many societies work. I beg your indulgence for a few more lines:

Senior government officials and practically all politicians do not by and large live in and among the poor. Not that they should, I am merely making the point that they do not as a general rule live in the poor areas or among the poor. I also concede that poor is a relative term but I trust that most readers will have a fairly good picture of what poor looks like as they read this piece. To do otherwise is to split hairs.

In the unlikely event that senior government officials and politicians' children attend a public school, they will be attending a well-run public school that is located "not in a poor area". As a general rule (of which I am yet to learn of an exception) children of senior government officials and politicians do not go to the township schools let alone poor township schools. Neither do my children for the record, but that is hardly the point. Similarly, children and families of the senior government officials and politicians do not as a general rule make use of public hospitals. Almost all government employees are on medical aid of one sort or another and therefore have the benefit of private health care. So the government spends twice; first on medical aid that will go into the coffers of private health care providers and secondly on the public hospitals, the very hospitals that are administered and managed by government officials on medical aid.

At the risk of stating the obvious (incidentally, my dearest wife tells me this morning that there is nothing wrong with stating the obivious, for what may be obvious to one person may not be so to another) people who are not poor do not send their children to poor schools. Where there are medical needs, these are met by the very best of private health care.

You may ask what is wrong with all of this and I may just take your point. This is the way things are whether wrong or right. I do not here sit in judgement of senior government officials and politicians; I am merely observing what is a fairly accurate if not common a trend. Most importantly I ask myself what the impact on society does this trend have. This trend is the reason I conclude that the government (anywhere in the world) will not and cannot meet the needs of the poor. The poor do not matter.

Those who live in the poor areas are working hard to get out of there or at the least to make sure that their children get out. Nobody wants to be poor because to be poor is to be faced with a form of violence that is not matched by any other. If you are poor, you do not count and you know it.

On the other hand, if the senior government officials and the politicians lived in the poor areas, used public transport and public schools and public hospitals; then they would have a vested interest in these areas and facilities. They will have a vested interest all the time and not only every 5 years or so. At present they do not and for that reason, the poor will continue to be ignored.

Given that the government will not and cannot give the poor their dignity back, the only alternative for the poor is for them to take their dignity back. To take their dignity back as they did in the 1980's when townships used to have competitions such as the cleanest school etc. The poor can take back their dignity by treating their own environment with dignity, even when they are forced to use the undignified portable toilets. The one thing that the poor have always managed to do through the ages, is to be resourceful and to make a lot ouf of very little.

The schools, the streets, the homes and most importantly the communities are the source of dignity for the poor. Dignity will stop littering and all that goes with it. Dignity will stop wanton drunkeness and drug abuse. Dignity will not allow anyone to resign themselves to being a basket case. When the poor resolve to treat themselves with dignity, the government will have no choice but to treat them with dignity.

These are my thoughts and I stick by them.

No surprises and nothing to see here folks . . .

I am no authority on the history of our struggle against apartheid but I am old enough to have collected some fragmented memories of the days of mzabalazo. Thanks to these memories I am not particularly surprised by the recent mud-slinging between the ANC Youth League and the Democratic Alliance.

The Democratic Alliance pursues an agenda that seeks to bring the ANC to its knees, an agenda that seeks to defeat the ANC and to do so at all costs. The ANCYL pursues an agenda that seeks to destroy or crush, as Julius Malema said, those that get in the way of the ANC. The childish and deamening statements from both these organisations bears testimony to their respective agenda.

This is not news. I repeat, this is not news. For the love of the universe I wish e-news channel would get that. But then again maybe my good friend is onto something. He shared an observation with me that suggests that what is going on with the ANCYL may be more deliberate than accidental. He suggested that I look at the growth of tabloid reporting and the growth in circulation of the local tabloid publications in South Africa. I may be wrong but I suspect that The Sun newspaper is a very popular daily newspaper. Anyone who has ever bothered to page through this paper will know the kind of stories that it carries. My friend says that there seems to be a fascination with that which is vulgar and macabre. So, if the ANCYL seeks to endear itself to the tabloid readers (which seem to be a lot of South Africans), then it makes sense that it would walk the walk and talk the talk of the tabloid. I am not sure what to make of this but it has a ring of logic to it.

The militance of the youth is not news either. It is the same militance that in the mid-eighties saw young people terrorise their own communities in the name of the struggle for liberation. Bear with me. In my small township back then, a consumer boycott was called. My recollection is that my family and people I knew supported this campaign and did not buy from the white businesses. Please bear in mind that communicating with the community was not easy back then, you would have ended up in jail or dead for calling on the community to boycott white businesses. It follows therefore that communication was not good and some people may not have known about the boycott. It is also possible that other people may have decided not to support the camapaign. This did not make a difference to those mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who were accosted as they got off the taxis or buses and made to consume what they bought. People were made to eat or drink what they bought as punishment for not heeding the call of the people. They were made to drink fabric softner or cooking oil. They were made to eat soap and other terrible stuff. Back then, the inteded end justified the means employed to achieve that end.

What has not happened is a debrief of our militant youth post 1994 and by all accounts it is business as usual when it comes to matters of the struggle. Needless to say, it is after all aluta continua. Think of the recent taxi strikes, the labour strikes and the campus strikes.

The DA on the other hand has a proud history of support and maintenance of white privilege. They have used all manner of fancy terminology to cloud their true agenda without much success. The debates of access to campuses such as UCT that I was part of were always qualified by the like so Ryan Coetzee (chief strategist of the DA) with "the need to maintain standards". Take this comment to its logical conclusion bearing in mind that at the time, the Honourable Zille worked for the university concerned. Competence has long been used as a barrier to the entry of marginalised. Do not be surprised by Helen Zille being herself. I believe it was a fair call to question the composition of her cabinet. Of all the responses she could have given, she chose a vulgar demonisation of Jacob Zuma, a president under whom she serves. She has stated many times before and after the elections that her government will put the right people in the right positions in order to ensure delivery - whatever that means. These men must be the right people - so why is that not the answer to question posed. What does the president's sex life have to do with any of this?

These are the characters involved in this play and this is who and what they are. Nothing new and nothing to see.

Inaugural Observations . . .

The beauty of writing in a public space is that you can turn and twist words and phrases to your hearts content. Take the heading of this post for instance, it is somewhat catchy wouldn't you say? Even if I have to say so myself.

A previous post stated that the 2009 elections were as, if not more energetic than those of 1994. An amazing political energy criss-crossed our beautiful land with people putting their crosses where their proverbial mouths (and some would say their race and class) where. It was beautiful to behold. People followed the news and debated the newspaper reports in the run-up to the elections.

Similarly, the inauguration ceremony and festivities rivalled those of the inauguration of the first president of a democratic South Africa. A great majority of South Africans displayed ownership of the political process and they braved inclement weather to be part of the celebrations and the pomp of the ceremony. There were the dignitaries, heads of state, captains of industry and your usual socialites. The ceremony was somewhat schizophrenic in its attempt to be "African".

There was no difference between this and the other inaugurations of past presidents including those of De Klerk and Botha. Bear with me, I am not being judgmental and africanist or counter-revolutionary or bourgeois intellectual or whatever other invective may take your fancy. This is an observation. Consider this, the matters of protocol at this and other state functions is in the same hands (and probably the same office) as they were in the pre-1994 governments. I don't know but protocol seems to be determined by some immutable global norms. This reminds me of another but related observation: have you noticed how post-colonial Africa retains all the trappings of state institutions? The uniforms, the ridiculous uniforms (wigs and all), the brass bands (which I sort of like), the motorcades, the medals and gold chains; and of course the rules of protocol.

There was this lady explaining to the country, thanks to e-news channel, that as a matter of protocol, only one of the President's wives may be on the podium for his inauguration. Of course Msholozi the peacemaker and unifier he is reputed to be did not cause no fuss about this. Of course the media made a meal of this whole one man many wives thing; and Deborah Patter had to be obtuse. I take no umbrage with all this, it's tiring and I no longer have my student days communist inspired energy - I simply don't try to change the world no more. However, please allow me the space and a minute to say this: if you are a social commentator or any commentator at all, please make sure that when you comment on or critique many of our cultural and traditional matters, you do so in the discourse of that culture or tradition. Put differently, do not critique the culture and traditions of Amazulu using the English discourse, it simply does not work. I am not knowledgeable of these matters, being all counter-revolutionary and wannabe middle class and detribalised. What I do know is that mine is but one of many world views and not more valid than the next. So, I hope that as we continue to deepen our democracy, we will also seek to develop our own brand of protocol that works for our technicolour nation. Incidentally, there are just about enough ministries now, I am sure one of them will be up to the task.

On the other hand there was just pomp and ceremony. Nothing wrong with that. Apart from the prayers, everything else was done and happened in English. Nothing wrong with that either, I mean to have it in vernacular would simply have been unfair on the guests, the very important guests. For a detribalised native like myself, this augurs well for the future. I will no longer have to endure dirty looks for my english and fake accent. In and among the pomp and the english; and just in case some people may have forgotten what this is all about, there was much singing and dancing by the VIP guests and comrades. The songs were led (or appeared) to be led by Blade Nzimande and Julius Malema. The sound of Umshini Wam must have grinded the eardrums of Terror Lekota to no end. Of course the whole singing, dancing and sweating in a suit would not have worked for me, but hey who asked.

The President had a well structured and conciliatory speech and for that I had to applaud. The speech did not start with a quote from some literary great (this would have pleased Dr Mangcu), but it spoke rather to the people, ordinary and legendary alike. Nelson Mandela looked rather frail while Thabo Mbeki looked out of place yet formal as usual.

All in all, well auguring inaugural observations.

And the ANC shall Govern

Watching Gwede Mantashe or SG for those who know him personally or by affiliation, announcing the Premier nominees I could not help but realise that the ANC is going to govern. No, I don't mean that I doubted that the ANC had won the recent elections. It is just that over the last fifteen years, the ANC was not quite in the your face, you know. You had the benevolent saintly Nelson and he spoke to the change and the future and the manifesto and so on. After him was the napoleonic T-man. Never before did you hear or se the SG.

I could not help but think of those South Africans who did not vote for the ANC in the recent elections. How do they feel now that they will be governed by the ANC? Well, that’s democracy for you. It is not like these folks can pull a Terror Lekota and go establish their own country. But then again, we already have Orania – better not give people ideas. Back to governing:

The Premiers of each of the 8 provinces that the ANC won are hand-picked by the National Executive Committee of the ANC. They are hand-picked from a list of 3 names submitted by the branches to the NEC. The submission we are told, is in one or other order of priority but in the end the movement, the NEC makes the decision. It makes the decision as to who shall be the individuals that the President of the republic shall appoint as Premiers of the relevant provinces.“That is how it works in the ANC” – SG told us that much. Each one of these Premiers is a comrade, a cadre, a leader of the ANC in their respective rights. That much SG assures us.

Can you imagine how this whole talk of comrades and cadres is received in those homes that are neither ANC nor communist? But then again, that is democracy for you, our brand of group based democracy, that is.

So now that the Premiers have been nominated by the ANC SG tells us that, the president of the ANC and President-elect of the Republic will approve them by appointing them as he is empowered to do so by the constitution of the Republic. And from that point on, each one of the eight Premiers must be sure to serve the will of the people - of the ANC. Let us recall that the Premiers were chosen by the branches and sent up all the way to the NEC which then chooses one of the three names presented to it by the grassroots structures. Their terms and conditions of service are clear and come from Luthuli House. If these coincide with the interests of the citizenry of this here republic, then bingo. If not, such is the nature of our brand of democracy, the best we have I might add. Whichever way you look at it this brand of democracy is far better than the one presided over by De Klerk. But then again, that story is old and tired.

The function, duty and responsibility of the Premiers will be to carry out the policies of the ANC and its program of action as outlined in the manifesto of the ANC as stressed by the SG. These however will be for the people, all the people of the Republic. The people of this country, regardless of who they are, regardless of who they voted for, will benefit from the leadership of the Premiers. This of course does not apply to the people of the Western Cape; they will have to make do with the policies of the Democratic Alliance. And that too is the nature of our brand of democracy.

The Premiers must be sure not to cross the will of the people - of the ANC. They will be recalled if they do. They must remember that they are there to serve the movement first and the country second. Service to the country happens only through the movement. There are no individual decisions; decisions are made by the collective for the collective good. The individual Premiers will therefore serve at the convenience of the collective people - of the ANC.

This, SG tells us, is how it works in the ANC and the ANC shall govern.

A Brave New World

This has been a week of a hive of political activity that this country has never seen before. Not even 1994 can rival or even come close to what we experienced this week, as a nation and as a country. You see, 1994 elections were about laying claim to citizenship, about voting against wrong and confirming the right and the almost saintly. This past week saw the emergence of a new movement and a consolidation of another – all this, without a discernable threat to the incumbent, the ANC.

What is more interesting to me than the events of the past week is how members of the media reacted to it. Allow me to share my quick glance through the some papers with you. First is Bra Fred.

The Bra in Bra Fred (for those who may not appreciate) has nothing to do with undergarment of the lacy kind. It is my sign of respect to the man, this he deserves hugely. Fred Khumalo is among the eminent of the men of letters, he has been around for a long time and by the look of things, he will be around for a while longer still. It is consequently with disappointment that I read one of his two contributions to the Sunday papers. Something along the lines of some A to Z of being Zulu (sic) and being cool.

Thanks to Bra Fred, white South Africans can now talk of women’s breasts in more than two languages; and they would also be able to attest to the Zulu men’s love for the breasts. White South Africans will also have learned that Zulu men prefer an all round bigger woman, with big behinds and big breasts. Have a read at this column. You may enjoy it, it may disturb you but it is there as it should be. I took a view that the piece is ill-considered and probably inappropriate at this time but that is only my view. What is important is that Bra Fred carries on his trade and through it, share his views and those of his people (the “we” that he refers to). Whatever my views, they should not detract from Bra Fred’s right to get it wrong as he often has.

Second is Zapiro. He too has his own A to Z of South African Socio-Politics. Let me state upfront that I have always held the view that Zapiro’s depiction of Jacob Zuma, regardless of his journalistic, satirical or artistic intentions, is disrespectful, crass and insulting. Zapiro does not have to agree with me, does not have to change his mind on my or anybody else’s say-so. Reading his latest cartoon, I could not help but feel that he is driven more by sour grapes than social commentary. That however, is only my view. One that is not intended to dissuade Zapiro from waging his campaign, both as a citizen and as a cartoonist. He may not have a right to be disrespectful, crass or insulting but it is not mine or anyone else’s right to teach him manners. Zapiro has a right to express himself within his own moral context, a right I endorse and trust he will always have. The fact that I often disagree with his take does not come into it and the fact that 67 percent of the South African voting public disregards his take should also not come into it.

Between these two social commentators there are others like Mr Donaldson who I no longer read. I find him unnecessarily abrasive which in my view gets in the way of whatever message he wishes to share. He too has a place albeit one he often uses to spew unpleasantries – in my view that is. There is also Mr Malala who is often on the money but sometimes just childish; like the day he suggested that Mr Zuma is afraid to come onto his show. The point is, the people Mr Zuma sought to speak to during the campaign do not necessarily watch Mr Malala’s show and it was no skin off Mr Zuma’s nose not to be on Mr Malala’s show. This too is just my view; one that does not make less of the role Mr Malala plays. Then there is Dr Mangcu: a sharp mind at the best of times but sometimes too much of “I told you so” kinda guy. I also wish he would learn more than he opines when it comes to matters of the law. Each one of these commentators and those that I have not mentioned in this post have a place and a role to play. We would sometimes agree with them and other times disagree but never should we seek to silence them.

South Africa stands to gain a great deal from debate and differences of opinion on all manner of issues. I worry about the tendency to name people or groups in an attempt to silence them and deny them a right to speak their mind and to differ with whomever on whatever. I also wish that issues could be debated on their merits and not on conjecture and irrelevancies. As a case in point: whatever ones position on the issue of Mr Zuma’s criminal charges; the one immutable fact is that neither he nor anyone else ever has an obligation to prove their innocence. It is for the state to prove their guilty. The failure of the state to do so, should not be placed at Mr Zuma’s door. Any impropriety must be dealt with factually and not through sloganeering. Similarly, in the rough and tumble world of politics Mr Zuma and his supporters must expect and should concede that political point scoring will persist.

This is a brave new world and fortune will favour the brave – as they say in the classics.

Congratulations!

Congratulations are indeed in order. I am happy that I decided to vote. As I watch the results come in and listen to the analysts make their educated deductions and predictions; I am happy that I am part of the process.

I congratulate the ANC for running a formidable campaign based on what is a clear understanding of their constituency. I had my doubts but those have now be put to bed. The ANC understands that which drives their constituency - hope. Hope for a better future, hope that their party will change their lives for the better. The ANC sold hope and the people bought it. Nothing else seemed to be of much concern. Whatever else the media and other detractors of the ANC said did not move the people, the people voted for the party they believe will deliver for them.

I congratulate the DA. They too seem to understand their own constituency. They too seem to understand that which drives their constituency - fear. The DA sold fear, fear of a 2/3rd majority of the ANC, fear of the threat to the rule of law, fear of kleptocracy and their constituency bought it regardless of all else. The DA constituency voted for the party they believe will deliver them from the evil of an ANC government.

I congratulate Cope. With very little time to prepare for the elections and with little else to offer but a proposition for change, Cope has made its presence felt. I cannot say that there is any particular understanding of its constituency on their part, moreso the understanding of the South African voting population. Cope sold change, it sold difference. The change and the difference was not well articulated; even so their constituency gave them a chance albeit in lesser than number than anticipated.

I congratulate the people of this country for going out and making their voices heard. I congratulate the people for bringing a new dawn. The last time there was so much enthusiasm about elections and the democratic process was back in 1994 when the people rallied around Nelson Mandela and made a break with the past.

I congratulate all the other parties for doing their bit however modest, for our democracy, our country, our future.

These are early days but one thing is certain, our democracy has triumphed. These elections have confirmed the right of each and every one of us to differ without being branded an enemy of the other; the right to choose in accordance with one's beliefs. These elections have to me demonstrated the importance of participating as opposed to spectating and complaining.

Now, in a few coming days Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma will become the 4th president of the Republic of South Africa. He will preside over a democratically elected government, with a mandate from the people of this country to govern. He will appoint a cabinet in accordance with the powers vested on him by our constitution. A cabinet that will be empowered to execute on behalf of all the people of this country.

For that and barring all else, I congratulate and wish him well.

That's it, now I am going to vote!

Some time last year I decided that I am not going to vote in this year's elections. I also celebrated the fact that I am not a citizen of Australia. You see, down under, if you choose not to exercise your democratic right to pick which bunch you would like to abuse your loyalty, you are guilty of a crime, punishable by a fine. So, just because I could (well mainly because I could not decide which party to vote for) I decided that I am not going to vote and I am not even going to bother to register to vote (I moved provinces).

My dearest wife (bless her head and heart) insisted that I go register and if I still did not want to vote come election time, I am free to sit at home and watch democracy work - on television. With an interest in keeping my sleeping arrangements amicable, I went along with her and registered to vote. In addition to amicable (in fact better than amicable) sleeping arrangements, I am now able to change my mind and to vote, that is if I still feel that way come election day.

The source of my reluctance to vote in the forthcoming elections is as I stated, confusion. You know that state you find your self in when your mind seeks to override your heart's desire to strip all white people of their rights and possessions? That and only that was the reason I had decided some time last year that I was not going to vote. My confusion however, was caused by my ill-advised attempt at application of rational solutions to irrational problems. Allow me to explain:

You see, in the two previous occassions when I had been called on to do my civil duty and return the ANC to power, I had done so on a simple but irrational determination based on nothing other than the determination that this country must never again be run by white people. Call it racist if you will but this kept it straight and simple for me and off I went and voted for the government of the ANC.

This time I started or rather attempted a rational deliberation of my decision to vote for this or the other party. Of course some 95 percent of the parties standing for election were not even considered. I don't care what appellation I earn for it but I will not in a milllion and one years vote for anything led by Kenneth Meshoe or Rajbansi. I don't care what they say, I never listen and never will.

So I started to consider that which I know about the parties; that which my friends and family say about the parties; that which I find in the media (both print and electronic); that which I find on the internet; and so on and so forth. To illustrate: I learned that whatever spin anyone puts on it, the communists are in charge of the ANC; I learned that however hard Helen Zille screams non-racialism and democracy, she in fact means and can only mean protection of white values; I learned that Bantu Holomisa, Gatsha Buthelezi, Patricia De Lille, etc. all need a job and will do what they have to do. I learned that the image of the ANC is shot and pretty much in tatters. Now, I hope you are painfully aware of my situation. I am without a party to vote for so I cannot vote - at least that is the position I found myself in resulting in the decision not to vote or even to register to vote.

All of this was to come to an abrupt about face though. And it all happened this morning on my way to work. I was mindin my own business, listening to SAFM (half listening actually) when suddenly I heard a voice, a voice that has always caused rage to course my veins and hatred to replace what is ordinarily a fairly balanced humane constitution. I heard the voice of FREDERICK WILLEM DE KLERK. Yes him! The at-one-stage-almost-professor-of-administrative-law-at-Potchefstroomse-Universiteit-Vir-Christelike-Hoer-Onderwys. Yes him! The one time minister of education who said only a limited number of kaffirs permitted on this, that and the other university - and for those other universities, only kaffirs. Yes him.

I heard FREDERICK WILLEM DE KLERK say that we must protect the constitution, that Zuma must not do anything to damage the constitution, must not create unlawful hegemony, must stop the unlawful deployment of cadres. I waited for him to add "like we nationalists did . . ." and he never did. I went into a rage.

There and then, during that irrational rage I decided: fuck it, I'm going to vote and yes I am going to get me a government I deserve!

Just in case you were wondering what just happened

Advocate Mokoted Mpshe (shame Helen Zille had such a torrid time trying to say the surname and keep a straight face - wait her face is straight, anyway) is the acting National Director of Public Prosecution; his predecessor having been removed by (a sort of acting) President Motlanthe (another name Helen Zille struggles with) for not being fit to hold the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

By all accounts the job of an NDPP is clearly a tough one but also one that is very important, which may suggest that we should have our brightest and bravest on point. It is so important it is created and regulated by an Act of Parliament. Now, in terms of this Act South Africa has one prosecution authority headed by the NDPP. All prosecutions from Orania to Soweto, are carried out under the authority of the NDPP through the delegates of the NDPP. Well that is the way I think it is anyways, Orania court may be a bit of a stretch but we will consider that in a future post.

In carrying out his job the NDPP decides all manner of things including whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. This decision is made by the prosecution authority daily in various courts of this vast country. The prosecution authority normally considers the charge, the facts gathered by the investigating officer, the evidence available and the availability of witnesses. Taking all of these together, the prosecution authority may decline to prosecute or may (as it does more often than not) decide to continue with the prosecution.

Normally, the prosecution authority will decline to prosecute because in its view the case cannot be prosecuted successfully. Like the day I was stopped by the coppers on my way back from a bachelor party. I was pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence - at least that is what I was told by the police. The police then got into an argument about who was going to drive my car and who was going to take me for blood tests. This took so long, I fell asleep in the back of the police van, I think. I woke up in the cell, spend the night in the cell (or was it the morning?). The next day around mid-day, I was taken out of the holding cells at court and told to go home because the control prosecutor is not going to prosecute. Apparently there was something to do with the blood tests. As I said this whole "decline to prosecute" thing is quite normal.

Another normal occurence in the criminal justice system is the making of representation to the prosecution authority with the view of persuading the authority not to prosecute a case. Accused persons exercise this power all the time - mostly unsuccessfully.

Now what stopped Advocate Mpshe from just saying: "having considered the representations made on behalf of the accused, we are of the view that the matter cannot be successfully prosecuted and therefore we decline to prosecute". Well it simply would have been untrue. As untrue as the matters that he took into consideration in coming to his conclusion to decline to prosecute are irrelevant. What are we to make of all this?

Advocate Mpshe has either misconducted himself in relation to his duties as the NDPP or is not fit to hold the office of the NDPP. Either way, the president of the republic should remove him from that office. I would just like to know that when next I make representations to the prosecution authority, the authority will apply the correct test and consider matters that are relevant to the decision in question.

This, like the matter of the Judicial Services Commission and Judge Hlophe achieves nothing but to weaken our justice system. The only place all South Africans should be confident they will be treated fairly. The only place where each South African should be safe.

That among others is what I believe happened . . .

1994

The year you may have thought that you are voting for Nelson Mandela when in fact you were voting for the ANC. You remember them? Those scary people who planted bombs and told the children to make the country ungovernable - yes, them.

The year you may have thought that your dignity will be given back to you; your humaneness be recognised. The year you may have thought that things will change for you. That you too will participate in the toil and wealth of your country. That your employer will no longer treat you like dirt.

That is the year that comrades were rewarded for their contribution to the struggle. The year the oppressors mutated into co-governors. The year the people were left without their land and their dignity.

That year was always going to be the beginning of a long and arduous journey. But first there was to be a transition. First the previously privileged had to be assured that they will not be butchered or their property taken from them. The year the people were told to be patient and to wait.

It is 2009 and the people still believe that the movement will restore their land and dignity. They still believe in the movement because they resent all others that much more. This is the year the people will once again vote their party of choice into power. The power to give them back their land - their dignity.

In 2014 the people will look back on 2009 as they did on 1994 - with nothing but hope, to show for their vote. The white and the privileged will still be white and privileged. The poor, the black and the marginalised; will still be poor, black and marginalised.

That dear friends is the way of the world - the rest just keeps the commentators occupied, helps to sell the newspapers and provide fire-side conversation.

With that - may the forces that regulate the movement of the stars, the forces that regulate the menstrual cycle, the forces that pre-dates you and the movement, keep you.

Your anger and disappointment over recent events is nothing but self-serving - your elation over the same events sadly unwarranted.

The Politics of our Violence

I grew up in the midst of violence and I do not think that it is in any way an exaggeration. I grew up in the company of violence, most of it almost always directed at and suffered by the weak and the marginalised.

Vimba! (pronounced veem-ber) Thiba! (pronounced tea-ber) both meaning stop. Ok, some context: a stray dog is running away from a group of boys who for no other reason than that it is a stray helpless dog, want to kill it or inflict harm on it. They are throwing stones and other objects at the obviously terrified creature which is literally running for dear life. The boys are shouting Thiba! or Vimba! depending whether you are in Mareetsane (some township in the North-West) or Dube (some part of Soweto). The blood-thirsty shouts bring out more boys from their homes – they drop whatever they were doing and they join in the chase, the kill. The dog hardly ever makes it. Between the marauding boys and the unruly township traffic, what are the chances for the poor thing?

When the violence was not directed at stray dogs, it was invariably directed at the weaker boys, the different boys, the marginalised boys, the boys who for some reason did not get off on the violence. Humans have in my life been chased like that stray dog. They would be chased, stoned and when caught, beat to death or burned alive. This would be another human being but it would be okay to kill him because he belonged to a different clan, a different political party, he was a cop, an impimpi – that made it alright. The most recent of this phenomenon was portrayed in the papers as “the burning man”. He apparently was a foreigner, among his other sins.

I spent and continue to spend a lot of time trying to understand violence regardless of the context. I am a coward with a very low pain threshold so I often wonder about the guys who do not seem to mind pain on themselves or on others, especially on others. The 1980’s were therefore the most traumatic period of my growing up. This is the time that violence would not just walk on by or nod in my direction; this is the time when violence often stopped to chat. These interactions were always devastating to me – the memories continue to haunt me.

Student activists in a small community in a middle of nowhere have a dispute. A territorial dispute! One of the student organisation is primarily made up of and led by girls –very outspoken and clever girls. The dispute is apparently that the girls are canvassing for support of their organisation by bad-mouthing the other organisation. You will recall that both organisations were in the business of liberating the country from the tyranny of apartheid. Both organisations existed for no other reason but to liberate their people. A meeting of the wronged organisation was called – the meeting resolved that the leaders must go meet these girls and talk sense into them, otherwise . . .

And so the meeting was arranged between the leaders of the two student organisations. This meeting degenerated into a shouting match. The girls were blamed for the degeneration of the meeting. This is a small community in the middle of nowhere. Now that the girls would not be told what to do nor how to do it, a further meeting is called and then at this latter meeting a proposal is made that the girls be beaten up to teach them a lesson, after-all these girls would not listen to reason. Then things take an interesting turn.

The leader of the organisation says that this is not the way liberators of people should conduct themselves. He suggests that there are many alternatives to violence and he lists some examples. He is passionately arguing his case for non-violence when he is told to put the whole thing to a vote. Ok, all those who want to go beat up girls say Yay! The vote is overwhelmingly in favour of violence. The leader explains that he cannot support the decision. He says that the organisation will have to find another leader because he is resigning. He is told to voetsek and a replacement is promptly voted into office.

That Friday night the girls were attacked while they were sleeping. The attack was not particularly brutal as it apparently was only meant to scare the girls. But this is a small community in the middle of nowhere. It is pitch dark. Girls run (for dear live and chastity) this is when they run into all manner of objects that cut and hurt them. They ran into trees, they sprained ankles stepping into holes in the ground, pieces of metal sheets cut their bare feet; they got hurt and were terrified. After the girls were dealt with, a short meeting considered whether to deal with the traitor ex-leader as well. For unknown reason he was left unharmed.

Last week I hear that university students killed and maimed each other for reasons of political affiliation. I can almost hear a replay of 1985 in my head.

It is the violence of our politics.

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 . . .