Mandela legacy for Northern Ireland

Days after Nelson Mandela’s release in 1990 I went to a massive welcome home rally at Soccer City – the stadium on the outskirts of Soweto that would host the World Cup final two decades later.

The day was one of unparalleled elation. I remember people walking for miles to see Mandela. As I neared the stadium in my old Toyota, people started to jump on the car exhausted from walking. I arrived at the stadium with 6 people in the car, and 10 people on it and with a dented roof. But I didn’t care. It felt as if the world had shifted on its axis that day.

In many ways, everything has changed in South Africa. Racial legal apartheid is a historic relic. South Africa now has one of the most progressive constitutions and human rights frameworks in the world. Political power has changed irreversibly.

Since the end of apartheid the ANC government has built over 2 million houses, over 90% of people now have running water and 85% an electricity connection. This is remarkable given the low base the apartheid government left behind. Income in black households increased an average 169 percent over 10 years and over 35% of the middle class is now black.

But despite this progress, economically South Africa remains one of the most unequal places on earth. Unemployment is as high as 40%, and millions of black South Africans continue to live in poverty.

With these challenges, it is easy to say Nelson Mandela’s dream of a rainbow nation of equals has failed. But the challenges facing Mandela in 1994 should not be under-estimated. His government was confronted with the legacy of centuries of racism. Communities were tearing themselves apart because of historic mistrust and state sanctioned violence. During the negotiations of 1990 to 1994, 15,000 people lost their lives in political violence.

In this context, reconciliation in Mandela’s terms was the difficult path to take. It meant quelling angry and fearful groups on all sides. Reconciliation was hardly an easy alternative to war – it was a strategy to change the course of history.

Photograph: Philip Littleton/AFP/Getty Images

Many people will remember when Mandela donned the Springbok Rugby jersey. Often painted as a simple gesture to white South Africa about their inclusion in the new South Africa, it was in reality Mandela recasting a symbol long associated with Afrikaner nationalism. Yes, he welcomed whites into the new nation but it resulted in the end of the old South Africa flag, the demise of white political power and the creation of a common flag for all. The new South Africa was clearly about give and take.

Mandela’s approach was to adopt peacemaking and reconciliation as ends in themselves, rather than tools to be used to further one’s political aims. Through this, Mandela created a vision to aspire to: that all South Africans must work towards this dream no matter the odds – a sentiment now deeply entrenched.

In this sense, Mandela’s legacy is of great relevance to Northern Ireland. He has taught us that reconciliation is not a tolerance or basic acceptance of each other.Rather, it is a real, hard fought and never-ending quest to improve society for all. It is a call to action, a quest to continually challenge ourselves to change our beliefs and practices.

As Mandela himself said: “You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself. Great peacemakers are all people of integrity, of honesty, but humility”.

Mandela’s vision invites us all to rise above the histories that shape us so we can transform the future.

This article was published on Slugger O'Toole on 6 December 2013. Copyright Brandon Hamber. 

Also available on Medium.com.

Belfast and Johannesburg: peas in a racist pod?

I long to live in a society where there is no racism but, living between Belfast and Johannesburg, this is impossible.

About a year ago, xenophobia in South Africa hit the international newspapers. Foreigners, mainly from Africa, were driven from their homes, with over 50 people being killed. Over 100 people have been prosecuted for the attacks. But recently information surfaced that local businesspeople in some townships have been meeting secretly to ‘look at’ how to rid the community of businesses owned by immigrants. Sporadic attacks continue.

Belfast recently featured in international papers with a similar storyline. Some 100 Romanians were forced from their homes by mobs of young people claiming the immigrants were taking their jobs and houses and stealing from the local community. The attacks seemed to take on a neo-Nazi feel, with swastikas and Nazi salutes being prominent. Most of the Romanians have now left Northern Ireland.

However, attacks against foreigners in Northern Ireland are not new. They have been a consistent feature of the society over the last decade.

In 2004, for example, Bill Rolston, at the University of Ulster, highlighted attacks against Pakistanis, Chinese and Zimbabwean immigrants, besides others. He also reported on incidents where local minorities were greeted at night by masked men robbing their houses and telling them: “You won’t be needing these; you’ll be leaving soon.”

Police statistics show that, in 1996, there were 41 racist incidents recorded; in 2006 and 2007, there were 1 047. Research by Neil Jarman, of the Institute of Conflict Research, has found that such incidents, although perceived as taking place largely in working-class Protestant areas in Belfast and linked to far right groups, have been documented in Catholic areas and recorded in all major cities, towns and villages in Northern Ireland. Perpetrators of such incidents also vary and are not restricted to rightwingers and paramilitary groups, as some believe.

Of course, the increase in incidents of racism can reflect the growing number of immigrants, improved reporting rates and the increased visibility of the issue. But the numeric increase is undeniable and the figures are also under-representative because many incidents go unreported. Weighing up the research on the issue, the conclusion is clear: racism is a serious problem in Northern Ireland.

The public response has been interesting. As in South Africa, the majority have condemned the xenophobic violence, and a range of antiracism protests have been organised. These actions are commendable. However, there also seems to be social distancing from the problem. Routinely, commentators and the public make reference to “groups of thugs” being responsible and are at pains to point out that the majority are welcoming and want foreigners in the cities.

I agree that the incidents are the work of relatively small groups, but there also seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that prejudice is deeply ingrained across the society, as it is in South Africa. People in Northern Ireland, like those in South Africa, tend to take notice only when problems explode. In the times in between, most of us, including politicians, ignore low-level violence and racism. This reinforces the idea that there is an ‘acceptable’ level of violence and that some racism is tolerable. This creates the foundation for extremism.

I am yet to meet an African living in Belfast, myself included, who has not, at some point, been abused for not being from the society. Such incidents are generally not life threatening and most people are indeed friendly, but the hatred must be coming from somewhere and cannot be overlooked or seen as concerning specific individuals only.

In this context, surely, the majority of the population’s general avoidance of issues until they reach mammoth proportions, the ongoing use of segregated schools and housing, which inculcates a propensity for division, and the fact that most political parties continue to appeal to voters using narrow, single-identity politics and, in some cases, anti-immigration rhetoric, cannot be helping the situation.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 10 July 2009 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Does it matter that Obama is black

The election of Barack Obama as President of the US was momentous and filled with historic firsts. The first black President of the US, the first woman moose-killing candidate running for Vice-President, and a record turnout of voters eager to make their mark on history. Importantly, and probably the first time in the Western world, the issue of race was also central to the election campaign.

Throughout the election, there was much talk of the Bradley effect. This is the tendency of white voters when choosing between a white or black candidate to tell pollsters that they will vote for the black candidate; however, when they enter the voting booth, they vote for the white nominee. In other words, when polled many white voters do not want to appear racist and, therefore, claim their preference is for the black candidate even if this is not the case.

What was interesting, however, was that there was little evidence of the Bradley effect in the election. In fact, the opposite might have happened. Some Republicans who said they would vote for McCain might well have decided at the last minute to vote for Obama. Obama got more white votes than most of the previous Democratic nominees. So does this mean race no longer matters in US politics?

I heard one commentator talk about a new “post racial” period in the US. What he meant by this was that race was no longer the electorate’s first point of reference. Rather it was competence and policies that drew people to politicians, not to mention the failures of previous governments.

This should be what we strive for the world over, but race, unfortunately, is still an issue. The fact that thousands of African-Americans turned out to vote, many because there was an African-American candidate, and the unambiguous elation many felt at electing a black man specifically suggest that race is still extremely important to many Americans.

The election of Obama shatters the myth that there is a racial ceiling in American politics. But Obama’s story is the exception rather than the norm. A 2008 United Nations Habitat report that focused on the state of the world’s cities found that race was still one of the most important factors determining levels of inequality in the US, as it is in many other societies. Electing a black President does not eradicate the legacy of inequality and discrimination that still affects contemporary life.

The ideal situation would be that Obama’s race, or anyone’s for that matter, is of no significance in politics. The fact that the Bradley effect did not come into play suggests that race is not as big an issue as before. However, at the same time, pretending that Obama’s Presidency has now moved the US into a “post racial” period is somewhat premature. Some real work remains to be done.

That said, I do not think we should undermine the importance of what has happened. Hope needs room to breathe and should not be crushed with cynicism at this early stage. If nothing else, it is of massive symbolic importance in the US and globally that the most powerful man on earth is black.

Of course, race needs to remain on the table and will need to be continually addressed in the US and elsewhere. I hope Obama uses his position to raise the issues of racial inequality and racism in the US and elsewhere, especially in relation to Africa.

But before raising even higher expectations of what Obama can achieve, I want to take pleasure in the wave of optimism that has swept the world through his rise to power. Whatever happens next, Obama’s story is inspirational and demonstrates, despite all the structural impediments in society, that sometimes individuals can change the world, and affect their and other people’s destiny in the process.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on  14 November 2008 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.

Australia, cricket and racism

It would appear given the riots last year and some recent incidence reported below that Australia is a country suffering from a growing problem with racism. I saw this reported by SAPA concerning the recent South African cricket tour and thought it worth posting: "Gerald Majola, the South African cricket boss, has threatened to boycott future tours of Australia if the racial abuse towards the Proteas continues, the Mercury reported today. Its website quoted Majola as saying: "It is very serious and if it continues, yes, we would look very seriously about whether we return here for another series." Majola is on a visit to Perth to support the national team against Sri Lanka in the VB Series tomorrow. He bemoaned incidents where members of the South African cricket team have been the target of racist remarks from spectators. "It is not right when a country has a history like ours. It is something that we never thought we would hear about," Majola said. "The sad thing is, it has continued around Australia. It hasn't just been limited to one state or one city." The first incident was in Perth in December. Makhaya Ntini, Garnett Kruger, Herschelle Gibbs and Ashwell Prince were abused by sections of the crowd. Some white players like Shaun Pollock and Andre Nel were also called names. Security had been beefed up for Tuesday's match in Perth as Australian officials are desperate to avoid a repeat of last month's taunting, said the Mercury. Tony Dodemaide, the Western Australia Cricket Association chief executive, said any spectator found to be racially abusing a player would be ejected. - Sapa"

Snapshot of South African Attitudes

The Washington Post with the Kaiser Foundation undertook a survey on South African attitudes recently. There is a short video on the web with some results, but also a link on that page to the summary document. Very interesting, and it is hopeful to note that most feel positive about the future...

'Ethnic cleansing' in Belfast

Reported at News24: "Racist thugs" have been trying to drive blacks and Asians out of Belfast, and they have frightened at least one South African family away. London - Thandi, a black South African woman who lived in Soweto through the apartheid years, thought life would be different in Northern Ireland. But one day, she told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper, she opened her door to a group of men who swore at her, telling her to leave. The woman, who asked for her surname not to be published, ran out of the back door leaving behind her children, aged 13 and two, who remained silent upstairs as the family's television, kitchen, fireplace and new electronic games console were smashed.

Racism and health

In a recent article in the BMJ, Kwame McKenzie says there is a growing literature showing an association between racism, morbidity and mortality. McKenzie argues that racism may be aetiologically important in the development of illness. See this interesting article at: Address: http://bmj.com:80/cgi/content/full/326/7380/65?maxtoshow=?eaf