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of the protests expressed disappointment that criminal charges brought against some of the protesters would not be withdrawn as was apparently "agreed" with the authorities.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.