Are all excuses poppycock?

I am a sad individual who likes making New Year's resolutions. I enjoy the challenge and think it contributes to personal growth. As the excess of Christmas approaches, I find reviewing my resolutions from the year before brings me down to earth, reminding me how inept I can be at times. I believe being reminded of one's ineptness is a sure road to humility, humility a path to personal enlightenment.

So in early December this year I began my retrospective reflection of last year's resolutions. However, this year my shortcomings were obvious before I even started. To be honest, I could not remember what my resolutions were at the end of 2006.

I am sure they must have had something to do with health, fitness or more quality time relaxing, but the specifics elude me. In fact, I cannot even remember if I made resolutions. When this dawned on me, I immediately found myself trying to think of excuses why I had let myself down. Could inebriation, at a New Year's Eve party, have impaired my capacity to remember? Or is my mind just deteriorating with age?

This questioning, in turn, led me to thinking about excuses. This helped me to realise that, even if I could remember my resolutions, I probably would now be making excuses about why I did not follow through on them. I was too busy to attend the gym regularly, and important work commitments prevented me from taking more time off, and so on.

Making excuses is deep in the human psyche. It all started when Adam blamed Eve for making him eat the apple and Eve, in turn, blamed the snake for leading her into sin. Highlighting so-called extenuating circumstances to account for our own failings protects our sense of self from a negative self-image. Not taking responsibility appears easier than being honest.

Remember Tony Blair's defence about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Essentially, his only mistake was he believed, being the trusting man he is, intelligence reports that were wrong. Or what about Bill Clinton's famous line: "I tried marijuana once – I did not inhale"? This is the best example of a half truth ever.

As the ANC conference approaches in mid-December, where the new ANC president will be crowned, I wonder what excuses will flow from that. If Thabo Mbeki is derailed, will it be because he was undermined by populist ethnic politics? Or, if Jacob Zuma finds himself in the political wilderness, will it be because he was demonised by his rivals, who undermined his cuddly image?

Bob Wall reminds us that the one common denominator in every mess you find yourself in is you. Much mud is slung in politics, but sincere politicians will shine through. No politician, especially of the stature of Mbeki or Zuma, or our friend Mugabe, who insists on blaming others for his failings, is a hapless victim. More than anyone else, politicians have the power to shape their and other people's destiny – they should not need excuses. To quote Shakespeare, "oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse".

I wonder what would happen if everyone owned up to their flaws. Would the world fall apart if we knew Clinton had smoked dope? Or that ambition is at the core of the power struggle in the ANC, and not a heartfelt desire to serve the people? Would the political system collapse if someone in South Africa admitted that arms-deal cash found its way into the hands of some politicians? Or if we knew sometimes fictitious reasons were given by politicians to help justify war?

Remarkably, we know the truth, but we collude in the illusion that we do not until it is acknowledged. In this context, who is more inept –the maker of excuses or those of us who choose to believe them?

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 December 2011 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

* Note this article was written prior to Jacob Zuma winning the ANC Presidency. The next piece focuses on this.

Dealing with the Past: Time to move to a new level

 I began to explore the issue of how Northern Ireland should deal with the past shortly before the 1998 Agreement. At that time, when I asked policymakers and community groups whether the issue of dealing with the past was important or would become important in the future, responses ranged from bewilderment to hostility. More immediate issues were at hand. A discussion of the past was equated for some with suggesting unravelling the peace process while others were dogmatic they had nothing to account for. However, a decade on the issue of dealing with the past has become mainstream. The fact that PEACE Ill has a funding stream entitled 'Dealing with the Past' is proof in itself. The key question though is whether society is any closer to grappling with the past.

Brandon Hamber, Derry, September 2023 CC BY-NC-ND

Progress

Much has happened since the Agreement. The peace process has spluttered to a (seeming) finale marked by the unthinkable cooperation between Paisley and McGuinness as First and Deputy First Ministers in the new Assembly. In terms of dealing with the past there has been, among others, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, commissions to investigate disappearances; inquiries into political murders north and south; cases before the European Court of Human Rights; the Historical Enquiries Team; and the Consultative Panel on the Past set up by the British government to provide ways forward on the dealing with the past question.

At the civil society level, the Healing Through Remembering initiative, which has brought together former loyalist and republican combatants, British soldiers, members of the PSNI, victims of the conflict, people from church and civil society backgrounds, academics and others, to debate ways of dealing with the past has made a significant contribution. The project has presented options for truth recovery, hosted a Day of Reflection, considered methods such as storytelling and provided ideas for a living memorial museum (Healing Through Remembering, 2002, McEvoy, 2006). The breadth and extent of this project, and its unique position in driving the dealing with the past debate from the bottom up, is unprecedented internationally.

Thus, it would be untrue to say this society is not dealing with the past. Rather, the question is whether more is needed and whether a structured collective process is necessary.

Resistance

Many questions remain about the past in terms of truth and the secrets of the 'dirty war'. For some victims the question of justice remains pressing. Although some apologies have been made, genuine acknowledgment from the governments, paramilitaries and wider institutions that had a role in the past such as churches, the judiciary, the media, the educational establishment, and those allocating services such as housing, has not been forthcoming.

• When the particular question of truth recovery is raised typical responses follow: 
• the truth is too damaging, everyone has secrets and it is safer to leave these alone;
• Northern Ireland is small and the violence intimate, truth-telling would be destabilising; 
• justice cannot be delivered; the Agreement has already granted early release;
• truth-recovery is too expensive;
• acknowledgement can only be forthcoming once culpability has been conclusively established; and
• no one would tell the truth anyway.

These resistances to truth recovery are interesting. Graham Hayes writes: "the perpetrators fear the truth because of the guilt of their actions; the benefactors fear the truth because of the 'silence' of their complicity; some victims fear the truth because of the apprehension of forgetting through the process of forgiveness; and other victims fear the truth because it is too painful to bear" (Hayes, 1998, p.46). Hayes' comments command respect for the difficulty of acknowledging the past, while at the same time they pose a challenge to us all.

Why is it that we are better at thinking of why not to address the past than arguing why we should? Giving the reason that people will not tell the truth as a justification why we should not interrogate the past is a case in point. Yes, lingering half-truths and lies, and a failure to take responsibility for actions and inactions is a reason why we should be wary when considering the issue of truth recovery, but it is also a reason as to why truth recovery is an imperative.

A new level

Dealing with the past can be a technical matter that could be dealt with by a legitimate and inclusive truth-recovery process. However, it is also about political will and courage. Being open to reasons why dealing with the past may be necessary is the first step. Having the courage to admit that not all that was done in the name of a just cause - whether you see that as your role as the state, defending the state or fighting against it - is the next.

So has the dealing with the past process moved on in ten years? The answer is a cautious yes. Dealing with the past is now squarely on the agenda and much is happening. However, risks remain that the debate about how to deal with the past will be self-defeating or the debate in itself may become the process rather than moving to a new level.

In 1998, after investigating different views on the matter of dealing with the past, I concluded the following on truth recovery: "Most political players demand truth from those they perceive as the other side or sides, but seem unwilling to offer the truth from their side, or acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions. This is mostly due to fear that such acknowledgement (public or otherwise) will weaken in the new dispensation and that the truth may be used against them within the context of the delicate peace that prevails. There are also those in Northern Ireland who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong or that their action (or inaction) was complicit in perpetuating the conflict" (Hamber, 1998, p.80-81).

I am not convinced many have moved beyond this. Surely the time has come to stop obfuscating, talking about whether we should talk about the past or waiting for another committee to report on what should happen next. Someone has to jump first, and that means at an absolute minimum, publicly admitting mistakes were made and acknowledging one's own role, either by commission or omission, in the conflicts of the past. This should be followed by a commitment to developing and participating in a process of truth-recovery.

Published by Brandon Hamber in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Review, 2007, Winter(6), 13.

Reference

Hamber, B. (2007). Dealing with the Past: Time to move to a new level. NIHRC Review, Winter(6), 13

Dr Brandon Hamber is  the Research Co-ordinator of INCORE, a United Nations Research Centre for the Study of Conflict at the University of Ulster and a Senior Lecturer at the University. He is the Chair of the Healing Through Remembering project. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of all the membership of Healing Through Remembering.

References

Hamber, B. (Ed.) (1998) Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition, Derry/Londonderry, University of Ulster , INCORE.

Hayes, G. {1998) We Suffer our Memories: Thinking about the Past, Healing and Reconciliation. American Imago, 55, 29-50.

Healing Through Remembering (2002) Report of the Healing Through Remembering Project. Belfast, Healing Through Remembering. Availableatw ww:healingthroughremembering.org

McEvoy, K. (2006) Making Peace with the Past: Options for truth recovery regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. Belfast, Healing Through Remembering. Available at www:healingthroughremembering.org

The truth commission lost in translation

The South African theatre production, Truth in Translation, was the hit of the Belfast Festival this year. The play, for those of you who have not seen it, focuses on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Instead of relying on the testimonies of victims, perpetrators, commissioners or the commission audience, Truth in Translation centres on the interpreters who worked for the commission. The production tells the story of a group of translators who have to contend with 11 official languages. At the same time, there is an expectation that they remain uninvolved while recounting atrocity after atrocity. However, by the nature of translating in the first person, they get absorbed into the process, becoming vehicles for the truth and the lies they themselves have to utter. Narrating other people’s stories also results in each interpreter grappling with his or her own past.

In Northern Ireland, the production added to the debate about dealing with the past in a society where active political conflict has just drawn to an end. Watching the play in Belfast, as a South African living there, reminded me of the distance that South Africa has travelled compared with Northern Ireland, where the debate about examining the past is in its early stages.

However, at the same time, I was left wondering if the play was currently creating more debate abroad than in the country.

To some degree, the South African commission was a victim of its own success. The more public it became and the more high-profile stories it told, the more people felt that, when it was over, the past had indeed been dealt with. However, most of the commissioners would probably concede that the TRC uncovered new truths in at best 10% of the 22 000 cases brought before it. No systematic process of implementing the commission’s recommendations was ever set up.

Further, investigations and prosecutions of those who failed to take the opportunity of the generous amnesty offered to them through the TRC is an unpopular issue. South Africans still fear that further investigations might destabilise the political process or be used for political purposes. However, although the commission was powerful in enabl-ing stories to be told, as Truth in Translation reinforces, did it uncover the whole truth or build lasting reconciliation? The TRC made a good start but I doubt that most victims would answer this in the affirmative.

The needs of victims do not disappear with the passage of time. This is difficult because victims have multiple needs and it would be naive to think that any process can meet all needs. Nevertheless, expecting victims to forget the past when their lives have been profoundly altered by violence is not an option.

That said, dealing with the past is also wider than meeting the needs of victims alone. Of course, taking the political stability of the country into account is important and wallowing in the past at a social level can be counterproductive. But, equally, if we are going to tout South Africa as a model for dealing with the past, we should not avoid hard quest- ions.

Have we really addressed the needs of apartheid victims? Are some of the factors that contributed to the conflict, such as poverty and racism, still stimulating new types of violence? Or what about ongoing human rights violations like torture of criminal suspects which allegedly continues in some South African jails.

So where does this leave South Africa? There are many lessons South Africa can teach others. I am delighted to see a South African production helping to stimulate debate elsewhere. Fittingly, however, Truth in Translation does not have a neat ending or a simple answer. All the characters continue to struggle with their history when the curtain goes down. Dealing with the past is a process and not an event. Have we, South Africans, forgotten this?

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 November 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Putting the 'R' back into DDR

Brandon Hamber in the KOFF Centre for Peacebuilding Newsletter, 1 November 2007, No. 62, pp.4-6

Dealing with ex-combatants following war or armed political conflict is a complex and challenging task. Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programmes have been attempted across the globe with varying levels of success. A psychosocial approach raises additional questions and invariably means a focus on the reintegration component of the DDR process. Reintegration however is the part of the process that is the least developed yet the most long-term and difficult to achieve.

Disarmament and demobilisation are finite tasks, their success is relatively easy to assess in terms of cessation of hostilities or weapons decommissioned. Reintegration is more ephemeral with its success deeply entwined in socio-economic and political reality, whilst also being about psychological rehabilitation. On top of this, the reintegration needs of combatants are dramatically variable.

Gender and age specific needs

It is now common practice to consider all those linked with armies in combat as combatants, e.g. active soldiers, those caring for the wounded, those housing combatants, and those smuggling arms. The Cape Town Principles, aimed at dealing with child soldiers, argue that a combatant is anyone who was part of an armed force including cooks, messengers, and girls recruited for sexual purposes. It is important to cast the net as wide as possible when offering reintegration programmes, but such a broad definition raises question about how to deal with a variety of needs. This is cut across by other factors such as gender and age. It is well established for example that female ex-combatants often fail to access reintegration programmes or are excluded. Notwithstanding the work done by many innovative reintegration programmes, there has been at times a one-size-fits-all approach to reintegration.

Economic perspectives

To date reintegration has largely, although not exclusively, focused on subsidies, as well as skills and educational development aimed at employment and economic reintegration. This is often coupled with activities such as community sensitisation, psychological assistance, reconciliation initiatives and public education. This is important because social and psychological reintegration cannot be divorced from post-conflict reconstruction. It is common in countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia for ex-combatants to point out that the skills they have learned in training programmes are useless in a climate of mass unemployment. Obviously a strong economy and a stable political context are vital to reintegration efforts. However, often employment is seen as the panacea for dealing with social and psychological reintegration, or the relevance of counselling and reconciliation rituals are overly emphasised. A balanced process is needed.

It is interesting to consider for example a relatively prosperous society like Northern Ireland in this regard. Ex-combatants, and especially those released after lengthy prison services, still find it difficult to find work because of discrimination, skills deficits and a small employment market as they are often afraid to work outside of their ‘own areas’. Research suggests that 30 to 40% of ex-prisoners are unemployed compared to a national unemployment rate of about 5%.

That said, it would also be inaccurate to simply assume that all those unemployed do not work because of their ex-prisoner status. Many suffer from health problems and some find it difficult to work in environments over which they have little control or are subject to hierarchical relationships. In other words, the legacy of the conflict endures in the structural make-up of the society, but there are also psychological obstacles. This is true for excombatants as it is for the society at large.

Photo by Alexander Ugolkov on Unsplash

Psychological pitfalls

Reintegration as a concept cannot be detached from the psychosocial context in which it is being undertaken. This might sound like stating the obvious, however, from a psychosocial perspective, it is the nuanced interplay between the psychological and political and socioeconomic situation that is important. This can impact on how we conceptualise and run reintegration programmes, as well as determine their success.

Training someone for a new job is not simply about teaching them how to do a task. Reintegration demands so-called ‘soft skills’ such as co-operation, selfreliance, networking ability, community development and social entrepreneurship,not to mention psychological readiness to deal with the challenges a new job will present. It is difficult to teach these ‘skills’. Some international lessons suggest these are best imparted through strong active excombatant organisations themselves and reintegration programmes that are participatory rather than just training based.

In addition, DDR processes can fail to acknowledge that disarmament and demobilisation are in themselves contributing factors to why some male ex-combatants fail to reintegrate. Some men, as a result of the violent masculinitiesshaped during war, can feel emasculated as a result of disarmament. Being trained with basic skills such as food gardening or a trade can be seen as demeaning influencing ex-combatants willingness to continue such work after the training. The meaning attached to a reintegration programme is also important.

In South Africa, hundreds of ANC guerrillas who were offered a place in the new military ‘walked away’ from the process. They felt their ‘bush experience’ was not valued because of the low ranks they were given in the new integrated military. They felt undervalued. In Northern Ireland, using the term reintegration could alienate some former combatants because it is a term generally used within the criminal justice service. Being part of a reintegration scheme can be seen as a form of ongoing criminalisation. From the opposite end of the spectrum, reintegration as an option can also be a bridge too far for the people excombatants have hurt or bereaved, and seen as a reward for violent behaviour. This in turn undermines ex-combatants’ chances of ever being reintegrated.

Thus, getting to grips with reintegration is about grappling with issues at the heart of most conflicts, such as the legitimacy of the use of violence. This is a society-wide task and requires political will, as well as being the responsibility of ex-combatants themselves. We also need to move away from seeing DDR processes as essentially functional tasks that need to be undertaken to cement peace. Reintegration cannot simply be about a-contextual investments into training schemes that count success by the number of people who are trained. Capacity building and life skills, as well as dealing with the psychological residue of the conflict in the minds of ex-combatants and other citizens too, should be part of the package.

Published by Brandon Hamber in Koff Centre for Peacebuilding Newsletter, 62, 1 November, 2007

Reference

Hamber, B. (2007). Putting the 'R' back into DDR. Koff Centre for Peacebuilding Newsletter, 1 November, 62, 4-6.

Do we just not like inconvenient truths?

The issue of climate change is now big news. This was brought home recently with the Nobel Peace Prize being given jointly to Al Gore and the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has helped drive home the dangers of climate change to the public. The Norwegian Nobel Committee felt Gore was 'probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted'. In turn, it praised the UN panel, made up of some 2 000 members, for achieving an 'informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming'.

The road to this recognition has, however, not been easy. Gore's controversial defeat by George W Bush in the 2001 election aside, those advocating the link between human activity and climate change have had an uphill struggle. The UN panel, which was set up in 1988, has consistently released hard-hitting reports into a disbelieving scientific community. Only recently has broad scientific and public acceptance of the threat of climate change been accepted. Science, coupled with cool-headed publicity on Gore's part, triumphed. But why did it take so long?

Obviously, developing rigorous science took time. But was inconclusive science the issue? Or is there something in human nature that rallies against common sense, especially when it implies taking responsibility. Do we just not like 'inconvenient truths'?

Remember the public debate about whether smoking was bad for health. I recall scientists saying smoking does not cause lung cancer; it is only correlated with it, so do not panic . There are still those who might take this view. From a purely scientific perspective, this may be correct, but one does not need to be a scientist to figure out that inhaling smoke into one's lungs cannot be good for you. Equally, it does not take a PhD to realise that spewing gases into the atmosphere that we know in certain doses will kill humans and animals is ill-advised. Science can help us to figure out exactly what the problem is and solve it, but it is the denial of the obvious that I find interesting, yet disturbing at the same time.

Denial has its benefits. It keeps anxiety and potential distress at bay, and can often save us from embarrassment. Denying a problem can also mean we do not have to expend energy or resources on it. Refusing to accept that a wider social problem is present, especially when you are not affected, also helps preserve the personal illusion of immunity or safety.

This is not to say that coming to a consensus about problems such as climate change, or HIV/Aids for that matter, is not challenging. Many people are rightly sceptical about what they read in the media. Dare I mention the millennium bug. Even on the climate change issue, there have been alarmist reports at times that have not helped the cause.

Scepticism has its place and can drive good science. Scepticism is a doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind. It is constructive questioning. However, these days scepticism has been replaced with cynicism.'

Cynicism is defined as an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity marked by a general distrust of the integrity of the motives of others. Although trusting others is difficult in our world, it is fashionable these days to usurp healthy questioning with derision and sarcasm. People build their careers on pulling others down publicly.

When it comes to debates about climate change and other issues of public concern, it seems that proving someone is wrong is not always about advancing a solution. Rather, it is about scoring political points, getting as much airtime as possible or proving intellectual prowess. Surely, in a world faced with multiple crises, humility and cooperation are the only show in town.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 26 October 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Hamber, B. (2007). Hamber, B. (2007). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(1), 113-123 [Download]

The bluetongue blues

Since the infamous war hero, Tony Blair, resigned and Gordon Brown took over, the news in the UK has been fitting for the most virulent of blues riffs. Brown’s Premiership began with floods, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and an economic downturn fuelled by a US housing crisis. The Gordon Brown blues then reached their apex with the discovery of bluetongue.

When I first heard the report, and showing my urban upbringing, I thought it was a joke or a new technology not too dissimilar to bluetooth but somehow related to cows. However, after hearing interviews with distraught farmers who had little time for gadgets or their livestock getting blue tongues, I realised it was no laughing matter.

For those of you living in countries spared the ongoing reporting of the disease, bluetongue is an illness transmitted by a specific midge. Sheep or cows bitten by the midges can suffer from fever, swelling, congestion, lameness and depression. A discoloured tongue, needless to say, is common and sheep whose lips and nose swell can apparently take on a ‘monkey-face’ appearance.

Most infected animals do not die but lose weight and, consequently, value, although in some species up to 70% can perish. The good news is that humans cannot get bluetongue (unless they drink too much cheap read wine) and animals cannot pass it to others animals (even if one sheep bites another after being teased for looking like an ape).

Bluetongue was first discovered in South Africa, which was the principal site of study for many years, since the disease was not present in other countries – but now it can be found in parts of Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and the US. Some scientists relate the movement of the midges to climate change.

Photo by Shoeib Abolhassani on Unsplash

In South Africa, a so-called ‘weakened’ vaccine is used against bluetongue with some success, but in Europe the vaccine is not considered safe and is still undergoing testing, presumably, because Europeans have the luxury of wealthy governments to assist farmers while a more tested vaccine is developed. This means that bluetongue, like climate change, media hype and terrible British summers, will be around for a while.

So understanding the spread of bluetongue or preventing it is shaped by a north–south divide, money, inconclusive science, environmental destruction and occasionally bad luck. Such a plot line is fitting for any gloomy blues tune. That said, I must admit, blues music cheers me up. I think this is because it alerts me to the fragility of our existence. Realising how flimsy life is, in turn, reminds me that I should use my time wisely.

To this end, I am becoming intolerant of media hype and public panic. I know bluetongue is serious, but the more I listen to the news in Britain, the more I think the media, and, perhaps, some overly comfortable suburbanites, long for the so-called good old days, when diseases sounded really nasty, like the Black Death or bovine spongiform encephalitis. There is an underlying nostalgia in some quarters for woebegone days, when people pulled together as German bombs rained down, and for the daily discussion, not about the weather but about some terrifying apocalypse-like uninhibited terrorism or rampant bird flu.

This might sound cynical, but I don’t think I can cope with another health scare in the media, and the exaggeration and hysteria that follow. It is interesting to learn about the challenges of livestock diseases and how this might affect the welfare of farmers, but that is not the story the media wants to tell. The desired story is about fear and uncontrollable pestilence, and fear sells newspapers and gets governments re-elected.

So here goes my own little blues riff: “Woke this morning, now my chickens got flu; woke this morning, Brown’s gonna see it through. Woke this morning, my sheep’s tongues were blue; woke this morning, jabbering media starting anew.”

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 12 October 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Prejudiced and proud of it

A few weeks back, I wrote an article that highlighted some of the findings of the ‘Human Beliefs and Values Survey Northern Ireland’. According to this survey, Northern Ireland was found to have the highest proportion of bigoted people in the western world. Following the recent release of the South African edition of the ‘World Values Survey’, it seems that South Africans are as bad as their northern counterparts.

On the positive side, the survey found that over 95% of South Africans of all races are now proud of their country. But the survey also found high levels of intolerance. Although racism, which remains a problem, could be expected to be high, given the history of South Africa, the findings about other groups, such as homosexuals and those who are HIV positive, were also alarming.

Gay neighbours were seen as unacceptable by 48% of black South African respondents, 39% of Indian respondents, 37% of coloured respondents and 26% of white respondents. Having a neighbour suffering from Aids was considered problematic by 21% of Indians, 13% of whites, 9% of coloureds and 6% of blacks.

In the Human Beliefs and Values Survey, nearly 36% of people from Northern Ireland said they would not like a homosexual living next door. Across Europe, about 20% of people had this view. So South Africans, when it comes to the minority groups mentioned above, are equally intolerant, if not slightly more intolerant than the people of Northern Ireland.

Clearly, therefore, the people of Northern Ireland and South Africa share some problems. At the risk of conflating the experiences of two very different societies, this leaves one asking: Is a consequence of political conflict a legacy of intolerance and a lack of respect for other people’s human rights? And does this generally extend beyond groups to which you differ politically to other groups?

Both societies, for example, suffer from fairly high levels of xenophobia against new immigrants. This could be a result of an increase in the number of people coming into the societies after peace. However, the rise in violence against foreigners in both societies generally outstrips the proportional increase in new arrivals, suggesting a more sinister conclusion. It would seem logical, if not disturbing, that, if a society has for several decades used violence and exclusion as a way of dealing with problems, some residue of this will remain after peace.

There are many different theories about why minority groups are targeted in this situation. One argument is that aggression is a common feature of social and political conflict, a survival mechanism and a means to achieving power. In postconflict societies, when power relations are rewritten, a displacement of aggression takes place because old channels are no longer there. New avenues for reasserting power are found. The victims of this violence are those with seemingly less power in the new dispensation, such as foreigners and gays, not to mention women.

This means society has to protect the rights of minority groups vigorously. Minority groups have to have not only equal rights, which they largely do in South Africa and Northern Ireland, at least on paper, but also access to social, political and economic power. Put simply, minority groups are bullied because they can be. They are the weak kid on the playground, which is generally exacerbated by their social and economic position.

So, although some of you reading this might not like my saying this, minority groups, essentially, need a more proportional and equitable share of the economic pie. This confronts the fear that foreigners are taking local jobs head-on and pushes the situation to the extreme. But, if we truly believe in equality and a free and fair society, then access to jobs and opportunities should not be constrained by borders, nationality, gender or sexual orientation. Sadly, I suspect this is still the case.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 21 September 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

How to talk about books you haven't read

In this article, I would like to talk about a book I have never read. Strangely, though, I feel justified in doing so, since the book is entitled How to Talk About Books That You Haven’t Read – it was written by French academic Pierre Bayard.

The book, which I have read about second-hand, is a bestseller in France. In the book, the author, apparently, admits that there are many books he talks about that he has not read. In fact, he says he has given lectures on books he has skimmed.

Bayard’s book is, allegedly, filled with invaluable advice. To talk about a book you have not read, Bayard reckons, you should avoid precise details, put rational thought aside and let your subconscious express your personal relationship with the work.

Bayard claims his coming clean is part of an attempt to break down the pretension that surrounds reading and makes nonreaders feel less guilty. It would seem that Bayard has a point, or has at least hit on something, given the sales of his book.

Then again, perhaps, people are buying Bayard’s book, not in support of his general thesis, but because they would like to join the pompous book-loving sect. They see Bayard’s book as a self-help guide to faking erudite literacy.

Either way, this tells us something – for some reason, books have become mystical. They represent something beyond what they themselves are – mediums for transmitting information. They are rated higher than film, documentary or a good lecture. They are seen as a cornerstone of civilisation.

It is largely true that knowledge, so-called progress and the written word are entwined. But is it not possible that the veneration we attach to books is the exact reason children are put off reading? Is bookish snobbery not one of the reasons those who struggle with reading often end up in a declining self-esteem cycle, which results in their avoiding books rather than trying to overcome their difficulties?

About one-million new books are published each year, and a book is published every 30 seconds, according to Gabriel Zaid, author of So Many Books. This suggests that it is not possible to read all books and that many are rubbish. This links to one explanation for the pretension about books. The well read take it upon themselves to distinguish the good from the bad. Sadly, however, reviewing books has become an elitist sport.

Bayard suggests that, when it comes to reviewing a book, put the book in front of you, close your eyes and try to perceive what may interest you about it. Then write about yourself.

His advice is frivolous, but I like the idea of using books as a platform for imagination and to learn more about one another. Because there are so many books in the world, reading is, by its nature, selective. So we should celebrate the fact that we have not all read the same books. We should spend less time seeking the ‘must read’ book of the year and eulogising about it, and more time in imaginative conversation with one another, learning about what we have not read and what else tickles our respective fancies. As Bayard notes, “To be able to talk with finesse about something one does not know is worth more than the universe of books.”

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 31 August 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

The art of outsourcing frustration

In the UK and Ireland, almost all telephone queries, helplines, and even booking some domestic services, such as flights, are outsourced. Seemingly, it is cheaper to hire people in the developing world than to carry out such tasks locally. Last week, however, I reached the end of the road with the infamous call centre.

After struggling for a week with a terminally slow Internet connection, I made the dreaded call to the so-called help desk. I was greeted by a cheery voice, presumably in Bangalore. I explained the problem and was passed from person to person for 30 minutes, repeating my story. Eventually, I was told someone would call back within 48 hours. Someone phoned two days later with the joyous news that an engineer would visit between 8:00 and 13:00 the following day.

The next day no one arrived. I called at 13:00 to enquire and was told to call back at 14:00 because they could only investigate the matter from 14:00 because then it could be conclusively established that no one had arrived. I called back at 14:00, armed with the irrefutable knowledge there was no engineer at my house. I was shunted for 45 minutes between different departments, as they endeavoured to verify that indeed someone had not arrived. I was told to call back at 18:00 to check if someone could come the following day.

During the 18:00 call, which lasted a mere 20 minutes, it was established that someone might appear the next day. I was told to call at 9:00 the following day to confirm. I called at 9:00 and, after 25 minutes, was told an engineer was not available. As I wrote this article, it was still unclear whether the connection would be repaired.

Having said all this, I do not like to complain about call centres. Complaints in the UK and Ireland about call centres often have protectionist undertones that border on racism. Cursing foreigners for stealing Western jobs is a national pastime, even though only 5,5% of all jobs lost across Europe in the first quarter of 2007 were because of work being sent abroad, according to the Work Foundation.

That said, there clearly is a problem with call-centre outsourcing. How anyone can call the debacle I have been through ‘efficient’ is beyond me. It does, however, suggest that Indian workers are being paid so poorly that using 45 minutes to establish someone is not going to make an appointment is value for money for the employer.

This highlights the real issue, which is the exploitation of call-centre workers by multinationals and the brazen neglect of customers who, they know, have no option but to call repeatedly to resolve their issue.

This is not to say I oppose outsourcing – it has benefits. The West is naive to think the help desk is the flailing pinnacle of the outsourcing revolution. Outsourcing other services, such as software development, is big business. India’s high-tech sector is growing at 30% a year, largely because of outsourcing. It is not just cheap labour that is attracting business to the developing world, but the brain power in countries such as India and China. There are lessons in this for South Africa.

That said, as much as I like to see the developing world winning business from the West, we have to be aware of its price. I shudder to think of the mental impact on call-centre workers who spend each day getting an earful from people like me millions of miles away. Surely, there is a better way that could benefit worker and customer alike. If you want me to explain how this could be done, then call me between 9:00 and 21:00 during weekdays, press 1 to hear more about option 2, or press 2 to hear more about option 1, and when the frustration really sets in, press the hash key.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 17 August 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

The woes of 'affluenza'

In his 1895, novel The Time Machine, HG Wells takes McEnroe’s view of affluenza to its logical (if not hyperbolic) conclusion. The novel centres on a time traveller, who travels forward in time into a world where the previously rich, because of their sedentary lifestyle, have devolved, rather than evolved, into a docile and ineffectual species called the Eloi. Members of the working class, in turn, have mutated into bestial creatures called Morlocks. The Morlocks live underground and toil to keep the Eloi’s world ticking over and bountiful. The twist, however, is that the Morlocks eat the Eloi from time to time to survive. Oddly, however, all have adapted to their roles and the strange world works with a de facto class structure still in place.

Of course, the real world is not as straightforward or as fantastical as Wells’s make-believe world. Many scientists and businesspeople come from wealthy homes and continue to evolve up the prosperity ladder. Some are even philanthropists. Children of high achievers, especially those that have to continue to work hard to maintain a middle-class lifestyle, are usually very motivated. They are not simply modern Elois. It is equally problematic to paint the working class as inherently brutish.

That said, children born into wealth, who do not need to work to keep their comforts, are, arguably, becoming more Eloi-like. The celebrity world is filled with the offspring of the wealthy who are layabouts with little social utility, typified by Paris Hilton, heiress to the Hilton Hotel fortune.

Now I am not recommending that the working class devour the rich or Paris Hilton, particularly. Publicly endorsing cannibalism seldom wins friends. But McEnroe’s comments and Wells’s novel provide food for thought.

Are sections of the wealthy slowly sinking into Eloi-like uselessness because people are too comfortable? Is the growing wealth gap alienating the needy from the world of cappuccinos and coffee shops, trapping them in a destitute and brutalising world? Will this, in turn, lead to violent revolution? Or is Wells’ two-tier world of haves and have-nots, which ‘functions’ in a perverse cycle of mutual dependence more realistic?

In terms of the latter, I was thinking of writing a science-fiction novel. The story will centre, as unrealistic as it might sound, on a world made up of people who have no choice but to work like slaves for $1 a day. These unnamed individuals work in dark sweatshops to create clothes with fashionable labels on them for others who inhabit air-conditioned shopping malls seldom seen by the sweatshop workers. The people in the malls lust after the clothes with fashionable labels, but only get temporary satisfaction from each purchase so they continually demand more clothes and varied styles. In turn, the sweatshops grind on indefinitely.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 3 August 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Why squirrels are as dangerous as TV

One of my child’s favourite television programmes is Dora the Explorer. It is a fantastical animation about a young girl and her sidekick, Boots the monkey, who live in the rainforest and have adventures helping forest creatures. To up the educational ante, the animals speak Spanish and the adventures require colour, number and shape recognition to be completed.

According to psychologist Dr Aric Sigman, however, I am damaging my two-year-old child by allowing him to watch Dora. Sigman recently told British MPs that the State should offer guidelines on children’s TV consumption. He recommended banning TV for children under three and reducing older children’s watching hours to no more than one-and-a-half hours a day. His guidelines are considerably less than the three hours of viewing a day the average British child imbibes. He backs his recommendations by studies that link watching TV with obesity, as well as sleeping and behavioural problems.

That said, Sigman is accused of trying to create a ‘nanny State’ that regulates everyday life. Organisations such as the Save Kids’ TV Campaign see Sigman’s suggestions as unrealistic and highlight studies that demonstrate the educational benefits of TV. I have some sympathy with this lobby, which is interested in the content of TV rather than simply seeing it as an evil instrument. It feels the intellectual, creative and cultural diet we feed our children is as important as the food we give them. If done correctly, this lobby adds, TV can encourage diversity as well as an interest in sports and the arts.

Sigman is, no doubt, worried about my boy’s mental health, but, to the best of my knowledge, his TV watching, which is done in moderation, has benefits. The joy he gets out of Dora’s adventures is palpable. I could not rob him of that. It adds layers of humour and imagination to his world. In fact, if anything, I think the excessive concern with education is problematic, at times.

As much as my child enjoys Dora’s adventures and can now recognise shapes and colours, and speak a little Spanish (or so I think), as a result, the constant educational emphasis can be absurd. With traditional education, Dora the Explorer also embeds messages such as the importance of wearing seat belts in cars or life jackets at sea. The problem with this is the car Dora drives safely buckled into is chauffeured by a squirrel. She also makes a point of wearing her life jacket when riding on the back of sea creatures such as whales.

I am all for my child getting free public education. But is the seat belt message not overshadowed by the fact she’s getting into a pink convertible driven by a purple bolero-wearing squirrel, and the life jacket safety message somewhat redundant, given the fact that she’s wearing it while bareback whale-riding with a talking monkey for company.

When I think of the children and TV debate, it is the advice a teacher gave me that springs to mind: the problem with common sense is that it is not so common. Science does not need to tell us that excessive television watching could be hazardous, just as too much outdoor activity could result in injuries. Equally, we know we should give children healthy food but the odd sugary snack can be a nice treat, even if it has no intellectual benefit.

Most dangers in this world come from warmongering politicians, corrupt intellectual ideas, reckless drivers, corporations that destroy the environment, media organisations that distort reality, fanatics of all kind, criminals, some schoolteachers and, sadly, even parents.

TV can be educational – and it should be. But why not also allow it to be a medium for escapist entertainment at times? Obviously, all this should be part of a balanced diet of creative activities and exercise. Everything in moderation, I say, even the odd bit of whale riding.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 13 July 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism?

The recent journal of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(1) has just been published. It contains a number of articles on the theme of forgiveness. I wrote a commentary on the various pieces entitled Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism?. Click here to download it.

Making Peace with the Past: Options for truth recovery in and about Northern Ireland

Brandon Hamber & Kieran McEvoy set out the key options

Despite recent developments in the peace process and the restoration of the Assembly there is little doubt that the question of how Northern Ireland will deal with its past will remain a burning issue for some years to come. Core to this debate will be the issue of truth recovery and specifically the controversial question whether past atrocities should be brushed under the carpet of history or tackled head on.

The organisation Healing Through Remembering has attempted to deal with this debate proactively and recently launched a discussion document outlining options for truth recovery. The report was drawn up by the organisation's Truth Recovery and Acknowledgement sub group. This unique and diverse group includes former Loyalist and Republican combatants, a former British Army officer, members of the PSNI, victims of the conflict, people from church and civil society backgrounds and a range of others. 

Although the recovery sub group members have robust and diverse views, all shared a common sense of frustration at the superficiality of much of the debate on dealing with the past over the last few years. The sub group therefore sought to provide sufficient information to offer this debate, and specifically the discussions on the issue of truth recovery, some structure and depth, allowing people to make up their own minds about what the best course of action might be.

The report details five options for truth recovery regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. The options are neither exhaustive nor indeed mutually exclusive. The options are presented with the aim of concretising discussions that have often moved little beyond the abstract. They can be summarised as follows:

Option 1: Drawing a Line Under the Past

The "drawing a line under the past" or the "do nothing else" option would mean the ongoing patchwork of processes would continue with no additional formal steps towards a process of truth recovery. This is an articulation of the position of those who argue either that no further process of truth recovery is necessary, that truth recovery would 'open old wounds' for victims and others, or that truth recovery could destabilise the fragile political process or indeed that it might serve to criminalise those who were involved in acts of political violence.

Drawing a line under the past... would mean the ongoing patchwork of processes would continue with no additional formal steps towards a process of truth recovery

Option 2: Internal Organisational Investigations

In this option, organisations previously involved in acts of violence would take primary responsibility for assisting in providing victims and families with the truth. The organisations would become involved voluntarily, to meet victims' requests for information, and would build on their experience in conducting internal investigations. This option could provide ex-combatants and the security forces with the opportunity to make a commitment to social and individual healing and reconciliation.

Option 3: Community-based "Bottom-up" Truth Recovery

This option would involve local people in collecting and documenting local truth. It would take advantage of this skills base, and would itself be a mechanism for communal healing and reconciliation. This model could consider structural issues, and combine with storytelling and local history as well as "top-down" truth recovery. It could provide an alternative to dominant "macro" narratives by giving voice co victims and marginalised communities, record previously untold stories, and underline the validity of different experiences between and within communities.

Option 4: Truth-recovery Commission

Such a commission would focus on events of the past over a specified period of time. It would explore the causes, context and consequences of violence as well as examine specific events and patterns. Set up by legislation by the Irish and British governments, with independence from both, it would have the power to compel witnesses, grant amnesty, recommend prosecution, order reparations, and present a report with recommendations. It would be a practical and symbolic expression of the willingness of society to deal with its violent past as part of the transition to becoming a more inclusive society.

A truth recovery commission ... would be a practical and symbolic expression of the willingness of society to deal with its violent past as part of the transition to becoming a more inclusive society.

Option 5: A Commission of Historical Clarification

The primary focus of this option is historical (that is upon the causes and consequences of conflict) with less emphasis on either victims or those involved in past acts of violence. The emphasis would be on devising an independent, authoritative, historical narrative about what occurred during the conflict and why, and to encourage a broader sense of collective (rather than individual) responsibility for what happened. An agreed narrative would limit misperceptions and disagreements about what actually happened, and thus help to prevent future cycles of violence based on grudges and manipulation.

Conclusion

The Making Peace with the Past report document from Healing Through Remembering is not designed to offer a definitive view on how or whether Northern Ireland should have some form of a truth-recovery process. Rather, this report is intended  to provide sufficient detail and context to help focus the debate concerning truth recovery in and about Northern Ireland on realistic options for the future.

Reference

Hamber, B. and McEvoy, K. (2007). Making Peace with the Past: Options for Truth Recovery in and about Northern Ireland. Fortnight , Jun- Jul, 453, pp. 9-10

Brandon Hamber is a consultant to Healing Through Remembering. 

Kieran McEvoy is author of the report and a member of the Healing Through Remembering sub group on Truth Recovery and Acknowledgement.

The authors would like to thank Martin Beddeleem for his editorial suggestions.

Views expressed are personal to the authors. Copies are at the HTR Office 028 9023 8844, or download at www.healingthroughremembering.org

Time flies in a coma

Nineteen years ago, a Polish railway worker, Jan Grzewski, was hit by a train and fell into a coma. Recently, he woke from what doctors cruelly call a “permanent vegetative state”. It is remarkable to think that someone could have been asleep for nearly 20 years. Before his coma, in 1988, Poland was still communist and the Berlin Wall was its imposing iron curtain self. When Grzewski woke, he found the changes astonishing. He is quoted as saying that shops filled with food compared to communist rationing, and the excessive number of people speaking on cellphones in the street made his head spin. But he also observed that, although life seemed better, people complained just as much as before. Clearly, singer Bobby McFerrin’s Don’t Worry, Be Happy, Song of the Year when Grzewski passed into his coma, had little lasting impact. In Northern Ireland and South Africa, I am constantly struck by persistent complaining.

In South Africa, I often hear people, from all different race groups, say that things were better in the past. Do people remember the past? Do you remember 1988? Let me refresh your memory – there were at least 25 major bombs that went off in 1988 in South Africa, most notably at Wits Command, killing 12 people. It was also the year the Hyde Park shopping centre, and several Wimpy bars and police stations went up in smoke. The South African Defence Force continually crossed borders that year, killing African National Congress activists in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. One such attack severely injured anti-apartheid lawyer and now Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs. The police detained, tortured and killed a plethora of people, too, including children. The so-called ‘Wit Wolf’, Barend Strydom, killed eight black passers-by in Strijdom Square, in Pretoria. So, 1988 was not exactly stress free.

Put in context, it is hard to argue that South Africa is now a worse place than before. South Africa, obviously, still has its problems, including ongoing violent crime and poverty. Equally, for many Poles and people in Northern Ireland, life can be harsh. But Grzewski’s observation that people complain despite positive changes is more profound than it first appears. The key to successful complaining, according to the website, howtocomplain.com (no seriously), is to be clear as to why you are dissatisfied. Grzewski is observing a general trend towards complaining for the sake of complaining, when it is unjustified and seldom specific.

So why do people complain? The answer may well depend on your socioeconomic standing and where you live, and your complaints may well be warranted if you are living on skidrow and in constant fear. Some complaining, as is often the case in South Africa, can also be politically motivated. But incessant complaining can also be the product of the forgetfulness brought on by the relentless drive towards the future, more money and being better off than the person next door. This makes us neglect the past. Most of us complain because, unlike Grzewski, who only has memories of the distant past, our most recent memories are of the present. We forget the bad old days and hone in on the problems of today. But we should spend more time remembering how appalling things were and how far we have come. In South Africa and Northern Ireland, this would make us more grateful and a lot more positive.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 15 June 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Masculinity and Transitional Justice

Hamber, B. (2007). Masculinity and Transitional Justice: An Exploratory Essay. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 1(3), 375-390 [Access in the Journal]

The war and peace legacy

Being a columnist can be taxing. The relentless search for interesting topics to waffle on about is never ending. However, now and then, a week comes along where so much happens that it is difficult to decide where to start. The week starting May 7 was one such week.

Ian Paisley, George W. Bush and Martin McGuinness
Credit Chris Greenberg / Public domain

In that week, the Northern Ireland peace process reached a decisive climax. Ian Paisley, of the DUP, and Martin McGuinness, of Sinn Fein, were sworn in as First and Deputy First Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The DUP, which had said that it would never sit down with Sinn Fein because it considers Sinn Fein a terrorist organisation because of its links with the Irish Republican Army, agreed to share power. In turn, Sinn Fein set aside the likelihood of a united Ireland, at least in the foreseeable future, and agreed to participate in a devolved administration within the UK.

If that was not enough, in the same week, Tony Blair took the plunge, which had been pending for months, and announced his resignation date – June 27. Of course, the two events are related. Blair chose the date for announcing his departure because it was close to the Northern Ireland deal. With his legacy literally bombed to pieces in Iraq, Blair was desperate to link his exit with something positive.

This is not to say he simply jumped on the Northern Ireland peace train at the last minute. He had played a significant role in it. He kept the peace process high on his agenda, more so than any other British Prime Minister. Shortly after coming to office, he agreed to face-to-face talks with Republicans in 1997. The last British Prime Minister to do that was Lloyd George, some time after World War I.

While Blair was waging war in the rest of the world, he visited Northern Ireland a remarkable 37 times to help ensure the peace. McGuinness, who, no doubt, still feels the British have a lot to answer for in Northern Ireland, was quoted in the Guardian earlier this year, saying: “Tony Blair and Iraq is almost like a total contradiction of Tony Blair and Ireland.”

So why the split personality? And why did he become Bush’s lackey over Iraq?

My theory is that, after nearly a decade in power, he became more concerned with his global legacy than bottom-up change. I am not sure if he even saw the full significance of Northern Ireland in his own backyard until it was all he had left.

The destruction of the Twin Towers gave him an opportunity to cement his place in history. He felt this was his Churchillian moment to be heralded a saviour of the so-called free world. He misguidedly backed the wrong horse.

In Africa, his record is mixed. He showed concern, calling the continent a “scar on the conscience of the world”. He set up the African Commission and pushed debt relief. This has had an impact; for example, debt relief in Mozambique meant half a million children were immunised.

Yet, as much as things moved under his premiership, they have also fallen short and poverty certainly ain’t history. The G8 committed itself under his leadership to a $5,4-billion increase in support to sub-Saharan Africa; since 2004, it has increased by $2,3-billion.

This is no small contribution, but it typifies his leadership style – a style emblematic of many politicians. He came to power with a populist mandate, but, over time, he lost the common touch. Blair is about vision over capability and rhetoric over delivery, and his biggest weakness is that he believes his own hype. Sometimes this pays off, as it did in Northern Ireland but, mostly, over time, it belly-flops. If you don’t believe me, just ask the average Iraqi, or next time you are in the Middle East, try to find your way with the so-called road map he helped broker.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 1 June 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Will more billionaires help the poor

Every year, in the UK, a ‘rich list’ is published that outlines the names and fortunes of the richest people in the country. Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate, who is also the richest company director listed on the JSE, tops the UK list with a personal fortune of £19,25-billion. The top 1 000 rich people have a combined wealth of nearly £360-billion.

The UK Sunday Times also publishes a rich list of those under 30. Those involved in sport, film, fashion and pop dominate the list, with 65 of the 100 occupying these worlds.

The 2007 list also confirms that the superrich are getting richer. The number of billionaires in the UK rose from 54 to 68 between last year and this year, with the top 1 000 richest people’s wealth increasing by 20%. Over the last decade, there was a 260% rise in the wealth of the richest, compared with the 120% average wealth increase for the population as a whole.

So what does all this tell us?

Firstly, it proves the adage that the rich do indeed get richer. Secondly, fame, sporting prowess and celebrity are now surprisingly seen by most young people as a stepping stone to wealth, hence the obsession with TV talent shows. This feeds the obsession with celebrity status both on and off the sports field. Celebrity is seen as a quick financial fix.

Interestingly, however, 75% of those on the UK rich list have a university or college education. When the list was first launched in 1989, 75% of those on it were wealthy because of inheritance. Today, 78% of those on the list have made their money through business. This suggests that hard work does pay. But this does not mean that everyone has an equal chance of doing well. Those with access to education will do better. Not to mention that 90% of those on the UK rich list are men. Although there is a growing number of Asians on the British rich list, black faces are few. Clearly, the glass ceiling for women and for most ethnic minorities is alive and well in the UK.

South Africa has an even bigger problem owing to a massively distorted past in terms of access to wealth for blacks and whites, and men and women.

Transformation in the boardroom is, however, under way. Currently, 405 black South Africans hold 558 of the 3 125 director positions on South African listed companies. Black company ownership has moved from 0% to 10% in ten years, and the incomes of the richest black people have risen by 30%.

This suggests that wealth is slowly being shared, to a degree. Broadly, this is a step in the right direction, even though there is a long way to go. With time, South Africa will, no doubt, have its own, hopefully representative and rainbow coloured, rich list. But, if South Africa follows the UK, perhaps the real question is whether a growing number of billionaires, black or white, will really make a difference to the lives of the less fortunate?

In the UK, the wealthy are quick to point out that £1,2-billion was given to benevolent causes by the top 30 philanthropists alone in the past year. But about 25% of South Africans, almost exclusively black, have little chance of getting a job, let alone making it into the so-called middle class, or becoming superrich. Will charity, which domestically in South Africa is appallingly low, anyway, be enough to change this situation? I doubt it.

To be honest, studying the rich list over the last few days has left me a bit queasy. I strongly agree with the need for the economic pie in South Africa to be deracialised and for the economy to keep growing. However, I am left wondering, especially when growth largely benefits those at the top of the pile, exactly how this will make a difference to the poorest of the poor.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 May 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Reconciliation: Time to Grasp the Nettle

In 2003-4, Brandon Hamber and Gráinne Kelly carried out research motivated by the observation that reconciliation was ill-defined in Northern Ireland to the detriment of reconciliation practice. They revisited the issue for a recent report.

A NEW SET of challenges is now evident in 2007, and particularly whether the definition of reconciliation we posed in the earlier research is impacting on reconciliation practice.

Our research showed that while all respondents were open to having a frank discussion about reconciliation, most were vague on what the process entailed. This lack of clarity was interesting given that many of the interviewees worked in projects funded by the Peace and Reconciliation Programme or were involved with Intermediary Funding Bodies.

Reconciliation was perceived by many as an ‘imported’ term, viewed through the prism of the EU Peace Programme. Many struggled to relate the concept of reconciliation to their own practice and felt uncomfortable using the term to describe what they did or wanted to achieve. Although some viewed it as a ‘soft’ concept originating from a religious perspective, we were surprised to find that others were reluctant to use the term because they felt it had a ‘hard’ edge. Reconciliation implied a deep and challenging process that required a level of community integration which some felt the communities with which they worked were not prepared or willing to grasp.

One of the outputs of the research was a working definition of reconciliation. This was devised as a tool which would provide a focus for discussion, and to help identify the elements of reconciliation and frame the concept in a practically accessible way. The definition assumes that building peace requires attention to relationships. Reconciliation is thus understood as the process of addressing conflictual and fractured relationships. This means not only reconciling broken down relationship as the term confusingly implies, but building new relationships in some cases. It is a voluntary act that cannot be imposed, and it involves five interwoven strands:

• developing a shared vision of an interdependent and fair society;
• acknowledging and dealing with the past;
• building positive relationships;
• significant cultural and attitudinal change;
• substantial social, economic and political change (or equity).

Many in the community and voluntary sector will recognise this definition as an addition to the funding criteria for the PEACE II+ extension. We obviously welcome the more concrete definition being taken on board, but it also poses new challenges.

Firstly, the SEUPB adopted a simplified version of our working definition. Under the current arrangements, applicants have to argue how their project furthers reconciliation in relation to at least three of the strands which are scored. The risk of this approach is that a dynamic conceptualisation of reconciliation could become mechanised and compartmentalised, and another ‘tick-box exercise’. We envisaged the five strands of reconciliation as being deeply interdependent and any reconciliation process should consider how it furthers reconciliation holistically and not based on a selection of the strands.

Secondly, core to the definition is that the process of reconciliation, as John-Paul Lederach notes in his work, is deeply paradoxical. The strands of our working definition can themselves create tensions. For example, reconciliation requires dealing with the past but at the same time participation in developing a shared vision for the future. The process of reconciliation is concerned with not only how each individual strand is operationalised, but how they relate to one other.

Reconciliation is the process of addressing the five strands in a dynamic and interconnected way rather than simply defining the outcome of each. For instance, for communities at loggerheads, it may be difficult to share a common view of the future or past, or to reconcile all attitudes, causing continual ruptures and contradictions in the process of rebuilding or building relationships. The process of reconciliation is thus by its nature conflictual and always changing. It is measured not by a simple outcome such as communities meeting in the same room, but by the ability to deal with and manage the complex tensions of relationship building over time.

The question therefore is how the voluntary and community sector can find ways to embrace the paradoxical nature of reconciliation. Can models of reconciliation and community practice be operationalised in a way that recognised the complex nature of the reconciliation process, and accommodate this?

But does a society moving out of conflict and wanting to shape a shared future have a choice? In our view, relationships matter, whether between large groups (societies and countries), small groups (communities) or individuals. There continues to be an onus on both the voluntary and community sector and the influential funding bodies, such as the PEACE Programme, to clarify their understandings of what they wish to achieve and the process by which they aim to achieve it. This needs to move beyond a didactic cross-community model, to something infinitely more complex and substantially more challenging.

For a full explanation of the research see Hamber B and Kelly G (2005), A Place for Reconciliation? Conflict and Locality in Northern Ireland, Democratic Dialogue. 

Published by Brandon Hamber and Gráinne Kelly in Scope - Social Affairs Magazine, February. NICVA: Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Reference

Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2007). Reconciliation: Time to graps the nettle. Scope - Social Affairs Magazine, February. NICVA: Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Is there a point to the web?

Every time I make my way into cyberspace to trawl for interesting news, the words of recently deceased Kurt Vonnegut, American novelist and social critic, come to mind. Vonnegut nobly stated: "We are here on earth to fart around." His words ring true when it comes to the Internet. The Internet is, of course, a source of vast information, but it is also a time waster and source of junk par excellence. Needless to say, I find it irresistible.

The most recent Internet toy I came across is Google Zeitgeist. This tool highlights the so-called "the spirit of time" by retrieving information about what people are searching for on the Internet. It is meant to provide a snapshot of a past week, month, or year. Google Zeitgeist excludes generic searches such as 'ebay', 'dictionary', 'yellow pages', 'games', 'maps' and X-rated keywords, drawing out trends and topics that are obsessing net users.

Credit Michael Mandiberg / CC BY-SA

In 2006, for example, it noted that Bebo, My Space, and World Cup were the top three Zeitgeist movers. This highlights how, particularly among the young and restless largely in the Western world, social networking on sites, such as Bebo and My Space, made a major impact on the Internet that year. The soccer World Cup also sucked up hours of Internet (not to mention TV) time.

More recently, Google Zeitgeist introduced a facility to track trends in different countries. A quick review of top queries for March 2007 is revealing.

The five top queries gaining the most growth in South Africa were medicine, a porn site that slipped through the Net that I won't mention, Martin Luther King, Christianity and Starbucks. In the UK, they were PSP games, Johnny Depp, PC World, Audi A3 and British Telecom. In Ireland, the top four searches were tourism and health service-related. Number five was slownik angielsko polski, which I think is an online Polish-English dictionary or, alternatively, I just inadvertently advertised a Polish porn site.

Does this tell us anything? To some degree it highlights where different societies are at. The Internet in the UK is largely a tool for shopping, gaming and celebrity gossip, and is clearly used a lot by young people. This is made possible because over 60% of people have access to the Internet at home, and broadband speeds are high. In Ireland, Google Zeitgeist provides evidence of a growing Polish population.

In South Africa, the picture is less clear. Seemingly, the Internet, which is only used by 10% of South Africans regularly, is a growing source of medical advice, but also a place of contradiction. It currently appears to be oscillating between porn seekers, Christians, or those in search of non-violent political action or a cup of coffee.

Worse still, South Africans could be searching for the five categories simultaneously. Could this mean the average Internet user in South Africa, at least in March 2007, is an ailing perverted activist Christian who needs coffee to keep himself or herself awake to engage in wicked habits?

But before you write to complain about my provocative analysis, the South African trends could also suggest that South African activists, inspired by Martin Luther King, are considering a mass protest against Starbucks. Or Christians are trying to head pornographers off at the proverbial moral pass. Conversely, coffee is the source of all evil.

Then again, in Vonnegut's words, it could just be evidence that indeed we are here to fart around and cumulatively it all means squat. So what does that tell us?

Well, if you have read this far, it is yet more evidence that baiting a reader with useless information is easy, no matter how inane. It is no wonder the Internet is filled with garbage. We love it. So why did the chicken cross the information superhighway? Sadly, the evidence suggests it was simply to get to the other site.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 4 May 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Day of Reflection

Healing Through Remembering is calling for a Private Day of Reflection on 21 June 2007 focused on the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. The Day of Reflection website - www.dayofreflection.com - is now live. The website contains all the latest information regarding the forthcoming initial Day of Private Reflection on Thursday, 21 June 2007.

Apology over the slave trade two centuries overdue

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain, in 1807. As a result, debates are raging about what should be done and, specifically, whether the government should offer an apology.

Tony Blair has expressed "deep sorrow" for Britain's role in the slave trade and called it "profoundly shameful", but has stopped short of an official apology. Campaigners demand he goes further and that reparations are paid. But, needless to say, debates about what is to be done about slavery, especially two centuries afterwards, are complicated and emotive.

No one knows the exact number of Africans who were shipped overseas as part of the slave trade. Research puts the figures somewhere between 10-million and 28-million.

The system too was linked with wars which served as a recruiting ground for slaves, and it included deadly cross-country marches, as those captured were corralled towards harbours for export. Some estimate that a minimum of four-million people died in this way.

About 12-million slaves crossed the Atlantic or Middle Passage from Europe in slave ships alone, with a high percentage dying in dreadful conditions on the way. About 17-million slaves were exported to the Indian Ocean coast, the Middle East, and North Africa by Muslim traders too. There were also African middlemen who served as capturers and initial salespersons of slaves. This highlights the global and complex nature of the phenomena that lasted from the 1500s to the early 1900s in some countries.

That said, there is little doubt who got rich from the system, namely the Europeans. The slave trade allowed new markets to be developed, and slaves were integral to processing raw materials abroad and sparked the industrial revolution.

Cities such as London and Amsterdam were substantially built on wealth generated through trading human beings. This cumulatively created a wealth gap that persists to this day, and some argue a snowballing skills gap caused by the systematic removal of generations of the strongest and healthiest citizens from certain African countries.

But does this justify present day reparations and an apology? The main problem with reparations is the question of who should be making reparations to whom, considering all those linked directly with the system are long buried. Should the present generation of Europeans pay for the sins of their fathers' fathers' fathers? Also, not all European families were implicated in the system.

Irrespective of the slave trade, what is obvious is that structural injustice exists in the world, and this remains racialised. The enormous gap between rich and poor needs attention through debt relief and allowing better market access to developing countries, no matter how the situation came about. Where reparations and apologies are important in that they can force those who like to pretend history never happened to acknowledge it, and be a rallying point to address current social injustice.

More importantly, it is a truism that fundamental distrust exists between the haves and have-nots. This has a racial dimension too that is evident in how quickly Africans turn to issues such as slavery and colonialism to explain their current problems, and how swiftly many Europeans blame Africa’s problems on present inadequacies, such as leadership, rather than looking at historical legacies.

Apologies can be a way of building trust, a way of creating reconnection and, thus, can be instrumental in generating cooperation to overcome present inequalities.

So, as a first step, an apology is necessary because the impact of slavery remains, at the very least, in the mindsets of Africans and Europeans. The fact a debate is happening about slavery two centuries later is proof in itself of this. All means necessary are needed to shift these mindsets. So it is time those with the most power in the relationship, such as the British State and the monarchy, bite the bullet and, at a bare minimum, make an official statement.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 13 April 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Don't worry, Zimbabwe is just a hiccup

A 15-year old girl in Florida in the US, recently hiccupped nonstop for five weeks. Before her hiccups stopped, she was hiccupping 50 times a minute. All manner of remedies, including various juices, breathing into a bag and consulting neurologists, were tried but nothing helped. Remarkably, the hiccups stopped on their own. The moral of this tale seems simple: sometimes, despite our best efforts, certain things just go away when they are ready to. There are no logical reasons why this happens – they just do.

It appears that world politics operates largely on this hiccup principle. Seemingly, international relations are governed by the belief that most of the time things tick over smoothly like a healthy functioning human diaphragm. Occasionally, when the hiccups start, like they have for the last number of years in Zimbabwe, the diplomatic response is to sit quietly by, waiting for them to come to a natural end. Some paltry gestures like consulting experts or knocking back the odd glass of beetroot juice can be attempted, but, in the end, the hiccups will end when they are good and ready.

The hiccup principle of international relations is, however, risky. This was evident in the bruised face of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe, after being severely assaulted by Zimbabwean State forces. It was remarkable to watch him give an interview, relating his ordeal calmly and calling for international action, given what had happened. A few statements of condemnation followed, then interest waned and the world retreated into waiting for Robert Mugabe’s tyranny to go into spontaneous remission.

In seems that in Africa a little hiccupping of the Mugabe kind is generally accepted. Imagine if Tony Blair’s police assaulted David Cameron, or George Bush decided to beat the hell out of Hilary Clinton for good measure. What would the world say then? Although the latter might sometimes seem feasible in the US these days, the outrage would be immeasurable. In Zimbabwe, it is treated as a minor malfunction and par for the course.

Well, frankly, I am tired of it. I know all the arguments for and against speaking out about Zimbabwe. I know complaining about Mugabe is some white people’s way, especially in South Africa, of publicly airing racist views without as much as saying it. I know for some trashing Mugabe in this context, and a global environment that loves to portray African leaders as despots and Western leaders as angels, feels like the betrayal of the often unfairly hounded Africa continent. But I also know when enough is enough, and when excuses for silence are no longer acceptable. Should the international community have stayed quiet about apartheid?

Did you know the life expectancy in Zimbabwe is now 37 years old? It was 60 in 1990. The infant mortality was 53 deaths for every 1000 live births in 1990, and it is now 81. The national income per head is $340. In South Africa, a country renowned for excessive poverty, it is $4 960. This means 56% of people in Zimbabwe earn less than $1 a day, compared with 11% in South Africa.

The situation is desperate. The decision to speak out is not a political one; it is a humanitarian one.

According to the Guinness Book of Records, some poor fellow once had the hiccups for 69 straight years. In retrospect, this makes interesting and almost amusing reading. Is that how we are going to look back on the situation in Zimbabwe in years to come? Zimbabwe, the curious little hiccup in history that lasted a mere 30 or so years, forgetting what this meant to the lives of human beings like the unemployed, the tortured, the starving and the mother who just lost her child. Waiting for Zimbabwe’s hiccups to subside is no longer an option – sustained international action led by South Africa is what is needed.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 30 March 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Bigots, building bridges and multiculturalism

According to the recently published ‘Human Beliefs and Values Survey’, Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of bigoted people in the Western world. The study of nearly 32 000 people across 19 European countries, as well as Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand, asked if people would like to have persons from different groups as neighbours. These groups included those of a different race, immigrants or foreign workers, Muslims, Jews and homosexuals. In Northern Ireland, 44% of the 1 000 respondents did not want at least one of the five groups as neighbour. Specifically, 35,9% of people would not like a homosexual living next door, 18,9% immigrants or foreign workers, 16% Muslims, 11,6% Jews, and people of a different race 11,1%. This was significantly higher than the average percentage across the countries surveyed, that were 19,6%, 10,1%, 14,5%, 9,5% and 8,5% for the same groups respectively.

The findings are startling. It is hard to imagine that nearly 20% of people across the Western world would be unhappy about a homosexual living next door, or, given Europe’s history, that nearly 10% would still be unhappy with a Jew living in their neighbourhood. Of course, one could see the glass half-full. After all, 90% of people have no problems with someone of a different race living next door. Arguably, holding a prejudiced view may also not be a problem, if you keep it to yourself and do not harm others. But, sadly, hate crimes have been increasing in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as the number of immigrants has grown. Racist attacks in Northern Ireland have a surged by 60% in the last year, while assaults on gays and lesbians have doubled.

One answer given to these problems is that we need to move towards multiculturalism. Multiculturalism implies a world where we respect differences, tolerate one another and allow different cultures to flourish on their own terms. Proponents of multiculturalism argue that this is the best option in a world where it is difficult to reconcile different values and beliefs. But is multiculturalism enough, given the astonishing statistics quoted above? And why is the term barely used in South Africa? Given South Africa’s history of segregation and ongoing problems with racism, it seems one knows intuitively that more needs to be done. If one wanted to be crude, multiculturalism that does not seek to bring people together in some way, or socioeconomic inequality that exists between groups, could end up akin to the perverse apartheid delusion of separate development. Some proponents of multiculturalism argue that groups will learn to coexist over time, if they have equal power and status. But this seldom happens.

Zygmunt Bauman lecturing 2006
Credit Jerzy Kociatkiewicz from Sheffield / CC BY-SA

Immigrant communities generally remain socially excluded and the result is, in the words of sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, ghetto communities. Perhaps what is needed is interculturalism, where we move towards learning about different cultures and views, and engage with these in robust dialogue. This requires a recognition of interdependence that is neither assimilation nor simply coexistence. Granted coexistence might be a step along the way to interculturalism, but to seek a society that is multicultural, rather than intercultural, seems limiting.

That said, an intercultural approach can be threatening to those who see themselves as belonging to a specific community or ethnic group. But, as Bauman points out, the need for community, no matter how understandable in a world where society is so fractured, creates a double bind. As much as it provides the security of being with your own kind, the more you immerse yourself in your so-called community, the more you feel threatened by the other. Security and insecurity become intertwined, feeding “mutual derision, contempt and hatred” and making multiculturalism impossible. In short, we need to shatter the myth of the community, and, although it sounds rather schmaltzy, searching for our common humanity and celebrating interdependence while vigorously ‘dialoguing’ about our differences, seem a much better option.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 23 February 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.